The role of contextual factors in family cohesion under high intensity of adverse events

Bibliographic Data

ID22035155
AuthorsM Odintsova (0000-0003-3106-4616, Moscow State University of Psychology & Education), M A Odintsova (Moscow State University of Psychology & Education), Наталья Павловна Радчикова (0000-0002-5139-8288, Moscow State University of Psychology & Education), N P Radchikova (Moscow State University of Psychology & Education), N V Kozyreva (0000-0001-6635-0925, Belarussian State Pedagogical University Named After Maxim Tank)
Year2025
Volume16
Issue4
Pages90-108
Publication date2025-12-30
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueSocial Psychology and Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2221-1527 • E-ISSN: 2311-7052
PublisherMoscow State University of Psychology and Education (PUBLISHER • RU)
DOI10.17759/sps.2025160406
OpenAlexW7117566271
LanguageEN
References cited33

Context and relevance. Modern families increasingly face adverse difficult life events (DLEs) of varying intensity. However, the capacity of families to maintain cohesion — defined as emotional closeness and the ability to overcome difficulties together — under such conditions, while accounting for contextual factors at different levels, remains insufficiently studied. Objective . Examine the role of contextual factors in shaping family relationships under conditions of high-intensity adverse events. Hypothesis . It was assumed that cultural context (macro-level), the specificity and severity of adverse events (meso-level), and emotional communication in parental families together with coping strategies (micro-level) would have differential effects on family relationships. Methods and materials. The study involved 2119 adults from Russia ( N = 1171; 55,3%) and Belarus ( N = 945; 44,6%), aged 18–86 years ( M = 31,6; SD = 12,7); 82,1% were women. The macro-context (connection with culture) was assessed using the projective technique “Space of Trees and Light”; the meso-context was evaluated through the types and severity of adverse family events; and the micro-context was assessed using the COPE-30 and Family Emotional Communications instruments. Family relationship dynamics were measured using the Family Resilience Assessment Scale, where respondents indicated whether ties after an adverse event had “become closer,” “remained the same,” or “become more distant”. Results . Most respondents from Russia and Belarus perceived their culture as a solid foundation supporting the maintenance of family ties. The severity of adverse events was associated with either the strengthening or deterioration of relationships. Dysfunctional parental family patterns (criticism, emotional suppression) were linked to greater likelihood of reporting more distant family ties after an adverse event. Loss emerged as the only type of DLE that neutralized the negative impact of family dysfunctions. Active coping and the search for social support were identified as key resources for strengthening family ties when adverse events occurred, even in the context of negative parental family experiences. Conclusions . Changes in family relationships following adverse life events depend on a complex interplay of contextual factors, including cultural affiliation, type and severity of the event, emotional communication in the parental family, and coping strategies employed

Adverse effect · Closeness · Dysfunctional family · Family member · Psychological resilience · Attachment and Relationship Dynamics · Family and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units · Psychology of Development and Education

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access