Natural disasters and the relational study of the family: A 2-decade scoping review

The Loss in Connection with Catastrophes (LICCS) Scale: Understanding couple outcomes

“…One of the primary purposes of the development of the LICCS was to provide a flexible framework of items with theoretical structure to allow for this assessment to be adapted across losses from disasters and catastrophes in research and intervention work. Additionally, this instrument was designed with the furthering of dyadic and relational studies in mind as the dynamic nature of the effect of disaster on relational systems is becoming clarified (see Witting et al, 2020 for a review; see also Williamson et al, 2021).…”

“…As it stands, the faring of couples' relationships using dyadic data is an understudied area within mass trauma and catastrophe research. Within the last two decades, there are only a few studies we are aware of utilizing data from both members of a couple to explore outcomes in a disaster situation (Canevello et al, 2016a, 2016b; Gallagher et al, 2017; Marshall et al, 2017; Monson et al, 2009), most of which utilized posttraumatic stress symptoms as a key variable (see Witting et al, 2020 for a full review). This scarcity in the literature is problematic for at least two reasons: (a) the premise that relationships are a “major vehicle” in the transport and receipt of resources makes the understanding and support of relationship quality during crisis of utmost importance to recovery, and (b) a continued over‐focus on individual mental health symptoms is unlikely to yield substantially more than the well‐established finding that a minority of individuals exposed to disasters tend to develop long‐term mental health distress (Bonanno et al, 2010).…”

“…Along these same lines, Marshall et al (2017) followed couples longitudinally after earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand. They noted complicated patterns of posttraumatic stress as it related to marital quality over time, again showing potentially gendered effects in the way posttraumatic stress linked with marital quality (see Witting et al, 2020 for a review). Finally, Canevello et al's work (2016a, 2016b) has focused less on symptoms and directly on posttraumatic growth as a dyadic process in the disaster context.…”

Facing the heat: A descriptive review of the literature on family and community resilience amidst wildfires and climate change

“…In the immediate aftermath, multifamily groups and social gatherings boosted resilience by creating a space to share accounts and emotions regarding the disaster, pool and mobilize rebuilding efforts, express spirituality plus faith, find and offer support or entertainment, mourn the losses and weave a collective story of resilience and hope (Broms, 2012;Kaniasty, 2020;Walsh, 2016b). Many authors explored these efforts, that included traditional celebrations and festivals, connecting members through volunteer work, community or religious organizations, partnerships (e.g., health authorities, mental health professionals, schools, universities, stakeholders, politicians) (13 papers, 14.1%; e.g., Cisternas & Contreras, 2018;Golding et al, 2020;Osofsky & Osofsky, 2018;Witting et al, 2021), and local resilience planning groups (Baxter, 2019). Broms (2012) detailed work done by the Ersta Association for Diaconal Work (a charitable non-profit organization that provides health care, social services, education, and research) after the 2004 earthquake and tsunami in Indonesia with Swedish youth survivors towards recovery and resilience.…”

Sense of community and anxiety during a global pandemic: The role of world assumptions in couples

“…In addition, partners influence one another in that the affective state of one partner can be shared with the other via their interaction, or as they experience a stressor together (Bolger et al., 1989). Although it is important to understand the inter‐resonance of couple processes with respect to mental health outcomes, current scholarly work incorporating data from more than one partner to examine consequences of large‐scale stressors (i.e., disasters) is infrequent (see Banford Witting et al., 2020 for a review). As such, the current study was designed to contribute to burgeoning relationship‐oriented research surrounding the pandemic's impact (see Banford Witting et al., 2021).…”