natural disasters: an assessment of family resiliency following hurricane katrina

NATURAL DISASTERS: AN ASSESSMENT OF FAMILYRESILIENCY FOLLOWING HURRICANE KATRINA

Maria HackbarthARC Community Services, Inc.

Thomas Pavkov, Joseph Wetchler, and Michael FlanneryPurdue University Calumet

This study explored the role of family characteristics in the coping process of a familyafter having experienced Hurricane Katrina to gain an understanding of the relationshipbetween family resiliency, hope, family hardiness, and spirituality for survivors of this nat-ural disaster. It was hypothesized that families who demonstrate higher levels of hope,family hardiness, and spirituality would be more likely to effectively cope after the storm.Further, great resource loss was hypothesized to diminish a family’s ability to cope. Fourhundred fifty-two participants completed the survey. Results indicate a relationshipbetween hope, family hardiness and spirituality, and the criterion variable, family coping.The importance of these findings in terms of exploring family resiliency following a natu-ral disaster is discussed.

Natural disasters affect many families in the United States each year. Between the years of1975 and 1994, natural disasters alone killed over 24,000 people in the United States and injuredan additional 96,000 people (Mileti, 1999). The recent natural disaster Hurricane Katrina hasbeen deemed one of the deadliest hurricanes to ever touch U.S. soil (Kessler, Galea, Jones, &Parker, 2006). Sadly, about 1,500 deaths are believed to be a direct result of the hurricane(Beven et al., 2008). Further, Hurricane Katrina displaced over one million people and has beenestimated to have cost $100–200 billion in damage (Gard & Ruzek, 2006).

While some research on individual characteristics that may predispose a person to distressfollowing a natural disaster has been explored, the purpose of this study is to gain a more com-plete understanding of what relationship exists between family resiliency and hope, family har-diness, and spirituality following a natural disaster. The case will be made that a family whopossesses hope and family hardiness and displays high levels of spirituality or religiosity will bemore likely to exhibit healthy coping behaviors after experiencing the natural disaster.

LOSS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISTRESS FOLLOWING NATURAL DISASTERS

Natural disasters are defined as ‘‘some rapid, instantaneous or profound impact of thenatural environment upon the socio-economic system’’ (Alexander, 1993, p. 4). Major disasterscan lead to severe disruption, trauma, and loss for individuals, families, and communities(Catherall, 1992; Moos, 1986; Walsh, 2006) and may leave victims in a state of shock and

Maria Hackbarth, MS, Child and Family Therapist at ARC Community Services, Inc.; Thomas Pavkov,

PhD, Associate Professor of Psychology and Director of the Institute for Social and Policy Research, Purdue

University Calumet; Joseph Wetchler, PhD, Professor and Director of the Marriage and Family Therapy

Program, Purdue University Calumet; Michael Flannery, MPS, Professor of Hospitality, Tourism and

Management and Head of the Department of Behavioral Sciences, Purdue University Calumet.

Maria Hackbarth was a Marriage and Family Therapy Master’s of Science student at Purdue University

Calumet during the time period that the research took place.

This work is supported by the Indiana Association for Marriage and Family Therapy through their

Graduate Student Research Award Grant. We would like to further acknowledge the Institute for Social and

Policy Research at Purdue University Calumet for hosting the online survey.

Address correspondence to Maria Hackbarth, ARC Center for Women and Children, ARC Community

Services, Inc., 1409 Emil Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53713; E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Marital and Family Therapydoi: 10.1111/j.1752-0606.2011.00227.x

JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 1

disbelief (Hoff, 1989). Surviving a natural disaster can come at a cost when faced with multiplelosses and the task of putting one’s life and home back together (Hoff, 1989; Walsh, 2006).

Resources both lost and accessible affect an individual’s ability to cope in reaction toextreme stress (Hobfoll, Freedy, Green, & Solomon, 1996). Factors include the following: lossof physical resources, loss of roles, loss of loved ones, loss of hopes and dreams for the future,community resources and response, and one’s ability to work through the grief process. Hobfollet al. (1996) stressed that following a disaster, the availability and preservation of resources arecrucial to one’s ability to adapt to the traumatic event.

Many families who experienced Hurricane Katrina lost a great number of physicalresources. These physical resources are necessary to live a normal life (Hobfoll et al., 1996).Studies have demonstrated that substantial property loss is associated with greater negativepsychological affects (Freedy, Saladin, Kilpatrick, Resnick, & Saunders, 1994; Phifer & Norris,1989) and that the elderly are particularly at psychological risk upon experiencing such loss(Phifer & Norris, 1989). Losing a home and relocation are major factors in dealing with thestress of a natural disaster (Gerrity & Steinglass, 2003). Research has observed increased risk ofdepression and other forms of psychological distress among individuals who experienced bothloss of property and home and families who relocated (Sattler et al., 1995).

Families who experience natural disasters may face a loss of defined work, a loss of rolesin their community, and a lack of hope as they face the future. The loss of resources, daily rou-tine, a sense of control, possessions, and social support was associated with elevated levels ofacute psychological distress following Hurricane Hugo (Freedy, Shaw, Jarrell, & Masters,1992). Walsh (2006) asserts that the loss of roles, hopes and dreams, and the potential for afuture is often the toughest loss of all.

Loss of a loved one represents another type of loss many victims of natural disasters face.It has been reported that over 1,464 people are confirmed dead and about 130 people remainmissing as a result of Hurricane Katrina (Louisiana Department of Health and HospitalsReports, 2006). Rubonis and Bickman (1991) found that high death rates following a disasterare associated with more frequent observable psychological problems among victims. The lossof a loved one on top of all the other losses suffered can lead to a pile-up effect (Walsh, 2006)and often requires the family to reorganize their entire family system (Walsh & McGoldrick,1991).

When a natural disaster occurs, it is common for people to be unable to access necessaryservices and resources vital to their survival (Hoff, 1989; Schaefer & Moos, 1998). Researchasserts that social and community resources available to natural disaster victims following adisaster may reduce the negative impacts of the catastrophe (Hobfoll et al., 1996). The ‘‘com-munity circumstances that can affect psychological response include the extent of communitydisruption, centrality [having members of the community affected by the natural disaster], thesetting of the community (e.g., rural vs. urban), and the nature of the community’s officialdisaster response (e.g., adequate vs. ineffective)’’ (Hobfoll et al., 1996, p. 339). Further, someresearchers have suggested that community-level resources may be more important than theactual event in predicting individuals’ psychological response to the disaster (Hobfoll et al.,1996).

Thus, for many individuals, the effects of having experienced a natural disaster can lingeron long after the event has occurred and can manifest into other psychological problems(Catherall, 1992; Fullerton, Ursano, Norwood, & Holloway, 2003). Some possible mentalhealth outcomes of experiencing a disaster include the following: posttraumatic stress disorder,acute stress disorder, major depression, substance-use disorders, generalized anxiety disorders,and adjustment disorders and further include possible difficulty with grief and increased levelsof family conflict (Fullerton et al., 2003). For each individual, then, the intensity of experienc-ing a natural disaster and risk of experiencing a mental health problem is based on the overallnature of the stressful element of that particular disaster. Factors include the felt threat toone’s life, exposure to the dead or dying, any physical harm or injury endured as a result ofthe disaster, the loss of a loved one, loss of physical resources, and the level of difficulty inacquiring information and resources following the disaster (Berren, Beigel, & Ghertner, 1980;Green, 1990).

2 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY

FAMILY RESPONSE TO NATURAL DISASTER

While researchers in the psychology realm have been studying factors that relate to individ-ual resiliency, Walsh (1996, 2003b) would argue that there has been a recent shift to focusingon what makes a family resilient. From a family systems perspective, a family and its individualmembers are seen as a unit that works to cope with an experienced traumatic event. In anattempt to explain the protective factors in family units that may buffer against stress followingtraumatic events, a theoretical framework has been established for the idea of family resiliencywhich ‘‘refers to the coping and adaptational processes in the family as a functional unit’’(Walsh, 2006, p. 15).

Family adaptation is one mode through which to conceptualize and study how a familyfares when faced with a stressful life event or traumatic situation. Family adaptation can bedefined as ‘‘the degree to which the family system alters its internal functions (behaviors, rules,roles, perceptions) and ⁄or external reality to achieve an environment fit’’ (McCubbin &Patterson, 1982, p. 38), for a system (individual or family). McCubbin and Patterson (1982)have developed a family adaptation model, the Double ABCX Model, which is an extension ofHill’s (1949) original work with military families on the issue of separation because of war andthen reunification, where he developed an ABCX Model. The double ABCX model focuses onvarious family vulnerabilities and regenerative power in terms of a reason for why somefamilies can better adapt to stressful events than other families (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982).This model also takes into account how a family attempts to cope and deal with the stressfulsituation over a period of time.

Another framework used to conceptualize how a family responds to a traumatic event, thefamily resilience approach, is grounded in the notion that a crisis event and the stressors associ-ated with the event affect the entire family and pose both individual and relational risks suchas family conflict or a breakdown of the family unit (Walsh, 1996, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006).As Walsh (2006) asserts, ‘‘how a family confronts and manages a disruptive experience, buffersstress, effectively reorganizes, and moves forward with life will influence immediate and long-term adaptation for every family member and for the very survival and well-being of the familyunit’’ (p. 15). Thus, the family interactional pattern and mode through which the family pro-cesses the traumatic event mediates the impact felt by each family member and can influencehow a crisis is handled (Walsh, 1996, 2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006). Family interactional patternsdevelop over time and change as families face different events, where the family unit must adaptto the demands placed on it. Therefore, family resilience is not a stagnant and permanent thing;it changes and involves many interactive processes (Walsh, 1996, 2006). In her theory, Walsh(2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006) has identified three key family processes—a family’s belief system,their organizational patterns, and their communication practices—to be foundational back-bones of resilient families.

HOPE, FAMILY HARDINESS, AND SPIRITUALITY IN THE CONTEXT OFNATURAL DISASTER

Possessing a positive outlook has been found to be a central part of a resilient family’sbelief system. A positive outlook includes not only a sense of hope or optimism during difficultsituations, a focus on strengths, and the ability to accept what cannot be changed in a situationbut also the ability to take control over what can be done in a difficult predicament (Walsh,2002, 2003a, 2003b, 2006). Hope can be defined as a belief in a future good (Boss, 2006) or abelief that suffering can stop and that comfort is possible in the future. It has been found thathopeful adults experience the same amount of setbacks as other adults but have a ‘‘belief thatthey can adapt to challenges and cope with adversity’’ (Carr, 2004, p. 92). Further, hopefulpeople in the face of adversity tend to set goals for themselves, view obstacles as a challenge,and focus on their successes rather than their failures (Rodriguez-Hanley & Snyder, 2000).Therefore, after a catastrophic event, where there are many possible psychological, social, emo-tional, and physical effects an individual may face, hope is one of the essential elements neededto help families rebuild their lives (Walsh, 2006).


Family hardiness, defined as ‘‘the internal strengths and durability of the family unit whichis characterized by a sense of control over the outcomes of life’s events and hardships, a viewof change as beneficial and growth producing, and an active rather than passive orientationin adjusting to and managing stressful situations’’ (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1989, p. 20),has been deemed an important strength of resilient families. A family that has a high level ofhardiness possesses the ability to resist stress and adapt to stressful situations (McCubbin &McCubbin, 1989) by quickly moving the problem from any one family member or externalsource to a problem the entire family unit must address together (Figley, 1989). Familyhardiness has been shown to act as a buffer for families against negative psychological reactionsafter experiencing a traumatic event. Specifically, Jovanovic, Aleksandric, Dunjic, and Todorovic(2004) have shown that war victims who have low family hardiness and less social support weresignificantly more likely to develop PTSD, and among those subjected to political violence, highlevels of family hardiness were associated with lower psychological distress and greater overallwell-being in both traumatized and nontraumatized women (Khamis, 1998).

Additionally, to cope with an external crisis, such as a natural disaster, many individualsturn toward religion or a higher spiritual being for support (Carr, 2004). A recent study con-ducted after the 9 ⁄ 11 attacks found that 90% of their sample turned toward their religion forsupport and comfort after the traumatic event (Schuster et al., 2001). Religion often providesa coherent belief system that allows individuals to find meaning in life and hope for theirfuture (McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Religious belief systems for many people offer a wayto make sense of difficult situations, stressors, and losses and offer direction for what is tocome after death (Carr, 2004). While the relationship between spiritual ⁄ religious coping andstressful events is sometimes hard to untangle, this relationship remains an interestingphenomenon in the coping literature and one that requires further research (Chen & Koenig,2006).

The aim of this study is to begin creating a knowledge base about the relationship betweenfamily resiliency and hope, family hardiness, and spirituality of families who are survivors ofnatural disasters, specifically in this case Hurricane Katrina. We expect the following: (a) indi-viduals reporting high levels of hope following Hurricane Katrina will be more likely to per-ceive higher levels of family resiliency; (b) individuals who perceive high levels of familyhardiness will also report higher levels of family resiliency; (c) individuals reporting more spiri-tuality or religiosity will be more likely to perceive higher levels of family resiliency followingHurricane Katrina; and (d) individuals experiencing greater resource loss after HurricaneKatrina will be more likely to report lower levels of family resiliency.

METHOD

ParticipantsInitially, 993 possible participants viewed the online survey, and 18 participants completed

and returned a paper survey. Of the population that viewed the survey online, 645 participantscompleted at least part of the survey. However, 192 participants had to be removed from thedata set as a result of not fully completing the online survey. All paper surveys returned werefully completed. Additionally, one 16-year-old participant was removed. Ultimately, 452 partici-pants completed either the online or paper survey and were used in analysis.

ProcedureAssessments were available to participants in either a paper or online survey format. The

researcher posted advertising for the study around Mississippi and New Orleans and alsopassed out the survey to potential respondents during a 1-week trip to the area. Each papersurvey contained a self-addressed, stamped envelope for easy, no-cost return. Business cardscontained the Web address of the online survey and the researcher’s name, email address, andphone number linked to a prepaid phone designated for survey use, thus allowing participantswho wanted a paper survey to contact the researcher. Local businesses and agencies were askedto display the posters, business cards, and surveys in their establishments, and personal contactswere asked to distribute the survey to anyone interested.


In addition to posting in some of the affected areas, the researcher posted the survey on awell-known New Orleans forum called NOLA. The researcher also repeatedly posted shortnotes in general discussions on Hurricane Katrina forums inviting families affected byHurricane Katrina to complete the online survey. Additionally, a MySpace Webpage was cre-ated for the study where members of MySpace could read about the survey and click a linkthat redirected them to the online survey. The online survey link was also posted on a numberof Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana, and Mississippi MySpace pages in the group forum sections.

MeasuresTo assess the level of family resiliency of families who are survivors of Hurricane Katrina,

a set of four measurements was selected. The specific measurements used include the FamilyCrisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F-COPES), the Adult State Hope Scale, the FamilyHardiness Index (FHI), and an adapted Spirituality ⁄Religiosity measurement comprised ofthree modified domains of the Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness ⁄Spirituality:1999. Additionally, a resource loss scale was included as well as 10 separate demographic ques-tions. A description of each method used is provided in Table 1 below.

Demographic CharacteristicsA total of 452 usable survey responses were collected for this study. The respondents were

comprised of 65.1% women and 34.9% men. The majority (87.7%) of the participants surveyedidentified themselves as White, with the rest of the participants identifying as 6.9% Other,3.4% African American, .7% Mexican American, .7% Native American, .4% Latin American,and .2% Cuban. The age of participants who completed the survey ranged from 20 to 80 years(M = 47.70, SD = 11.15). A little more than half of the respondents (56%, n = 448) identi-fied as being married, with 18.1% identifying as single and another 12.7% identifying as beingdivorced. When asked, ‘‘In the family with whom you live, which role best describes you?’’54.6% responded ‘‘Parent,’’ 16.3% responded ‘‘I am living alone,’’ 16.0% indicated ‘‘Other,’’4.7% indicated ‘‘Child,’’ 4.5% responded ‘‘Grandparent,’’ 2.2% indicated ‘‘Friend,’’ 1.3%responded ‘‘Aunt ⁄Uncle,’’ and .4% indicated ‘‘Cousin.’’

The largest percentage of participants (31.2%) in this study identified as attending 4 yearsof college or receiving their bachelor’s degree. Only .9% of respondents completed their highestlevel of education in elementary or high school. Overall, 74.2% of the participants in this studyspent at least some time in college. The religious affiliation of participants was largely Christian(57.6%), followed by Other (31.5%), then Baptist (7.8%) and Methodist (2.9%). The majorityof the participants (83.5%) indicated they lived in Louisiana prior to Hurricane Katrina,whereas only 15.4% of participants stated they lived in Mississippi.

Missing DataTo avoid completely disregarding the participants’ answers for scale structures having miss-

ing data, an algorithm was programmed in SPSS to identify those participants who had com-pleted at least three-fourths of the questions for a particular subscale. The algorithm estimatedthe missing values for each participant by calculating the mean from the other variablesanswered in that section. Once the mean was calculated, it was then substituted in for the miss-ing variables. The algorithm was used with the F-COPES, the FHI, the Spirituality ⁄Religiositymeasure, and the Loss of Resources Scale.

RESULTS

Bivariate AnalysisThe bivariate results indicate a strong positive correlation between F-COPES scores and

State Hope scores (r = .45, p < .01). This means that as a participant’s hope increases, his orher overall family coping increases as well. A strong positive relationship between theF-COPES scores and FHI scores (r = .56, p < .01) was also found, indicating that whenfamily hardiness increases, there is also an increase in family coping. The results also demon-strated a strong positive correlation between F-COPES scores and Spirituality ⁄Religiosity


scores (r = ).55, p < .01). (Note: In the Spirituality ⁄Religiosity measure, lower scores indicatehigher levels of Spirituality ⁄Religiosity.) Finally, the analysis showed a strong negative correla-tion between family coping and resource loss (r = ).26, p < .01). Thus, as a participant’s

Table 1Measures Used in This Study

Measure Description

Family CrisisOrientedPersonalEvaluationScale(F-COPES)

The F-COPES is a 30-item assessment used to identify the family’s copingstrategies and behaviors used in stressful or problematic situations(McCubbin, Olson, & Larsen, 1981). The F-COPES is comprised of fivesubscales: acquiring social support, reframing, seeking spiritual support,mobilizing family to acquire and accept help, and passive appraisal. Thereliability (Cronbach’s alpha) for each subscale ranges from .63 to .83(McCubbin et al., 1996), and the measure has good interval validity withan overall alpha reliability of .86

State HopeScale

The State Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1996) is a six-item self-report scaleused to measure a participant’s current and present state of hope on agiven goal or situation. There are two subscales within this measurement,an agency subscale and a pathways subscale, each accounting for threequestions on the overall measurement

FamilyHardinessIndex (FHI)

The FHI (McCubbin et al., 1986) is a 20-item questionnaire designed toassess the hardiness of a family under stress and their overall adaptiveresources, which are thought to serve as a buffer to the effects of astressful event and facilitate adaptation and adjustment following astressor (McCubbin et al., 1996). Specifically, hardiness in this scale isthought of as a family’s sense of control and power over the outcome ofdaily life events and hardships (McCubbin et al., 1996). The scale hasgood internal reliability, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .65 to .81for the three subscales.

Spirituality ⁄Religiositymeasure

To concisely measure each respondent’s level of spirituality orreligiousness, statistically significant portions of three of the subscalesincluded in the Brief Multidimensional Measure of Religiousness ⁄Spirituality 1999, which was part of the 1997–1998 General Social Survey(Fetzer Institute, 1999), were used to create a 13-item questionnaire. Forthis study, selected questions, pulled out by the survey itself as mostuseful questions, from the following three domains were used: DailySpiritual Experiences, Private Religious Practices, and OrganizationalReligiousness. Each domain has been found to have good reliabilityranging from .72 to .91. To score the Spirituality ⁄Religiousness section ofthe survey, the items are added together, producing a score representingthe respondent’s overall level of spirituality or religiousness. Lowerscores are indicative of higher levels of spirituality or religiosity

Loss ofResourcesmeasure

This 24-item instrument was obtained from the Sattler et al. (2002) study onresource loss and psychological distress cross-culturally after HurricaneGeorge. The 24 items are broken up into four types of resource losses:loss of object resources such as food, furniture, sentimental possessions,etc.; condition resources such as family stability, companionship, stableemployment, etc.; personal characteristic resources such as sense ofhumor, feeling you have control over your life, etc.; and energy resourcessuch as time for adequate sleep, free time, motivation to get things done,etc. The scale is scored by adding all items together, with higher scoresindicating higher resource loss.


resource loss increases, the perception of his or her family’s ability to cope decreases. All Pear-son correlations between measures are displayed in Table 2.

In the bivariate analysis, a number of statistically significant differences emerged across thecategories of race and gender. Female participants’ family coping scores were significantlyhigher than male participants’ family coping scores, t(438) = 3.44, p = .001. Additionally, asignificant difference between male and female scores of overall spirituality ⁄ religiosity presented,with female participants showing significantly higher levels of spirituality ⁄ religiosity as com-pared with male respondents, t(440) = )5.21, p = .000. Interestingly though, female partici-pants suffered a greater loss of resources as compared with male participants in this survey,t(448) = 3.15, p = .002. Further, statistically significantly higher Spirituality ⁄Religiosity scoreswere reported by non-White respondents as compared with White respondents, t(437) = )2.86,p = .005. Results can be found in Table 3.

Multivariate AnalysisFinally, to predict overall family coping, a multiple regression model was built. The multi-

ple regression contained family coping, measured by the F-COPES, as the criterion variableand the State Hope Scale, FHI, Spirituality ⁄Religiosity measure, Loss of Resources Scale, gen-der, race, age, state, role in the family, education level, and total household income prior to thestorm as predictor variables. The model was significant [F(11, 362) = 28.25, p < .05, AdjustedR2 = .447].

This multiple regression model explains 44.7% of the variance for family coping amongsurvey participants. Specifically, the predictor variable, family hardiness, was found to be statis-tically significant in the overall model (b = .29, p = .000). This finding indicates that whenparticipants’ scores are elevated on the FHI, participants’ scores will also be elevated on theF-COPES. The Spirituality ⁄Religiosity measure was also found to be a statistically significantpredictor variable in the multiple regression model (b = ).35, p = .000). Thus, participantswho are more spiritual or religious (as indicated by lower overall Spirituality ⁄Religiosity scores)are likely to have higher F-COPES scores. The final predictor variable that was found to bestatistically significant is Hope, as measured by the State Hope Scale (b = .19, p = .001). Thisfinding demonstrates that high State Hope scores among participants are indicative of highF-COPES scores as well. Interestingly, when the other predictor variables were factored intothe multiple regression model, the Total Loss of Resources measure was no longer a statisticallysignificant predictor of family coping. This finding indicates that while the amount of resourceslost after a natural disaster is important and has an impact on individuals, it was not found tobe a major determinant of the individual’s perception of his or her family’s ability to cope fol-lowing Hurricane Katrina. Linear regression results of family coping scores with covariate pre-dictors are indicated in Table 4.

Table 2Pearson Correlations of Relationships Between Survey Measures

Measure

Family CrisisOriented PersonalEvaluation Scale(F-COPES)

StateHopeScale

FamilyHardinessIndex

Spirituality ⁄Religiosity

Loss ofResources

F-COPES — — — — —State Hope Scale .45** — — — —Family Hardiness Index .56** .69** — — —Spirituality ⁄Religiosity ).55** ).25** ).38** — —Loss of Resources ).26** ).54** ).49** .06 —

Note. **Correlation is significant at the .01 level.


DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore the role of family characteristics in the overallcoping process of an individual after having experienced a natural disaster. The current litera-ture on natural disaster survivors focuses on individual characteristics and response efforts thatwould predispose a person to either suffer psychological distress or cope effectively followinga catastrophic event (Basoglu, Salcioglu, & Livanou, 2002; Briere & Elliott, 2000; Fullertonet al., 2003; Gerrity & Steinglass, 2003; Hoff, 1989; Najarian, Goenjian, Pelcovitz, Mandel, &Najarian, 2001; North & Westerhaus, 2003; Phifer, 1990; Phifer & Norris, 1989; Sattler et al.,1995). Subsequently, very little research has taken into account the possible role family charac-teristics could play in an individual’s response to having experienced a traumatic event suchas a natural disaster. Thus, to begin exploring the role of family characteristics in the copingprocess following a natural disaster, this study observed the relationship between family

Table 3Comparison of Mean Gender and Race Response Scores

Measure

Gender Race

Males Females White Non-White

M SD M SD M SD M SD

Family Crisis OrientedPersonal Evaluation Scale

96.59** 19.40 103.04** 18.37 65.55 16.75 69.98 17.80

State Hope Scale 31.45 11.37 39.917 10.94 31.88 11.19 32.59 11.88Family Hardiness Index 38.72 11.03 39.25 10.55 38.75 10.73 41.45 10.32Spirituality ⁄Religiosity 46.08** 13.82 38.74** 14.24 42.04** 14.25 36.04** 15.08Resource Loss 62.75** 18.33 67.96** 15.84 65.55 16.75 69.98 17.80

Note. In the Spirituality ⁄Religiosity measure, lower scores indicate higher levels ofSpirituality ⁄Religiosity. **Significant at p < .01.

Table 4Linear Regression of Family Coping

Predictor variables B SE b t Sig.

Family hardiness** .53 .11 .29 4.99 .000Total spirituality** ).47 .06 ).35 )7.78 .000State Hope** .33 .10 .19 3.35 .001Total loss of resources ).01 .06 ).01 ).19 .849Gender 1.53 1.68 .04 .91 .361Race 3.33 2.39 .06 1.39 .165Age ).21 .69 ).01 ).31 .757Home state prior to storm 1.52 2.05 .03 .74 .459Role in family 3.31 1.58 .09 2.09 .037Education level )2.39 1.77 ).05 )1.36 .176Total household income prior to storm ).36 .34 ).05 )1.06 .288

Note. In the Spirituality ⁄Religiosity measure, lower scores indicate higher levels ofSpirituality ⁄Religiosity. **Significant at the .001 level.


resiliency in terms of overall family coping and other variables such as hope, family hardiness,spirituality ⁄ religiosity, loss of resources, and other demographic characteristics that may influ-ence an individual’s perception of his or her family’s ability to effectively cope after survivingHurricane Katrina.

Hope, Family Hardiness, Spirituality ⁄Religiosity, Loss of Resources, and Family ResiliencyThe first research question examined the impact of hope on a family’s ability to cope. As

congruent with past research (Carr, 2004; Rodriguez-Hanley & Snyder, 2000), this study foundhope to be associated with a family’s ability to cope after experiencing a traumatic event. Itappears that individual family members who are exhibiting hopeful attitudes about the situationand the future possibilities are more likely to perceive their families as effectively coping.

The second research question explored the relationship between family hardiness and fam-ily resiliency. In Walsh’s (2002, 2003b, 2006) family resiliency framework, family hardiness isseen as a pivotal factor that helps a family successfully navigate a traumatic event when presentor leads a family to feelings of hopelessness and despair over their lack of control in what hashappened when absent. Results indicate in this study a positive relationship between familyhardiness and family coping exists, supporting the family resilience theory.

Further, previous studies that examined the influence of family hardiness after a naturaldisaster or traumatic event have found higher levels of family hardiness to be associated withlower levels of psychological distress (Jovanovic et al., 2004; Khamis, 1998). In the presentstudy, family hardiness was a strong predictor of higher levels of family coping. Hence, individ-uals in this study who focused on what they could control and viewed their family’s situationas a challenge and opportunity for growth were more likely to cope effectively, demonstrating asense of resiliency in the face of adversity.

In the present study, a relationship emerged between age and family hardiness. Individualswho were between the ages of 40–59 had statistically higher family hardiness scores as com-pared with the older participants who were 60 years of age or older. This finding contradictspast research where both the elderly (Fullerton et al., 2003) and the middle-aged (Phifer, 1990)have found to be at risk following a natural disaster.

Research question three examined the impact of being spiritual ⁄ religious on an individual’sperception of his or her family’s ability to cope. In times of crisis or stress, it is not uncommonfor individuals to turn toward their spiritual beliefs or religion for guidance and support (Carr,2004; Koenig et al., 1992), and positive religious coping patterns are linked to less psychologicalstress following a traumatic event (Pargament, Smith, Koenig, & Perez, 1998). Similarly, in thepresent study, higher levels of spirituality ⁄ religiosity were associated with higher levels of over-all family coping. Results show that Hurricane Katrina survivors who relied on their faith orspirituality after the storm had increased levels of family coping, showing a positive connectionbetween spirituality ⁄ religiosity and family resiliency.

Research question four focused on the relationship between resource loss and family resil-iency. Results show a statistically significant negative correlation between resource loss andfamily coping. This finding is consistent with Phifer’s (1990) finding that great loss both at theindividual level and at the community level is associated with declines in overall positive affect.However, the multivariate results suggest that after controlling for age, race, sex, hope, familyhardiness, and spirituality ⁄ religiosity, the relationship between resource loss and inability tocope disappears. As such, it seems that these may provide a buffer against the resource loss thathas occurred.

Family Resiliency TheoryAs discussed previously, the three main independent variables—hope, family hardiness, and

spirituality—relate directly to Walsh’s Family Resiliency Theory. Walsh (2002, 2003b, 2006)asserts that one of the key processes in resiliency is a family’s belief system, which is comprisedof making meaning out of crisis, having a positive or hopeful outlook on the future, and havinga sense of spirituality. Making meaning out of a crisis involves a family’s ability to grasp whathas happened, gain some sense of control over their lives, and view this experience in a meaning-ful light, to see the traumatic experience as a new challenge (Walsh, 2002, 2003b, 2006). The


results of this study support the prediction that making meaning out of crisis, as measured by theFHI, is positively related to effective family coping. As indicated by the results, high family hardi-ness scores were positively related to high family coping scores of Hurricane Katrina victims.

Another key component of a family’s belief system in Walsh’s Family Resilience Theory ishaving hope or a positive outlook following a traumatic event. According to the theory, a senseof hope is critical to the rebuilding process after a natural disaster (Walsh, 2006). The linearregression analysis found support for hope as a predictor of family coping, where a statisticallysignificant positive relationship existed between participant hope scores and family copingscores. The results indicate that participants with high levels of hope also reported high levelsof family coping.

The third component of a family’s belief system according to the Family Resilience Theoryis spirituality (Walsh, 2002, 2003b, 2006). Walsh (2006) emphasizes that looking to a higherpower in times of distress can offer many individuals a sense of comfort and support. Theresults of the linear regression analysis in this study show support for the theory’s componentof spirituality. The findings indicate a statistically significant relationship between a partici-pant’s level of spirituality or religiosity and his or her family coping score, where more spiritualor religious participants are coping more effectively following Hurricane Katrina. Thus, overall,this study found all three variables related to a family’s belief system to be statistically signifi-cant in predicting family resiliency. These findings reinforce Walsh’s framework for familyresiliency and show that individual family members under stress are utilizing these avenues toeffectively cope after a natural disaster.

LIMITATIONS

The timing of this research can be seen in both a positive and negative light when viewingthe findings. Families affected by Hurricane Karina were clearly faced with different challengesat different points in their journey toward recovery. The research in this study took place fromJuly 2007 to September 2007, which is close to 2 years after the hurricane hit. The strength ofthis research is that it is testing family coping in the aftermath of a disaster, focusing on thelong-term effects of a hurricane. The limitation is the way in which families viewed the trau-matic event possibly changes over time and the way in which a family is coping a few days ormonths after the storm may be different from how they are coping a year and a half to 2 yearsafter the storm. Therefore, more research immediately after a natural disaster has happenedwould be required to test out the findings in this study.

A further limitation of this study is the makeup of the sample population. The majority ofthe participants in this study were Caucasian, were affluent, had attended at least some years incollege, and were in their middle adulthood years. The demographics of the affected areas inNew Orleans especially, as well as in Mississippi, show a much different picture where manyfamilies are living below the poverty line and of ethnic backgrounds other than Caucasian.More variability of Hurricane Katrina survivors or future natural disaster survivors in terms oftheir ethnicity, income level, religious background, educational level, and place of residenceshould be considered. Additionally, there may be some participant bias, as the researcher onher trip accessed participants who were still living in affected areas. The Internet portion of thesurvey did allow for families affected by Hurricane Katrina who had relocated to another statean opportunity to complete the survey, but it seems that many of the participants were familiesstill living in the affected areas.

CONCLUSION

Many families’ lives were changed the day Hurricane Katrina touched U.S. soil. For some,houses were destroyed and sentimental belongings ruined. For others, their community was ina state of shock and utter disarray. Even worse, other families and friends were mourning theloss of a loved one who died that day or in the days to come. Hurricane Katrina left its mark,but it did not take away many families’ sense of hope, their ability to make meaning out of thesituation, or their faith in God.


Looking at the participants in this study shows the vast amount of resilience that exists in sur-vivors of Hurricane Katrina. The topic of family resiliency has only recently been brought to theattention of researchers and clinicians and warrants much more consideration. Natural disastersare a part of life, and Hurricane Katrina will not be the last natural disaster to affect families. Wein the field have an opportunity to take a closer look at the variables that may help foster effectivecoping skills within families who are dealing with the aftermath of a disaster. An exploration ofthe variables deemed significant in promoting family coping, hope, family hardiness, and spiritual-ity, as well as other important variables, should be further explored.

REFERENCES

Alexander, D. E. (1993). Natural disasters. New York: Chapman & Hall.

Basoglu, M., Salcioglu, E., & Livanou, M. (2002). Traumatic stress response in earthquake survivors in Turkey.

Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 269–276.

Berren, M. R., Beigel, A., & Ghertner, S. (1980). A typology for the classification of disasters. Community Mental

Health Journal, 16, 103–111.

Beven, J. II, Avila, L., Blake, E., Brown, D., Franklin, J., Knabb, R., et al. (2008). Atlantic hurricane season of

2005. Monthly Weather Review, 136, 1109–1173.

Boss, P. (2006). Loss, trauma and resilience: Therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. New York: W. W. Norton.

Briere, J., & Elliott, D. (2000). Prevalence, characteristics, and long-term sequelae of natural disaster exposure in

the general population. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13, 661–679.

Carr, A. (2004). Positive psychology: The science of happiness and human strengths. New York: Routledge.

Catherall, D. R. (1992). Back from the brink: A family guide to overcoming traumatic stress. New York: Bantam

Books.

Chen, Y. Y., & Koenig, H. G. (2006). Traumatic stress and religion: Is there a relationship? A review of empiri-

cal findings. Journal of Religion and Health, 45, 371–381.

Fetzer Institute. (1999). Multidimensional measurement of religiousness ⁄ spirituality for use in health research: A

report of the Fetzer Institute ⁄National Institute on Aging Working Group. Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer Institute.

Figley, C. R. (1989). Helping traumatized families. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Freedy, J. R., Saladin, M. E., Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H. S., & Saunders, B. E. (1994). Understanding acute

psychological distress following natural disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 7, 257–273.

Freedy, J. R., Shaw, D., Jarrell, M. P., & Masters, C. (1992). Towards an understanding of the psychological

impact of natural disaster: An application of the conservation resources stress model. Journal of Traumatic

Stress, 5, 441–454.

Fullerton, C. S., Ursano, R. J., Norwood, A. E., & Holloway, H. H. (2003). Trauma, terrorism and disaster. In

R. J. Ursano, C. S. Fullerton, & A. E. Norwood (Eds.), Terrorism and disaster: Individuals and community

mental health interventions (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Gard, B. A., & Ruzek, J. I. (2006). Community mental health response to crisis. Journal of Clinical Psychology,

62, 1029–1041.

Gerrity, E. T., & Steinglass, P. (2003). Relocation stress following catastrophic events. In R. J. Ursano, C. S.

Fullerton, & A. E. Norwood (Eds.), Terrorism and disaster: Individual and community mental health interven-

tions (pp. 259–286). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Green, B. L. (1990). Defining trauma: Terminology and generic dimensions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

20, 1632–1642.

Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress: Adjustment to the crisis of war separation and reunification. New York:

Harper & Row. (Reprinted by Greenwood Press, Westport, CT, 1971)

Hobfoll, S. E., Freedy, J. R., Green, B. L., & Solomon, S. D. (1996). Coping in reaction to extreme stress: The

roles of resource loss and resource availability. In M. Zeidner & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Handbook of coping

(pp. 322–349). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Hoff, L. A. (1989). People in crisis: Understanding and helping (3rd ed.). Redwood City, CA: Addison-Wesley.

Jovanovic, A. A., Aleksandric, B. V., Dunjic, D., & Todorovic, V. S. (2004). Family hardiness and social support

as predictors of post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 11, 263–268.

Kessler, R. C., Galea, S., Jones, R. T., & Parker, H. A. (2006). Mental illness and suicidality after Hurricane

Katrina. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 84(12). Retrieved December 12, 2006, from http://

www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/84/12/06-033019ab/en/index.html

Khamis, V. (1998). Psychological distress and well-being among traumatized Palestinian women during the

intifada. Social Science Medicine, 46, 1033–1041.

Koenig, H. G., Cohen, H. J., Blazer, D. G., Pieper, C., Meador, K. G., Shelp, F., et al. (1992). Religious coping

and depression in elderly hospitalized medically ill men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 1693–1700.


Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. (2006). Reports of missing deceased. Retrieved December, 2,

2006, from http://www.dhh.louisiana.gov/offices/page.asp?ID=192&Detail=5248

McCubbin, M. A., & McCubbin, H. I. (1989). Theoretical orientations to family stress and coping. In C. R. Figley

(Ed.), Treating stress in families (pp. 3–43). New York: Brunner ⁄Mazel.

McCubbin, M. A., McCubbin, H. I., & Thompson, A. I. (1986). Family Hardiness Index (FHI). In H. I. McCubbin,

A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (Eds.), (1996). Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation—

Inventories for research and practice (pp. 239–301). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.

McCubbin, H. I., Olson, D., & Larsen, A. (1981). Family Crisis Oriented Personal Evaluation Scales (F-COPES). In

H. I. McCubbin, A. I. Thompson, & M. A. McCubbin (Eds.), (1996). Family assessment: Resiliency, coping

and adaptation—Inventories for research and practice (pp. 455–507). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.

McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1982). Family adaptation to crises. In H. I. McCubbin, A. E. Cauble, &

J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Family stress, coping, and social support (pp. 26–47). Springfield, IL: Charles C.

Thomas.

McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1996). Family assessment: Resiliency, coping and

adaptation—Inventories for research and practice. Madison: University of Wisconsin System.

Mileti, D. S. (1999). Disasters by design: A reassessment of natural hazards in the United States. Washington, DC:

Joseph Henry Press.

Moos, R. H. (1986). Coping with unusual crises. In R. H. Moos (Ed.), Coping with life crises (pp. 289–294). New

York: Plenum Press.

Najarian, L. M., Goenjian, A. K., Pelcovitz, D., Mandel, F., & Najarian, B. (2001). The effect of relocation after

a natural disaster. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 14, 511–526.

North, C. S., & Westerhaus, E. T. (2003). Applications from previous disaster research to guide mental health

interventions after the September 11 attacks. In R. J. Ursano, C. S. Fullerton, & A. E. Norwood (Eds.),

Terrorism and disaster: Individual and community mental health interventions (pp. 93–106). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Pargament, K. I., Smith, B. W., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. (1998). Patterns of positive and negative religious

coping with major life stressors. Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, 37, 710–724.

Phifer, J. F. (1990). Psychological distress and somatic symptoms after natural disaster: Differential vulnerability

among older adults. Psychology and Aging, 5, 412–420.

Phifer, J. F., & Norris, F. H. (1989). Psychological symptoms in older adults following natural disaster: Nature,

timing, duration, and course. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 44, 207–217.

Rodriguez-Hanley, A., & Snyder, C. R. (2000). The demise of hope: On losing positive thinking. In C. R. Snyder

(Ed.), Handbook of hope: Theory, measures, and applications (pp. 39–54). San Diego: Academic Press.

Rubonis, A. V., & Bickman, L. (1991). Psychological impairment in the wake of disaster: The disaster-psychopa-

thology relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 384–399.

Sattler, D. N., Preston, A., Kaiser, C. F., Olivera, V. E., Valdez, J., & Schlueter, S. (2002). Hurricane Georges:

A cross-national study examining preparedness, resource loss, and psychological distress in the U.S. Virgin

Islands, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, and the United States. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 339–

350.

Sattler, D. N., Sattler, J. M., Kaiser, C. F., Hamby, B. A., Adams, M. G., Love, L., et al. (1995). Hurricane Andrew:

Psychological distress among shelter victims. International Journal of Stress Management, 2(3), 133–143.

Schaefer, J. A., & Moos, R. H. (1998). The context for posttraumatic growth: Life crises, individual and social

resources, and coping. In R. G. Tedeschi, C. L. Park, & L. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Posttraumatic growth:

Positive changes in the aftermath of crisis (pp. 99–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G. N., Elliott, M. N., et al. (2001). A

national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. New England Journal of

Medicine, 345, 1507–1512.

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Develop-

ment and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 321–335.

Walsh, F. (1996). The concept of family resilience: Crisis and challenge. Family Process, 35, 261–281.

Walsh, F. (2002). Family resilience: Strengths forged through adversity. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family process

(pp. 399–423). New York: Guilford Press.

Walsh, F. (2003a). Crisis, trauma, and challenge: A relational resilience approach for healing, transformation,

and growth. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 74, 49–71.

Walsh, F. (2003b). Family resilience: A framework for clinical practice. Family Process, 42, 1–18.

Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Walsh, F., & McGoldrick, M. (1991). Loss and the family: A systemic perspective. In F. Walsh & M.

McGoldrick (Eds.), Living beyond loss (pp. 1–29). New York: W. W. Norton.


natural disasters: an assessment of family resiliency following hurricane katrina

Documents