The Family Journal

http://tfj.sagepub.com/ Family Resilience and Midlife Marital Satisfaction

Charles H. Huber, Rachel L. Navarro, Monte W. Womble and Fayedra L. Mumme The Family Journal 2010 18: 136 originally published online 9 March 2010 DOI: 10.1177/1066480710364477 The online version of this article can be found at: http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/18/2/136

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors

Additional services and information for The Family Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://tfj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://tfj.sagepub.com/content/18/2/136.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 14, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 9, 2010 What is This?

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

Family Resilience and Midlife Marital Satisfaction

Charles H. Huber,1 Rachel L. Navarro,1 Monte W. Womble,1 and Fayedra L. Mumme2

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(2) 136-145 2010 SAGE Publications DOI: 10.1177/1066480710364477 http://tfj.sagepub.com

Abstract This article describes the results of a research investigation of the relationship of midlife marital satisfaction and the three primary protective factors that, operationally defined by the Family Adaptation Model, contribute to family resilience: adaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, and social support. Midlife marital satisfaction was conceptualized using Duvalls family life cycle theorys Middle Aged Family stage tasks: (a) rebuilding the marriage relationship and (b) maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. Participants included 239 couples, who were between the ages of 45 and 65 and whose youngest child was over 18 years old and graduated from high school. The relationship between the predictor and criterion variables was explored for both individual partners and couples. Analyses were also conducted to consider gender and ethnic group membership differences. The results showed significant positive relationships existed between the criterion variables (rebuilding the marriage relationship and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations) and the predictor variables (adaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, and social support), thus providing support for the position that in the face of the developmental challenges encountered relative to midlife marriage, higher levels of the primary protective factors contributing to family resilience are related to greater levels of mastery of the developmental tasks associated with midlife marital satisfaction. Keywords family resilience, protective factors, midlife marital satisfaction, Family Adaptation Model

Resilience within a family context highlights families positive adjustment in the context of challenging life conditions (Luthar, Cicchetti, & Becker, 2000). From a developmental perspective, resilience represents families mastery of stagesalient tasks inherent in the challenges faced during each family life transition (Masten & Reed, 2005). Family resilience emanates from a systemic view positing the presence of vulnerability processes and protective processes reciprocally interacting to affect the functioning of a family and all its members in a circular manner (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1991; Walsh, 2002). Literature reviews and research reports over the past decade have provided family counselors with an enhanced understanding of, as well as protocol for, employing a family resilience perspective to inform their work with individuals and their families (Connolly, 2005; Gardner, Huber, Steiner, Vazquez, & Savage, 2008; McCubbin, Balling, Possin, Frierdich, & Byrne, 2002; Patterson, 2002; Simon, Murphy, Smith, 2005; Walsh, 2006). This same decade has also evidenced a growing interest in transformations in marital relationships for families in the middle and later years (Allen, Blieszner, & Roberto, 2000; Chandler & Fittro, 2008; Patrick, Sells, Giordano, & Tollerud, 2007). The middle years of marriage, in particular, are receiving greater attention due to increased life expectancy and couples
136

spending more years together after children leave home and during retirement. Research has consistently found that marital satisfaction begins to decrease during the early years of marriage and reaches a low point during the middle years (Orbuch, House, Mero, & Webster, 1996). This lower level of marital satisfaction is most often related to increased stress during this life stage in the form of launching children-now young adults, caring for aging parents, empty nesting, financial, and retirement issues. Family counselors working with midlife couples confronting these challenges and learning to manage their many changes can view these couples as vulnerable and in need of intervention to remediate deficiencies or as competent and benefiting more by enhancing those competencies already possessedthe primary protective factors that contribute to family

1 2

New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, USA Acadia Abilene Behavioral Health Hospital, Abilene, TX, USA

Corresponding Author: Charles H. Huber, Department of Counseling & Educational Psychology, New Mexico State University, MSC 3 CEP, P.O. Box 30001, Las Cruces, NM 88003, USA. Email: chuber@nmsu.edu

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

Huber et al. resilience. This research investigation offers support for family counselors taking the latter position.

137 Feldman, 2001). Compensating experiences represent a manner of problem solving that is a cognitive enterprise with a behavioral component: actions that help (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, p. 141). Clarifying issues and redefining a situation is a critical component of family coping (McCubbin, Sussman, & Patterson, 1983). Masten (2001) posited the influence of family mastery resources as compensatory. Conger and Conger (2002) likewise asserted a familys sense of mastery to be a compensating psychological resource, a way to reduce emotional distress. For example, Connolly (2005) described a couple who experienced working it out as a couple rather than running away, which later in their relationship led to it one partner expressing, This is my family and really anything that comes at us we can tackle together (p. 272). Compensating experiences can likewise be seen as a familys experience of mastery within the context of adversity. This mastery includes feelings of positive control over uplifting experiences, while having experienced the same situations as hassles (Luthar & Zigler, 1992).

An Operational Definition of Family Resilience

McCubbin and colleagues (McCubbin & McCubbin, 1991; McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson, & Thompson, 1995; McCubbin & Patterson, 1981) initially developed and researched what has become known as the Resiliency Model of Family Stress, Adjustment, and Adaptation, which has directed the attention of helping professionals toward critical elements of family functioning from a resilience perspective. The Family Adaptation Model (Drummond, Kysela, McDonald, & Query, 2002; McDonald, Kysela, Drummond, Martin, & Wiles, 1997) directly emanates from this work, however, unlike the model of McCubbin and colleagues, there is only one simple iterative process of family adaptation rather than two processes that represent protective processes and vulnerability processes separately. Given the potential complexity of family assessment and intervention, this singular ongoing process eliminates the tendency to dichotomize family strengths and deficits and promotes a systemic orientation that highlights reciprocity as well as parsimony and practical utility (Drummond et al., 2002). The Family Adaptation Model asserts that the mediating dynamic between protective and vulnerability family processes is represented within its five dimensions: demands, appraisals, supports, coping, and adaptation. Demands represent stressors families encounter, their vulnerability family processes. Appraisals, social supports, and coping strategies represent the protective family processes that interact with demands/stressors to predict family adaptation (Drummond et al. 2002; McDonald et al., 1997).

Social Support
Social support has been identified as a multidimensional factor that includes extended family, networks beyond the family, community and school involvement, employment, and supportive professionals (Drummond et al., 2002). These sources of social support can offer emotional, psychological, informational, instrumental, and economic support (Dunst, Trivette, & Cross, 1986; Walsh, 2002). Researchers (Amerikaner, Monks, Wolfe, & Thomas, 1994; Holahan & Moos, 1991; Werner, 1993) have addressed the role of social support and how it relates directly to psychological health. Availability of social support has been linked to emotional well-being and the ability to compensate for negative life conditions (ChaseLansdale, Wakschalag, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995). Research by McCubbin, McCubbin, Thompson, Han, and Allen (1997) categorized social support into several dimensions. These dimensions include emotional support (sharing information to communicate that the family is cared for); esteem support (sharing information in affirming the value of the family and what they do); network support (sharing information that family members belong to a group whom they have responsibility and also get something in return); appraisal support (positive evaluation of family members); and altruistic support (sharing information indicating the importance of giving ones self for the benefit of the family).

Adaptive Appraisal
Adaptive appraisal includes family members beliefs that their family possesses a sense of self-efficacy, positive expectations, acceptance of life situations, and maintenance of trust and calm (Drummond et al., 2002). This factor involves how a family and its members view and approach crisis situations, which subsequently influences their potential solution efforts (Walsh, 1998, 2006). Adaptive appraisal is an asset for families in increasing the likelihood of adaptively addressing problems in life, due to the fact such appraisals serve as markers of optimal well-being; the overall balance of peoples positive and negative appraisals has been shown to predict their judgments of subjective well-being (Diener, Sandvik, & Pavot, 1991; Frederickson, 2001).

The Current Study

The aim of the current study was to examine the relationship of midlife marital satisfaction and three primary protective factors that, operationally defined by the Family Adaptation Model, contribute to family resilience: adaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, and social support. Midlife marital satisfaction was conceptualized using Duvalls family life cycle theorys Middle Aged Family stage tasks: (a) rebuilding the marriage
137

Compensating Experiences
Coping strategies are operationalized using the referent of compensating experiences: rewarding experiences that provide a sense of meaning and control over life (Papalia, Olds, &

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

138

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(2) research packet containing a Consent to Participate Form, which they were instructed to have each participant partner of the couple read and sign individually. Partners were then instructed to individually complete a brief demographic information form and the three research measures. On completion, the demographic information forms and the three instruments for each partner were then put in a single envelope, sealed, and returned to the researcher.

relationship and (b) maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. The relationship between the predictor and criterion variables was explored for both individual partners and couples. Likewise, gender and ethnic group differences relative to each of the variables were also examined. It was hypothesized that significant positive correlations would exist between the criterion variables (rebuilding the marriage relationship and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations) and the predictor variables (adaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, and social support), thus providing support for the position that in the face of the developmental challenges experienced relative to midlife marriage, higher levels of the primary protective factors contributing to family resilience are related to greater levels of mastery of the tasks associated with midlife marital satisfaction.

Measures
Inventory of family protective factors (IFPF). The IFPF was developed as a brief assessment of family members perceptions of the significance of specific family protective factors. Its development was undertaken to enhance the efficacy of family counselors working within a family resilience modality (Gardner et al., 2008). The IFPF is a 16-item self-report measure incorporating 4 items for each of four family protective factors: adaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, social support, and fewer stressors. Each item is scored using a 5-point, Likert-type scale (almost always to not at all like my family). The responses to each scales 4 items are summed to provide scale scores. The inventory produces a total family protective factors score as well as scale scores. The development of the IFPF followed a three-stage protocol. Following construction of the instrument, data collections and analyses were conducted for the purpose of establishing validity and reliability of the IFPF as well as conducting a confirmatory factor analysis. In each, the 4 scales comprising the IFPF were compared to 4 established measures, each scale and measure assessing one of the primary family protective factors comprising the IFPF. Significant correlations were found for all 4 IFPF scalemeasure comparisons in all three data collections and analyses. Acceptable internal consistency and testretest reliability estimates were found for the overall IFPF and its scales. Factor analysis supported the presence of four meaningful factors. The third stage in the development of the IFPF was a field trial to establish the practical value of the IFPF as a clinical assessment. The results of this final stage found that the IFPF discerned significant differences relative to participants perceptions of the primary family protective factors of adaptive appraisal and compensating experiences between a clinical and a nonclinical group of individuals presenting for counseling. The IFPF was used to assess the degree to which three primary protective factorsadaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, and social supportwere perceived to be present in participants families. Marital Satisfaction Questionnaire for Older Persons (MSQFOP). The MSQFOP was developed to provide a short, focused content-valid measure of marital satisfaction for older persons (Haynes et al., 1992). Items for the MSQFOP were derived from the literature on aging, previously published marital satisfaction inventories, interviews with older married persons, and interviews with professionals providing psychological services to older couples. The 24 items are answered on a 6-point Likert

Method Participants
Data were obtained for this study from a sample of 239 volunteer couples (N 478) in the Middle Aged Family stage of Duvalls (1977) family life cycle. Those participants who were unable to complete fully the measure of intergenerational relationship quality due to ones own parents or spouses parents being deceased or never having children were included in all parts of the data analyses except where pertaining to the criterion variable of maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. Of the 478 participants, 240 (50.2%) self-identified as female and 238 (49.8%) self-identified as male. Participants ages ranged from 45 to 72 years of age, with a mean of 51.89 and a standard deviation (SD) of 5.53. Years married ranged from 1 to 50, with a mean of 25.21 and a SD of 8.85. Regarding ethnic origin, 48.7% self-reported as Anglo American, 36.6% as Hispanic American, 5.9% as African American, 2.5% as Biethnic, 1% as Asian Pacific Islander American, 1% as Native American, and 4% as Other. Regarding socioeconomic status, 56.6% reported as middle class, 29.5% as middle upper class, 10.5% as middle lower class, 1.7% as lower class, and 1.7% as upper class.

Procedure
Following review and approval by the Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research, participants were recruited by students enrolled in sections of a large undergraduate course Human Growth and Behavior at a major university in the Southwestern United States. Students enrolled in the course were asked to identify couples who were between the ages of 45 and 65 and whose youngest child was over 18 years old and graduated from high school to volunteer to participate in a research study on Marital Satisfaction in Middle Adulthood as a part of a course assignment to contribute to the research base in the field of Human Development. Those students identifying participants for the study were given a
138

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

Huber et al. scale relative to marital satisfaction (very dissatisfied to very satisfied). Scores are summed to yield an overall score of marital satisfaction. Five studies were conducted to construct and psychometrically evaluate the MSQFOP. Factor scores and a total Marital Satisfaction Scale score were found to be homogenous, temporarily stable, and significantly correlated with multiple measures of marital adjustment, life satisfaction, perceived spouse behaviors, and observer ratings of marital communication (Haynes et al., 1992). The MSQFOP was used to assess the degree to which the family life stage task of rebuilding the marital relationship had been mastered. Intergenerational relationship quality. The quality of the relationships between midlife couple and older and younger generations was measured by asking the anchor: Taking all things together, on a scale of 010, where 0 is really bad and 10 is absolutely perfect, how would you describe your relationship with . . . . This anchor was asked relative to three intergenerational relationships: (a) your adult children; (b) your own parents; and (c) your spouses parents. The phrasing of the question was adopted from the National Survey of Families and Household (NSFH; Sweet & Bumpass, 2002), This means of measuring relationship quality among older adults finds support in the research literature where relevant standardized measures have yet to be developed (Voorpostel & Blieszner, 2008). Scores for the three relationships are summed to yield an overall score of relationship quality. This overall score was used to assess the degree to which the family life stage task of maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations had been mastered.

139 marriage relationship as the criterion variable (n 476). Together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship: R .448 Adjusted R2 .196, F(3, 472) 39.578, p < .000. Together, this explained approximately 20% of the variance in rebuilding the marriage relationship. However, only adaptive appraisal (b .218, p < .000) and compensating experiences (b .277, p < .000) explained a significant proportion of the variance in rebuilding the marriage relationship (social support [b .005, p .931]). Following, a simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted with adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences as predictor variables and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations as the criterion variable (n 272). Together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations: R .260, adjusted R2 .068, F(3, 268) 6.475, p < .000. Together, this explained approximately 20% of the variance in maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. However, only social support (b .201, p < .001) explained a significant proportion of the variance in maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations (adaptive appraisal [b .013, p .875] and compensating experiences [b .105 p .167]). Secondary research hypotheses addressed couples wherein both partners scored high, wherein both partners scored low, and wherein one partner scored high and the other low on any of the primary protective factors. This was determined using the mean and SD of the overall sample. A score higher than one SD above the mean was considered high. A score lower than one SD below the mean was considered low. Couples scoring highhigh, highlow, and lowlow were grouped for each of the primary protective factors beginning with adaptive appraisal 42 lowlow (M 95.476) versus 8 highlow (M 103.125) versus 58 highhigh (M 123.293). A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) found significant differences in rebuilding the marriage relationship by adaptive appraisal group, F(2, 105) 31.297, p < .000, Z .373, power 1.00. Highhigh significantly differs from both highlow and lowlow; low low and highlow do not significantly differ. For social support, 42 lowlow (M 102.6429) versus 10 highlow (M 113.80000). An independent samples t test found no significant differences in rebuilding the marriage relationship by social support group, t(50) 1.457, p .151, Z .041, power .298. For compensating experiences, 32 lowlow (M 97.0625) versus 8 highlow (M 113.2500) versus 54 high high (M 121.3519): A one-way ANOVA found significant differences in rebuilding the marriage relationship by compensating experiences group, F(2, 91) 26.385, p < .000, Z .367, power 1.00. Both the highhigh and highlow groups reported more compensating experiences than did the lowlow group; however, the highhigh and highlow groups did not significantly differ from one another. Relative to maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations and adaptive appraisal 26 lowlow (M 22.0769) versus 6 highlow (M 23.3333) versus 22 highhigh
139
Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

Results
The primary research hypotheses proposed that, for individual marital partners in the Middle Aged Family stage of Duvalls family life cycle, there will be a positive relationship between each of the primary protective factors and (a) rebuilding the marriage relationship and (b) maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. A series of linear regression analyses was conducted and analyses indicated that all of the predictor variables independently predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship (n 476 or 477): adaptive appraisal R .391, adjusted R2 .151, F(1, 474) 85.562, p < .000; social support R .271, adjusted R2 .074, F(1, 475) 37.773, p < .000; and compensating experiences R .414, adjusted R2 .169, F(1, 475) 98.134, p < .000. A further series of linear regression analyses indicated that all of the predictor variables independently predicted maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations (n 272 or 273): adaptive appraisal R .164, adjusted R2 .027, F(1, 270) 7.460, p < .01; social support R .242, adjusted R2 .055, F(1, 271) 16.836, p < .000; and compensating experiences R .194, adjusted R2 .034, F(1, 271) 10.599, p < .001. A simultaneous multiple regression analysis was then conducted with adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences as predictor variables and rebuilding the

140

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(2) approximately 10% of the variance for maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations for females. However, only social support (b .238, p < .05) and compensating experiences (b .232 p < .05) explained a significant proportion of the variance in managing kin ties (adaptive appraisal [b .126, p .259]). Thus, the relationship between the combined predictor variables and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations is different for males and females. Final analyses were performed between the measures of the criterion variables and measures of the predictor variables for ethnic groups that had at least 10 identified participants. For the African American participants (n 28), a series of linear regression analyses indicated that all of the predictor variables independently predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship: adaptive appraisal R .491, adjusted R2 .212, F(1, 26) 8.275, p < .01; social support R .111, adjusted R2 .077, F(1, 26) 3.242, p .083; and compensating experiences R .551, adjusted R2 .277, F(1, 26) 11.347, p < .01. For Anglo American participants (n 232), a series of linear regression analyses indicated that all of the predictor variables independently predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship: adaptive appraisal R .414, adjusted R2 .168, F(1, 230) 47.646, p < .000; social support R .168, adjusted R2 .024, F(1, 230) 6.670, p < .01; and compensating experiences R .397, adjusted R2 .154, F(1, 230) 42.931, p < .000. For the Hispanic American participants (n 173 or 174), a series of linear regression analyses indicated that all of the predictor variables independently predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship: adaptive appraisal R .297, adjusted R2 .083, F(1, 171) 16.520, p < .000; social support R .263, adjusted R2 .064, F(1, 172) 12.756, p < .000; and compensating experiences R .346, adjusted R2 .115, F(1, 172) 23.453, p < .000. Relative to maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations, for the African American participants (n 20), a series of linear regression analyses indicated that all of the predictor variables independently predicted maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations: adaptive appraisal R .036, adjusted R2 .054, F(1, 18) .023, p .880; social support R .130, adjusted R2 .038, F(1, 18) .310, p .585; and compensating experiences R .029, adjusted R2 .055, F(1, 18) .015, p .905. For Anglo American participants (n 115), a series of linear regression analyses indicated that all of the predictor variables independently predicted maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations: adaptive appraisal R .101, adjusted R2 .001, F(1, 114) 1.168, p .282; social support R .169, adjusted R2 .020, F(1, 114) 3.345, p .070; and compensating experiences R .031, adjusted R2 .008, F(1, 114) .111, p .740. For Hispanic American participants (n 113 or 114), a series of linear regression analyses indicated that only compensating experiences significantly predicted maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations: adaptive appraisal R .289, adjusted R2 .075, F(1, 111) 10.084, p < .01; social support R .334, adjusted R2 .103, F(1, 112) 14.031, p < .000; and compensating experiences R .381, adjusted R2 .137, F(1, 112) 18.987, p < .000.

(M 25.1818), a one-way ANOVA found no significant differences in maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations by adaptive appraisal group, F(2, 51) 2.359, p .105 Z .085, power .456. For social support 26 lowlow (M 21.4231) versus 8 highlow (M 24.6250). An independent samples t test found no significant differences in maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations ties by social support group, t(32) 1.863, p .072, Z .098, power .439. For compensating experiences 18 lowlow (M 23.1667) versus 6 highlow (M 22.3333) versus 24 highhigh (M 23.3333). A one-way ANOVA found no significant differences in maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations by compensating experiences group, F(2, 45) .244, p .784, Z .011, power .086 Gender differences were tested using a series of simultaneous multiple regression analysis conducted with adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences as predictor variables and rebuilding the marriage relationship as the criterion variable. The first included only male participants and the second included only female participants. For males (n 238), together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship, R .441, adjusted R2 .184, F(3, 234) 18.834, p < .000. Together, these variables explained approximately 18% of the variance for rebuilding the marriage relationship for males. However, only adaptive appraisal (b .281, p < .001) and compensating experiences (b .236, p < .01) explained a significant proportion of the variance in rebuilding the marriage relationship (social support [b .043, p .559]). For females (n 238), together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship, R .478, adjusted R2 .218, F(3, 234) 23.076, p < .000. Together, these variables explained 27% of the variance for rebuilding the marriage relationship for females. However, only compensating experiences (b .319, p < .000) explained a significant proportion of the variance in rebuilding the marriage relationship (social support [b .081, p .282], adaptive appraisal [b .142, p .075]). Thus, the relationship between the combined predictor variables and rebuilding the marriage relationship is slightly different for males and females. Relative to maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations, a series of simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted with adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences as predictor variables and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations as the criterion variable. The first included only male participants and the second included only female participants. For males (n 137), together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences did not significantly predict maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations, R .216, adjusted R2 .025, F(3, 131) 2.143, p .098. For females (n 135), together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations, R .345, adjusted R2 .099, F(3, 133) 5.993, p < .001. Together, these variables explained
140

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

Huber et al. Following, a series of simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted with adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences as predictor variables and rebuilding the marriage relationship as the criterion variable. For African American participants, together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship, R .571, adjusted R2 .242, F(3, 24) 3.870, p < .05. Together, these variables explained 24% of the variance for rebuilding the marriage relationship. However, none of the predictors alone explained a significant proportion of the variance in rebuilding the marriage relationship (adaptive appraisal [b .172, p .555], social support [b .045, p .843], compensating experiences [b .411, p .096]). For Anglo American participants, together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship, R .466, adjusted R2 .207, F(3, 228) 21.094, p < .000. Together, these variables explained approximately 21% of the variance for rebuilding the marriage relationship. Each significant contribution to the variance is explained as follows: adaptive appraisal (b .341, p < .000), social support (b .162, p < .05), and compensating experiences (b .260, p < .001). For Hispanic American participants, together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship, R .372, adjusted R2 .123, F(3, 169) 9.045, p < .000. Together, these variables explained 12% of the variance for rebuilding the marriage relationship. However, only compensating experiences (b .246, p < .01) explained a significant proportion of the variance in rebuilding the marriage relationship (social support [b .062, p .684], adaptive appraisal [b .125, p .188]). Thus, the relationship between the combined predictor variables and rebuilding the marriage relationship differs slightly across ethnicities. Likewise, a series of simultaneous multiple regression analysis was conducted with adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences as predictor variables and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations as the criterion variable. For African American participants, together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences did not significantly predict maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations, R .200, adjusted R2 .140, F(3, 16) .223, p .879. For Anglo American participants, together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences did not significantly predict maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations, R .175, adjusted R2 .005, F(3, 112) 1.178, p .321. For Hispanic American participants, together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations, R .418, adjusted R2 .152, F(3, 109) 7.691, p < .000. Together, these variables explained 15% of the variance for maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. However, only compensating experiences (b .263, p < .05) explained a significant proportion of the variance in maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations (social support [b .171, p .127],

141 adaptive appraisal [b .056, p .615]). Thus, the relationship between the combined predictor variables and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations differs across ethnicities.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of midlife marital satisfaction and three primary protective factors that, operationally defined by the Family Adaptation Model, contribute to family resilience: adaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, and social support. Midlife marital satisfaction was conceptualized using Duvalls family life cycle theorys Middle Aged Family stage tasks: (a) rebuilding the marriage relationship and (b) maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. The results found significant positive relationships between each of the primary protective factors and the stage tasks of rebuilding the marriage relationship and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. The results further found a significant positive relationship between the overall primary protective factors contributing to family resilience and the combined mastery of these two family life cycle stage tasks. Of the three primary protective factors when combined, twoadaptive appraisal and compensating experiences explained a significant proportion of the variance for rebuilding the marriage relationship. These results mirror previous research findings (Gardner et al., 2008) wherein a nonclinical group perceived a significantly greater degree of the two family protective factors of adaptive appraisal and compensating experiences within their families as compared to the clinical group of clients in counseling; this indicating a relationship between the greater degree of these two family protective factors and good adaptation by the Family Adaptation Model. As related to the current research, those participants who perceived their families adaptive appraisals and compensating experiences as sources of competence experienced greater competence in rebuilding their marriage relationship (i.e., good adaptation). From a theoretical basis, this observation is explained by social learning theory: Fortunately, most human behavior is learned observationally through modeling: from observing others one forms an idea of how new behaviors are performed, and on later occasions this coded information serves as a guide for action (Bandura, 1977, p. 22). These guides for action can serve as a basis for counseling interventions relative to the degree to which these two primary family protective factors are perceived to be available to family members seeking assistance in rebuilding their marriage relationship. Of the three primary protective factors when combined, only social support explained a significant proportion of the variance for maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. Social support is defined as having at least one supportive, caring, interested, and/or trusting relationship with someone who may, or may not be, a family member (Dumont & Provost, 1999). It is possible that this relationship was higher
141

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

142

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(2) Gender similarity was tested first with adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences as predictor variables and rebuilding the marriage relationship as the criterion variable. For males, together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship. However, only adaptive appraisal and compensating experiences explained a significant proportion of the variance for rebuilding the marriage relationship. For females, together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship. However, only compensating experiences explained a significant proportion of the variance in rebuilding the marriage relationship. Relative to maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations, for males together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences did not significantly predict maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. For females together, adaptive appraisal, social support, and compensating experiences significantly predicted maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. However, only social support and compensating experiences explained a significant proportion of the variance for maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. These results suggest that, the relationship between the combined protective factors that contribute to family resilience and midlife marital satisfaction are different for males and females. Resilience has been posited as a universally common and basic human process (Masten, 2001). Although family resilience as global concept may be universal, the results herein suggest that there are gender differences relative to the degree to which those primary protective factors that contribute to family resilience are experienced by females and males. The final analyses addressed relationships between the three of the primary protective factors that contribute to family resilience independently and then combined together with rebuilding the marriage relationship and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations for ethnic groups that had at least 10 identified participants. For the African American participants as a group, the Anglo American participants as a group, results indicated that all three of the primary protective factors independently predicted both rebuilding the marriage relationship and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. For the Hispanic American participants, results indicated that all three of the primary protective factors independently predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship; however, only compensating experiences was significant in independently predicting maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. For all three groups, the African American participants, the Anglo American participants, and the Hispanic American participants, results indicated that all three of the primary protective factors combined together predicted rebuilding the marriage relationship. However, for the Hispanic American participants, only compensating experiences explained a significant proportion of the variance in rebuilding the marriage relationship. For both African American participants as a group and Anglo American participants as a group, results indicated

than those between the other two primary protective factors and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations most simply due the logical connection between kin relations and social support. Social support, in part, may come from relationships with kin network members and vice versa. Research has traditionally supported the importance of kin network relations within the family life cycle (Leigh, 1982). Studies have investigated concepts that parallel the primary protective factors asserted by the Family Adaptation Model for assessing marital satisfaction (Hansen & Fallon, 1991; Lavee & Ben-Ari, 2003; Patrick et al., 2007; Rowan, Compton, & Rust, 1995). The results of the current study validate and support these prior findings. However, these prior studies viewed each of their predictor variables as separate and distinct concepts rather than based on a larger conceptualization, such as family resilience. The current study viewed the three primary protective factors as being associated with the larger concept of family resilience. Therefore, it is inferred that family resilience is positively associated with midlife martial satisfaction. Bradbury, Fincham, and Beach (2000) in their extensive review of the research literature on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction reported that the majority of research into marital satisfaction has generally been one-dimensional in nature, involving only dyadic adjustment. The results of the current study focused on midlife marital satisfaction as a multidimensional rather than a one-dimensional model. Using the family life cycle model and incorporating two tasks, the current study implied the primary protective factors contributing to family resilience have interaction with more than one facet of midlife marital satisfaction. Although the primary research hypotheses associated were concerned with participants as individual partners, the secondary research hypotheses related to participant couples. These hypotheses were generated to address couples wherein both partners scored high, wherein one partner scored high and the other low, and wherein both partners scored low on any of the primary protective factors relative to rebuilding the marriage relationship and maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. Results relative to rebuilding the marriage relationship found that for adaptive appraisal, the highhigh couples significantly differed from both highlow and lowlow couples. For compensating experiences, both the highhigh and highlow groups reported significantly more compensating experiences than did the lowlow group; however, the highhigh and highlow groups did not significantly differ from one another. One of the defining features of marriage is interdependence, the idea that one partners experiences have the capacity to influence the outcomes of the other partner (Neff & Karney, 2007; OBrien & DeLongis, 1997; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Associated research has posited the notion that protective factors are cumulative and reside within not only individuals but also within families, social groups, and communities (Coleman & Ganong, 2002; Gilgun, 1996). The findings relative to the highlow couples compensating experiences, in particular, offer further support for this primary protective factor having a significant impact on couples midlife marital satisfaction.
142

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

Huber et al. that all three of the primary protective factors combined together did not significantly predict maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. For Hispanic American participants as a group, results indicated that all three of the primary protective factors combined together did significantly predict maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. However, for the Hispanic American participants, only compensating experiences explained a significant proportion of the variance in maintaining kin ties with older and younger generations. Thus, the relationship between the three primary protective factors that contribute to family resilience taken individually and combined together and midlife marital satisfaction appears to differ somewhat across ethnicities. The final analyses were conducted with the expectation that the levels of protective factors among the ethnic groups would be similar to the overall group. This expectation was based on the assertion that family resilience and those primary protective factors contributing to it are universal in nature; resilience being an ordinary phenomena (Masten, 2001, p. 227). Although differing sample sizes may have had an impact on these results, the results of this study suggest the relationship between the three primary protective factors that contribute to family resilience taken individually and combined together and midlife marital satisfaction appears to differ across ethnicities. For example, compensating experiences may be more salient to Hispanic American than the other protective factors. The results of the current study are too preliminary to make definitive statements. However, they do lend support for further research into the impact of family resilience and those primary protective factors contributing to it in relation to different ethnic groups midlife marital satisfaction.

143 modification and enhancement. The lists of protective factors are extensive and include many factors that would seem to be fixed such as personality traits and intelligence. Perhaps, some of these other factors would have high correlation with midlife marital satisfaction yet little practical significance to family counselors and other helping professionals. The protective factors in this study represented commonly cited and researched protective factors that appear to be amenable to change and enhancement. This study is foundational in demonstrating a relationship between family resilience, as associated with the primary protective factors that contribute to it and midlife marital satisfaction as posited by the stage tasks of Duvalls (1977) Middle Aged Family stage of the family life cycle. The results validated a positive relationship between family resilience and midlife marital satisfaction. In the face of the developmental challenges experienced relative to midlife marriage, higher levels of the primary protective factors lead to greater levels of mastery of the tasks associated with midlife marital satisfaction. As such, the findings offer support for the Family Adaptation Model as a means of understanding the interaction of demands/stressors and protective factors in predicting good adaptation relative to midlife marital satisfaction. The Family Adaptation Model asserts the interaction between protective and vulnerability processes to be the primary process by which this takes place. Demands represent stressors couples encounter, their vulnerability processes. Adaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, and social support represent the protective processes that interact with demands/stressors to predict marital adaptation. The findings herein found significant positive correlations between higher levels of midlife marital satisfaction and higher levels of these primary protective factors for both marital partners as individuals and as couples: good adaptation as posited by the Family Adaptation Model. Much of the prior research on marriage has centered on marital distress and divorce (Amato & Hohmann-Marriott, 2007; Kurdek, 2002; Rogge & Bradbury, 1999). The results of the current study show family resilience as a positive factor for people who are adapting and adjusting. This study addressed variables that contribute to persons well functioning and mastery of developmental tasks as opposed to those who were having difficulty and experiencing distress during this life transition. The results suggest factors that may affect midlife marital satisfaction in a facilitative and enhancement, as opposed to remedial manner. Family resilience is a positive, strengths-based construct, or, in other words, a conceptualization that describes what is right about persons when they adapt well. The outcomes reported here contribute to the field of counseling and even more so to the specialization of family counseling as helping professionals move toward a greater interest in emphasizing assets and strengths of people rather than deficits and problems (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This study enhances the potential for this position within family counseling in showing a positive correlation between family resilience and midlife
143
Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

Limitations
The findings in this study should be interpreted with consideration of its limitations. Those that participated did so on a voluntary basis. Volunteers may differ from nonvolunteers in several ways. For example, volunteers may be more satisfied with their marital relationships and their reported perceptions of protective factors may be quite different from those who chose not to participate. Furthermore, volunteers for this study were a convenient sample and identified by undergraduate university students enrolled in a course in Human Growth and Behavior. It was assumed that students accurately identified participants and disseminated the research packets according to the standardized instructions but immediate supervision of the data collection was not conducted. This study was also correlational in nature and therefore only explored relationships, hence no reference to causation can be made.

Implications for Family Counseling and Future Research Directions

To foresee possible applied applications of the results reported here, this study chose to focus on protective factors contributing to family resilience that are more amendable to

144

The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(2)
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Bradbury, T. N., Fincham, F. D., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Research on the nature and determinants of marital satisfaction: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 62, 964-980. Chandler, C., & Fittro, J. (2008). Enhancing midlife marriage. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Extension. Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Wakschalag, L. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). A psychological perspective on the development of caring in children and youth: The role of the family. Journal of Adolescence, 18, 515-556. Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. (2002). Resilience and families. Family Relations, 51, 101-102. Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361-373. Connolly, C. M. (2005). A qualitative exploration of resilience in long-term lesbian couples. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 266-280. Diener, E., Sandvik, E., & Pavot, W. (1991). Happiness is the frequency, not the intensity, of positive versus negative affect. In F. Strack (Ed.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 119-139). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Drummond, J., Kysela, G. M., McDonald, L., & Query, B. (2002). The family adaptation model: Examination of dimensions and relations. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 34, 29-46. Dumont, M., & Provost, M. A. (1999). Resilience in adolescents: Protective role of social support, coping strategies, self-esteem, and social activities on experience of stress and depression. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 343-363. Dunst, C. J., Trivette, C. M., & Cross, A. H. (1986). Mediating influences of social support: Personal, family, and child outcomes. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 90, 403-417. Duvall, E. R. (1977). Marriage and family development. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Frederickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 218-226. Gardner, D. L., Huber, C. H., Steiner, R., Vazquez, L. A., & Savage, T. L. (2008). The development and validation of the inventory of family protective factors: A brief assessment for family counseling. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 107-117. Gilgun, J. F. (1996). Human development and adversity in ecological perspective, Part I: A conceptual framework. Families in Society, 77, 395. Hansen, F. J., & Fallon, A. E. (1991). The relationship between social network structure and marital satisfaction in distressed and non distressed couples: A pilot study. Family Therapy, 18, 101-114. Haynes, S. N., Floyd, F. J., Lemsky, C., Rogers, E., Winemiller, D., Heilman, N., et al. (1992). The marital satisfaction questionnaire for older persons. Psychological Assessment, 4, 473-482. Holahan, C. J., & Moos, R. H. (1991). Life stressors, personal and social resources, and depression: A 4-year structural model. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 31-38.

marital satisfaction. The practical applications of this center on potential interventions that facilitate midlife marital satisfaction. Masten (2001) describes the concept of compensatory effects; that is, having enough positive assets serves to counterbalance the adversities or challenges in a persons life. Family counselors could use this assumption to plan and implement developmental asset-building interventions, using techniques and methods to increase levels of adaptive appraisal, compensating experiences, and social support. If further research supports a causal relationship between the primary protective factors contributing to family resilience and midlife marital satisfaction, such findings could open new ways of helping couples adapt and adjust using methods that enhance, rather than interventions that attempt to fix that which is broken. Experimental research will need to be a next step to establish a causal relationship between the predictor and criterion variables investigated in the current study. Results relative to the secondary hypotheses point to further research in the area of family resilience. Clinical experience suggests that couples counseling tends to be the most effective setting for marital intervention. Further studies could investigate whether counseling with only one of the partners from a family resilience perspective could be equally efficacious. Perhaps, adding to one partners perceived level of protective factors could increase both partners resources and/or marital satisfaction. This notion was a partial intention of exploring the hypotheses associated with the secondary research questions comparing highlow to lowlow couples scores and is suggested for future research. The final analyses suggest the potential for future research to differentiate the salience of the three primary protective factors among different ethnic groups. Future research could be facilitative in helping family counselors to decide whether a certain protective factor may be of greater significance for couples of a specific ethnic group and add to the multicultural knowledge base within family counseling. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

References
Allen, K. R., Blieszner, R., & Roberto, K. A. (2000). Families in the middle and later years: A review and critique of research in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 911-926. Amerikaner, M., Monks, G., Wolfe, P., & Thomas, S. (1994). Family interaction and psychological health. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 614-620. Amato, P. R., & Hohmann-Marriott, B. (2007). A comparison of highand low-distress marriages that end in divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 69, 621-638. 144

Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012

Huber et al.
Kurdek, L. A. (2002). Predicting the timing of separation and marital satisfaction: An eight year prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 163-179. Lavee, Y., & Ben-Ari, A. (2003). Daily stress and uplifts during times of political tension: Jews and Arabs in Israel. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73, 65-73. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer. Leigh, G. (1982). Kinship interaction over the family life span. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 44, 197-208. Luthar, S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, R. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543-562. Luthar, S., & Zigler, E. (1992). Intelligence and social competence among high-risk adolescents. Development and Psychopathology, 4, 287-299. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227-238. Masten, A. S., & Reed, M. J. (2005). Resilience in development. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 74-88). New York: Oxford University Press. McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1991). Family stress theory and assessment. In H. I. McCubbin & A. I. Thompson (Eds.), Family assessment inventories for research and practice (pp. 294-312). Madison: University of Wisconsin. McCubbin, H. I., McCubbin, M. A., Thompson, A. I., & Thompson, E. A. (1995). Resiliency in ethnic families: A conceptual model for predicting family adjustment and adaptation. In H. I. McCubbin, E. A. Thompson, A. I. Thompson, & J. E. Fromer (Eds.), Resiliency in families (pp. 329-351). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. McCubbin, H. I., McCubbin, M. A., Thompson, A. I., Han, S. Y., & Allen, C. T. (1997). Families under stress: What makes them resilient? Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences, 89, 2-11. McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1981). Systematic assessment of family stress, resources, and coping: Tools for research, education, and clinical intervention. St. Paul, NM: Department of Family Science. McCubbin, H. I., Sussman, M. B., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). Social stress and the family advances and developments in family stress theory and research. New York: Hawthorne Press. McCubbin, M. A., Balling, K., Possin, P., Frierdich, S., & Byrne, B. (2002). Family resiliency in childhood cancer. Family Relations, 51, 103-111. McDonald, L., Kysela, G. Drummond, J., Martin, C., & Wiles, W. (1997). Assessment of the clinical utility of a family adaptation model. Journal of Family Studies, 3, 47-65.

145
Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2007). Stress crossover in newlywed marriage: A longitudinal and dyadic perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 41, 594-607. OBrien, T. B., & DeLongis, A. (1997). Coping with chronic stress: An interpersonal perspective. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Coping with chronic stress (pp. 161-190). New York: Plenum Press. Orbuch, T., House, J., Mero, R., & Webster, P. (1996). Marital quality over the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 162-171. Papalia, D. E., Olds, S. W., & Feldman, R. D. (2001). Human development (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw Hill. Patrick, S., Sells, J. N., Giordano, F. G., & Tollerud, T. R. (2007). Intimacy, differentiation, and personality variables as predictors of marital satisfaction. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 15, 359-367. Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 349-360. Rogge, R. M., & Bradbury, T. N. (1999). Recent advances in the prediction of marital outcomes. In R. Berger & M. T. Hannah (Eds.), Preventive approaches in couples therapy. Philadelphia, PA: Brunner/Mazel. Rowan, D. G., Compton, W. C., & Rust, J. O. (1995). Self-actualization and empathy as predictors of marital satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 77, 1011-1016. Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Eds.). (2000). Positive psychology [Special issue]. American Psychologist, 55, 1. Simon, J. B., Murphy, J. J., & Smith, S. M. (2005). Understanding and fostering family resilience. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 13, 427-436. Sweet, J.A., & Bumpass, L.L. (2002). The National Survey of Families and Households-Waves 1, 2, and 3: Data description and analyses. Madison, WI: Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin. Thibaut, J., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Voorpostel, M., & Blieszner, R. (2008). Intergenerational solidarity and support between adult siblings. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 70, 157-167. Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening family resilience. New York: Guilford. Walsh, F. (2002). A family resilience framework: Innovative practice applications. Family Relations, 51, 130-137. Walsh, F. (2006). Strengthening family resilience (2nd ed). New York: Guilford. Werner, E. E. (1993). Risk and resilience in individuals with learning disabilities: Lessons learned from the Kauai longitudinal study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 28-34.

145
Downloaded from tfj.sagepub.com at University of Bucharest on October 22, 2012