Children of the U.S. National Guard

Abstract

This qualitative study explored how 24 youths’ behaviors during deployment were influenced by their perceptions of their non-deployed parents. Interviews were conducted with youths of previously deployed National Guard parents. Analysis of interviews suggests that the youths’ interactions with their non-deployed parents strongly influence their behaviors during deployment. Examined through the lenses of family systems and symbolic interaction, youths appear to base their behaviors upon perceptions of their non-deployed parents’ abilities to cope and manage the changes brought about during deployment. The majority of youths report reacting in ways intended to help their parents and families—whether by stepping up and assisting their non-deployed parents, or withdrawing physically or emotionally to reduce the emotional strain on parents. Implications of findings are discussed.

Keywords

National Guard deployment qualitative military-connected youth symbolic interaction family systems

The United States’s military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan has involved a record number of troops, including National Guard and Reserve personnel (Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2012). Research indicates that these deployments present significant and stressful changes and challenges for the non-deployed parents and their children, especially adolescents (Lester et al., 2010). These stresses typically can include redefining household roles and responsibilities, as well as increased anxiety related to uncertainty regarding the safety of the deployed parent. Children of deployed parents are at higher risk for psychosocial disruption (Aranda, Middleton, Flake, & Davis, 2011) and increased behavior problems (Barker & Berry, 2009). Youths in National Guard families may be particularly vulnerable because they lack the resources such as access to Family Resource Centers available to active duty military families living on military posts. The lack of resources means that these families may be less prepared for deployments.

From a family systems perspective, families thrive on predictable patterns of functioning that maintain homeostasis of the system (Minuchin, Nichols, & Lee, 2007). This means that when changes caused by events such as deployment threatens the homeostasis of the family, family members will adjust their behaviors to adapt to the change and re-establish a sense of equilibrium. Youths in particular are likely to be vulnerable to the increased stresses during deployment when access to parental and emotional resources are threatened (Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2012). These youths may vary roles in this restructuring process with some becoming parentified as they assume responsibilities that may be vacated by the deployed parent, while others who are unable to manage threats from the changes functionally exit to avoid the situation (Minuchin et al., 2007). Such actions, often spontaneous and unplanned, could jeopardize the well-being of these youths. How youths orient their behaviors when family homeostasis is threatened during deployment is unknown.

An element that could further contribute to the ability of youths to manage deployment stress is the quality of emotional boundaries within the family (Minuchin et al., 2007). Parent–child boundaries that are flexible allow information to be mutually exchanged between parents and their children such that the needs of the children are known and met by parents. Flexible boundaries are healthy, allowing children to depend on parents when needed and be independent when ready. Rigid boundaries disallow mutual exchange of information. In this instance, information would flow one way from parents to children with children being silenced and not having a say in how the family functions. Children would then learn to wall themselves off as a way to protect their emotional selves. Enmeshed parent–child boundaries have negative consequences to emotional health. Here, the neediness of one party over-involves or manipulates the other party who then takes on an over-functioning role that could be enabling the former. Over-functioning refers to the taking on of roles and responsibilities of another in addition to one’s own roles and responsibilities (Kerr & Bowen, 1988). The act of over-functioning in itself may not be deleterious—it has the potential to accelerate youths’ development and foster growth and maturity. However, over-functioning can be burdensome, disturbing the normal trajectory of development.

Research indicates that youths’ adjustments to these deployment-related stresses are influenced by the mental health and functioning of the non-deployed parent (Lester et al., 2010), yet little is known about how youths perceive the changes in the parent or how they are impacted by those perceptions. The subjective meanings that youths impose on their observations of their non-deployed parents’ adjustment to deployment can serve as a major catalyst for their behaviors. Symbolic interaction theory (SIT) will be used to better understand how youths in National Guard families interpret symbols to give meaning to their environments (Blumer, 1969). According to SIT, these subjective meanings are developed through the interpretation of observed events and actions rather than objective truth (White & Klein, 2008). To explore youths’ perceptions of their non-deployed parents during deployment, and in particular, how they interpreted and made meaning of the parent–child dyadic interactions that then informed the child’s coping or adaptive behaviors, we asked the following questions: “How do youths perceive the behaviors/actions of their non-deployed parents during deployment?” and “How do youths respond to their non-deployed parents’ behaviors/actions during deployment?”

Deployment and Military-Connected Youths

In a study examining the relationship between youths and military deployment, Pfefferbaum, Houston, and Allen (2012) found that youths’ perceptions of potential or real change during a National Guard parent’s deployment affect the youths’ mental health and sense of burden for assuming extra roles and responsibilities. Their results also suggested that it is the prospect of change, rather than actual familial change that tends to leave youths more vulnerable to greater psychological and emotional problems. They noted that youths exhibiting greater likelihood of depression perceive intrapersonal and familial changes as negative, and thus are more likely to express greater negativity regarding degree of burden and care for family members.

Other studies have found that spouses during deployment are at increased risk of depression that may affect the mental health of youths (Jensen, Martin, & Watanabe, 1996). The deployment experience contributes to the non-deployed parent’s experience of loss and grief while attempting to assume new roles and responsibilities (Esposito-Smythers et al., 2011). The degree of parental depression, in turn, can shape youths’ perceptions of the effectiveness of parental monitoring (Yu et al., 2006). When youths perceive less parental involvement and monitoring, they may exhibit a reduced inclination to engage in communication. Research suggests that youths’ perceptions of their mothers’ depression are related to the development of emotional problems and behavioral issues (Goodman, Tully, Connell, Hartman, & Huh, 2011).

Furthermore, youths assessed to be higher on hopelessness are more likely to have negative perceptions of their parents’ communication and involvement (Yu et al., 2006). Depression in youth was found to be associated with reduced perception of the degree of parental openness in communication and less effective monitoring of the youth’s behaviors (Yu et al., 2006). Research further indicates that mother–child interactions in families with depressed youth are characterized by poorer quality and depth of communication, less warmth, and greater tension (Birmaher et al., 2004). Regardless of the mental status of parents, these studies suggest that parents affect youths. The process that leads to how they are affected is not yet studied but can perhaps be explained by symbolic interactionism (SI).

SI and Deployment

Three core elements of SI may provide insight into youths’ responses to their non-deployed parent’s behaviors. The first is that perceptions are real, leading to real consequences, even though there may be no external confirmatory evidence (Mead, 1934). Meaning arises in the process of interpersonal interactions, so youths’ perceptions of their parents and/or the situation will affect the meaning(s) they make of the situation. Youths’ subsequent actions will be based on those meanings, which shape the role(s) they then assume. Thus, persons do not just respond to their perceptions of what transpires around them but interpret the actions of others and reality through the symbols and shared social meanings of their culture (LaRossa & Reitzes, 1993). A second element of SI is that individuals continually strive to interpret and make meaning of the behavioral and linguistic symbols around them. As families negotiate profound changes throughout the deployment process, youths are confronted with making sense of the changing attitudes, emotions, and behaviors of the non-deployed parent. Last, SI conceptualizes role-taking and role-shaping as the product of how meaning is made of perceived environments. As youths strive to make meaning of their perceptions of family members’ behaviors and roles, their own self-concepts are formed which then shape the roles they assume (Matsueda, 1992). It is theorized that youths’ self-concept and role-taking are shaped by perception and interpretation of their non-deployed parent’s communication—both verbal as well as behavioral.

The social interactions within a family can provide greater understanding of how youths form a sense of self and adopt familial roles. Research indicates that persons form self-conceptions on the basis of their perceptions of others’ attitudes and actions toward them (Matsueda, 1992), and continued reinforcement of the perceptions help solidify these conceptions. SI is used to examine the social interactions between parents and youths, specifically the meanings youths make of their perceptions of these interactions.

Method

This qualitative research elicited the voices of youths that are often silenced. Individual in-person interviews helped provide youths with the space and the opportunity to tell their stories. The Institutional Review Board of Kansas State University approved this study.

Participants

Participants were elicited through the Operation Military Kids’ free Summer Camp program in a Midwest state. About half of the youth at the camp were members of the National Guard Youth Council. Council members are selected by their peers from the Guard units across the state. The camp attracted 36 youths. Camp participants who have had a parent deployed and who were attending the camp were invited to voluntarily participate in this study. Information about this study, invitation to participate, and consent forms were sent to camp participants and their parents prior to the camp. Participants did not receive monetary incentive.

Of the 36 youths that volunteered participation, only 24 discussed experiences with their non-deployed parents. These youths were 13 to 17 years of age (M = 14.70, SD = 1.26), 11 male and 13 female, 21 White, 2 mixed race, and 1 Other. Twenty-two youths shared information regarding their family structure: 18 lived with biological parents, 1 with adoptive parents, and 3 in stepfamilies. All youths were younger than 12 years of age when their parents first deployed. As such, this study captured experiences of deployment over time from childhood to adolescence. The average number of times youths’ parents had deployed was 2.33 (SD = 1.97; range = 1-8). The earliest recollection of one youth was at 5 years of age.

Data Collection

Data were collected at the second day of the weeklong camp. Youths were invited to engage in a brief mindfulness exercise followed by an art activity in which they drew their experience of deployment. Individual interviews (20-40 minutes each) were then conducted by a research team member using an interview guide. Sample questions included the following: “What changes did you see in yourself when your parent was deployed?” and “What was happening to other members of your family while you were feeling this way?” Youths also completed a demographic information sheet.

Youths were encouraged to meet with Military Family Life Consultants who were available throughout the duration of the camp for questions and to debrief the interview process. Both consultants, a Marriage and Family Therapist and a Social Worker, have had training and/or experience with military services and military families. The primary investigators were in contact with the camp administrator after all data were collected to ensure that youths who needed consultation received it. Parents were also informed to contact the camp administrator or the primary investigators as needed. No parents made such contact.

Data Analysis

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim prior to analysis. Data were analyzed by two research team members using Glaser’s (1978) substantive coding that consists of two phases—open and selective coding. The use of multiple analysts helped ensure confirmability and dependability of the findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The analysis was guided by the research questions. Ways in which youths described the behaviors/actions of their non-deployed parents during deployment and how youths responded to their non-deployed parents’ behaviors/actions were open coded using the constant comparative method. This coding method was used to identity core categories and their sub-categories.

Both researchers independently performed initial coding of the same transcript interview by identifying concepts and their properties, and capturing them in words or phrases that serve as labels for sections of the data. Researchers then met to discuss findings and collectively engaged in focused coding to identify patterns and overarching themes. Once core categories begin to emerge and no new categories were discovered, selective coding ensued. Here, data were filtered, and only data that were relevant to the emergent categories were included. Concepts that were related were combined to form sub-themes within larger themes.

The process of coding was performed with subsequent transcripts, where themes were triangulated—compared and contrasted across transcripts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to help ensure the credibility and trustworthiness of the findings. Credibility was further improved by including detailed narratives in the findings. Confirmability was also ensured by keeping an audit trail of the themes so as to enable tracing the themes back to the data. The themes that emerged from this reduction and clustering of concepts formed a comprehensive picture of the participants’ collective experience. In analyzing the data, close attention was paid to the language youths used to describe their experiences, the issues on which they focused, and the importance they attributed to specific issues.

Findings

Data analysis revealed several behaviors in response to perceptions of non-deployed parents. Youths responded to their non-deployed parent’s behaviors either through maintaining engagement or withdrawing. The behaviors described below were based on how the youths saw themselves and their roles in their families. For some, the role assumed during deployment was temporary, whereas others maintained their assumed roles even after the deployment ended. However, there was no indication that youths who changed roles during deployment returned to previous roles following deployment. In other words, once new roles were assumed, they were seldom, if ever, reversed. The youths either fully accepted the deployment role or assumed a role that was different from previous roles.

Maintained Engagement

Youths who maintained engagement did so by stepping up or carrying on. The former was synonymous with assuming additional responsibilities and the latter involved minimal changes.

Stepping up

Youths who maintained engagement by stepping up took on more responsibilities than normal. This was done to fill in gaps that youths perceived were left unattended by either parent. Four of the youths in this study reported “stepping up” because they felt like it was necessary for them to do so. As Chelsea put it, “I had to take care of my family.” Similarly, Ann stated, “I feel like I’m the leader, and I have to take care of everybody, and I like to take care of people so . . . ”

Those who took on more responsibilities often reported seeing how difficult the deployment was for their non-deployed parents. Cara, whose father was deployed, shared,

When it first started, she (mother) was just kind of uh, she really showed her depression.

She didn’t do much. She didn’t want to, she almost didn’t eat much. Like she ate, but it just seemed like she didn’t want to anymore. I, I feel like I just, you know was pushed into being more mature.

Carrying on

Although deployment was a time of change and challenge for many of the respondents, six reported minimal change in the home environment during the absence of their deployed parents. They reported that in their homes, it was important to maintain routines and to try to take a “business as usual” approach. For example, Nick reported that, “We just continue what our dad would like us to continue while he’s away.”

Youths reporting minimal change often indicated that it was their non-deployed parents who made it possible for them to continue functioning without the need for making significant changes. Michael, whose father was currently deployed, described this clearly,

She (mother) tried to, she didn’t do anything different, she stayed the same so that I would stay the same. She didn’t, she helped, like, doing stuff dad would do and she just kept doing all the stuff she would do so that I would not. ’Cause if like, maybe she would take me out to a movie every once in a while, that might have thrown me off track or something. But if she stayed the same it would help me.

These youths often saw their non-deployed parents as strong and attributed the relative stability to that strength. Michael continued to speak proudly of his mother’s strength: “But, she’s a really strong, independent woman, so, it was hard for her, but she got through it just like everyone else.”

For one youth whose father was deployed, carrying on with no major changes in his life meant little interaction with his mother, and this relationship did not improve during the deployment. Thomas reported, “I was bored and I always wanted to hang out with my friends because my dad was gone and it was just my mom, and her and I don’t really do a whole lot together.”

Withdrew

Youths who withdrew from family members seemed to do so for three general reasons: to protect their non-deployed parents from additional stress, to avoid unwanted and repeated conflict with their non-deployed parents, or because they could not count on garnering support from family members.

Protect

Of those who disengaged through withdrawal, four youths discussed withdrawing in an attempt to protect their non-deployed parents. These youths perceived their non-deployed parents as already stressed from the deployment and did not want to add further burden. This protective role compelled these youths to fend for themselves. Andrew, whose father was deployed stated, “I try not to talk about it around her (mother). ’Cause I don’t want her to get upset.” Several participants, including Andrew, reported taking care of themselves by isolating or physically distancing themselves from their non-deployed parents—listening to music in their bedrooms, getting out of the house, or speaking to counselors instead of their non-deployed parents. Andrew further stated, “Mom is weaker while dad is deployed . . . I don’t share what I’m thinking as much. I try not to talk about it around her.” Andrew reported having a counselor during deployment with whom he was able to share his experiences.

It was notable that in youths who experienced a deployment that occurred when they were younger, their ability to perceive their non-deployed parents’ mental states and respond accordingly was apparent. Julia, whose father was deployed when she was 5 years old, reported that she knew her mother was on medication for depression during the deployment. She interpreted her mother’s usage of medication during deployment as a sign of fragility: “She got really depressed after he (father) left . . . She had depression and she was on medication for it.” Given Julia’s age and limited resources, she attempted to not burden her mother further by playing outside: “I couldn’t stay in the house, like, I would go outside a lot.”

Reduce conflict

The fear of backlash led some youths to retreat from potential confrontations with their non-deployed parents as well as encounters with other family members. Those reporting these emotional backlashes indicated that they were more painful than the deployment. Following a discussion about his drawing depicting a bear cave as a symbol of deployment, Mark, whose father was deployed, commented, “If I like talked about stuff with my mom, about my dad being gone, or anything, she seemed to go a little hostile. Seemed like going into a bear cave, waiting for it to happen.”

By minimizing these encounters, youths seemed to be attempting to protect themselves from experiencing conflict with their non-deployed parents. Mark continued by stating, “Every time I talk about it, it seemed like tension got up, and every time I talk about it to my mom it was just leading to my own grave.” At 10 years of age, Mark realized that his mother’s hostility was the result of single parenthood with a newborn child during deployment. In his role of conflict diffuser, he would help with his newborn brother when he perceived his mother’s hostility had risen: “When my mom was angry, uh, we would help with my little brother.”

Three youths described withdrawing to prevent, or escape from increasing, conflict with their non-deployed parents. In describing her interactions with her mother, Mariah noted, “I couldn’t talk to mom without getting yelled at.” She reported withdrawing to reduce conflict by retreating to her bedroom and listening to music or physically leaving the house. She shared, “A good day? I wasn’t at home, and I wasn’t dwelling on it (deployment).”

Harriet withdrew from conflict with her mother by physically separating herself within the house. Harriet stated, “I just go downstairs and like I play my music.” However, Harriet’s experience was unique in that she also reported thinking of herself as a “momma’s girl.” She maintained engagement by spending time with her mother when the likelihood of conflict was low.

Lack of family support

The most common type of withdrawal among youths resulted from feelings and perceptions that no help or support was available from their non-deployed parents or other family members. Six youths reported distracting themselves from thinking about anything related to their parents’ deployment for this reason. With no perceived help from their parents, these actions were described as deliberate and intended to protect themselves from feeling intense emotions. Debbie stated, “I would just try to not think about it, try to do other things”—mentioning spending time with friends, going out for meals, or shopping as sources of distraction. Other youths utilized music, social media, and video games as means of escape from thoughts of the deployment.

Lisa reported releasing intense emotions by making the pain physical, “I didn’t really talk to people. When I got like, just things that would happen, I got like so depressed that I like started cutting myself.” She also noted that the deployment led to her parents getting a divorce. Therefore, it is plausible that the compounding of the anticipated loss from her parents’ divorce, as well as the actual loss from deployment, directly influenced her acts of self-harm.

Several youths compared their non-deployed parents with single parents with inadequate resources. Julie stated, “Well she was like a single mom when my dad was gone. So it was tough for her.” When Julie perceived her mom as being too distressed to help her process the deployment, she withdrew from talking about the deployment altogether: “We didn’t really talk about that. It was too sad.” Eric, who perceived his mother as being overloaded during deployment as the only parent in the home, stated, “Ah, she was carrying the load. She had to do most of the work. She had to take all the stuff from my little sister and my little brother. She had to deal with all of that.” With the perception that his mother was already overwhelmed with responsibilities, Eric avoided dwelling on the deployment by physically leaving the house. He shared, “Um, I felt like I left my family a lot more . . . I wasn’t around as much as I was at friend’s houses and I just didn’t care about being home.”

Discussion

This study explored how youths in National Guard families perceived the actions and behaviors of their non-deployed parents and how these perceptions subsequently influenced the youths’ own behaviors. Two patterns of response or interaction emerged from the data: some maintained or increased engagement with their non-deployed parents by either stepping up to assist their non-deployed parents and siblings, or else carrying on—making little if any change to their behaviors—while others withdrew from family interactions. Findings build upon and partially support previous research indicating that youths adapt their self-images and behaviors in congruence with their perceptions of the functioning and mental health of their non-deployed parents (Lester et al., 2010).

Youths appear to base their behaviors upon perceptions of non-deployed parents’ abilities to manage the changes brought about during deployment. Most youths reported reacting in ways that they perceived would help their parents and family. When they perceived that extra help was needed, they stepped up to assist their parents, while others removed themselves—emotionally and sometimes physically to reduce the burden on their parents. Although both types of behavioral responses may be construed as self-sacrificial in nature, it was not reported as such. Instead, the descriptions of their behaviors indicated they were doing what they thought was best for their families. What was particularly striking was that several youths indicated they withdrew from their families because they perceived there was no help available from family members. For these youths, deployment meant the loss of both parents—with one parent physically gone and one unavailable emotionally.

For youths who withdrew, the process of developing a new sense of self and learning a new role may have been more difficult or painful than avoiding that process—by immersing themselves into other, existing social roles (i.e., friends, athletics) in which there was minimal, if any, change. This may explain why some youths reported not informing their peers or teachers about their parents’ deployments. By increasing involvement in these extra-familial roles and systems, youths were able to maintain a sense of normalcy and balance (Minuchin et al., 2007) in these domains. The actions of these youth reflect their need to regain and maintain homeostasis. When something external happens to a family system and threatens stability, persons within the system reorient to regain stability (Minuchin et al., 2007). As they could not fight or change the deployment, youths withdrew or responded in a way that allowed the system to continue to function. For them, to return to some sort of stability meant finding what was safe. If they felt that they could not count on the non-deployed parent to keep them emotionally safe, they withdrew. If they felt that the non-deployed parent was stable, they maintained engagement. For those who stepped up, they did so to regain stability within the system.

It is possible that the type of boundaries between parents and youths facilitated or hindered youths’ engagement and withdrawal (Minuchin et al., 2007). Flexible boundaries may have provided youths more freedom to become engaged and step up, whereas rigid boundaries may have made it seem more difficult if not impossible for youths to step up. The quality of these boundaries can have important implications for youths’ emotional well-being. Youths in families with flexible boundaries who stepped up could have had more opportunities to interact with their non-deployed parents and receive emotional support. Youths who stepped up in response to the neediness of their non-deployed parents, from a strict systems theory perspective, may appear to be over-functioning. Although these youths may perceive themselves as close and helpful to their parents, they in turn did not receive much needed emotional support. In contrast, rigid boundaries that tend to create distance between people may put youths at risk of withdrawing and possibly seeking solace in unsafe environments.

The findings are further congruent with SI whereby persons not only learn their roles from one significant person or social group but over time learn to internalize the expectations of a larger group or society (Mead, 1934). Many of these youths have parents who had been in the National Guard for extended periods, and some mentioned the ethos of not talking about painful subjects. This refusal to allow emotions to surface in front of others may have shaped their unwillingness to discuss them with family or significant others, and may partially explain why they were willing to discuss their emotions confidentially with researchers and be so candid with their words and emotions.

As recent research indicates that National Guard parents’ deployments may leave youths with a sense of burden for assuming extra roles and responsibilities (Pfefferbaum et al., 2012), our initial expectation was that the absence of a parent would increase the likelihood of a child perceiving the need to help fill that void. However, in our sample, only a relatively small number mentioned stepping up to assume responsibilities or roles vacated by the deployed parent. It appears that it is not necessarily the size of the void that is left by the deployment, but rather the youths’ perceptions of the abilities and needs of the non-deployed parent that will dispose them to assuming extra roles and responsibilities.

In contrast, some youths reported that their non-deployed parents made considerable effort to assume extra responsibilities to stabilize their family systems and minimize the change and youths’ stress. When youths perceived their non-deployed parents as strong and competent, allowing them to stay as close as possible to previous routines, they described their lives as undergoing minimal changes during deployment, and acknowledged the efforts of their non-deployed parents to maintain stability. Youths in these families perceived their non-deployed parents as stepping up to meet physical and emotional needs and carry extra responsibilities, demonstrating determination to make it through deployment.

In contrast, when youths perceived their non-deployed parents as weak or that no help was available, they reported giving up and withdrawing, turning within themselves or to outside sources for emotional support. Parental coping, and especially emotional coping, appears to impact youths’ coping styles. These youths appear to base their coping styles on their non-deployed parents’ coping styles, and oriented their behaviors accordingly. This observation is reflective of SI which theorizes that most behavior is non-reflective, arising from ones adapting to repeated or habitual interactions with a person or group (Matsueda, 1992).

These findings provide further insight into how non-deployed parents’ behavior and communication with youths during deployment may be misperceived and misinterpreted by youths and support a study by Houston, Pfefferbaum, Sherman, Melson, and Brand (2013). The researchers suggested that communication quality from parent to child may decrease as a result of non-deployed parents having greater household responsibilities or being less available emotionally. It appears that the stress of adjusting to deployment contributes to youths’ propensity to misinterpret and personalize parents’ behaviors (Cook & Douglas, 1998; Matsueda, 1992; Schaeffer, 1965).

Limitations

Although this study is one of the few that provides insight into the world of children of military personnel, it is not without limitations. The small sample size and the focus on only a sub-group of military-connected youth—about half of the participants were National Guard Youth Council members that are more likely to be informed of and involved in activities for military-connected families—limit the generalizability of the findings. Furthermore, some participants were younger than 12 years of age when their parents first deployed and their memories of the experience may have been influenced by stories they were told about the experience. Additional research that follows military-connected youths and their parents over time as they experience multiple deployments could help expand the scope of the study. Including both parents’ and youths’ perceptions of deployment can also provide more holistic accounts of youths’ process of deployment.

Implications

This study has multiple implications especially for parents and school systems. These elements were reported by participants as having the largest impact on their ability to adapt and cope during their parents’ deployments.

Parental Preparedness

Preparation and training for parents whose National Guard partners will soon be deploying need to incorporate proactive and responsive parental communication skills. Youths whose non-deployed parents are able to clearly articulate their intentions and expectations of them are less likely to misinterpret the communication and respond positively to the changes in the family system. Adjustment issues are less likely to arise when communication regarding roles and expectations are clear and consistent (Houston et al., 2013).

As many non-deployed parents may be likely to experience some degree of depression or anxiety during the deployment, it would be helpful if parents could be made aware of the importance of the non-verbal aspects of their communication. Our respondents indicated that it was often the emotional overtones and actions of their parents, rather than the words, that led them to perceive the need to emotionally, if not physically, distance themselves. In the early stages of deployment, and especially during a first deployment, youths are particularly observant of the non-deployed parents’ verbal and non-verbal communication, watching for clues as to the meaning the absence of the deployed parent has for them and their families. Youths who had experienced multiple deployments knew more what to expect in terms of the process and had some previous coping patterns established, but there was little discernible difference in their responses. Perhaps because they were older and understood more of what could happen, their parents’ behaviors still played a role in their adjustment.

Communication goes two ways. Sensitizing non-deployed parents to their children’s responses, especially after the parent deploys, could help ensure clearer communication with children. It is important for parents and professionals to realize that, regardless of how youths in this study responded to their non-deployed parents and the deployment situation, they often had the same perceptions and generally the same intentions, which was to reduce the non-deployed parents’ burden. Thus, a child who withdraws from familial interaction may be misperceived as depressed or failing to cope, when from their perspective, they are striving to help their non-deployed parents and even their siblings by attempting to reduce the stress on others.

Youths need to be better equipped for the changes that lie ahead. This could begin by making them aware of the dynamics of how the physical absence of a parent will likely affect them and others in their family systems. In addition, as a relatively large number of participants sensed a lack of family support or ability to help them during the deployment, some type of preparation needs to be developed for these youths—to ensure that they can seek the help they need from sources outside the family.

School Support

Many youths reported that school was either a source of refuge or stress, depending on needs and expectations. For some, the stability of no change in one aspect of life—school friends and activities—meant that they preferred to keep it quiet and did not want teachers or peers to be aware of their parent’s deployment. For other youths, informed and sensitized teachers, counselors, and administrators would have been helpful. In efforts to prepare deploying personnel and their families, it would be helpful if materials could be made available for parents to give to their children’s school regarding the impending deployment if they so choose. This leaves the decision of whether or not to inform the school to each family, but should the parents perceive it would be helpful for their child(ren), such preparation materials could be beneficial.

This is especially critical because the children of most National Guard personnel do not attend schools on military posts, and civilian educators may not be professionally trained or prepared to assist youths in dealing with the stresses of deployment. Even if the family requests that nothing be announced about the deployment, awareness would enable teachers to more closely monitor classroom discussions and activities, as well as to be sensitized to changes in behavior or affect.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by the College of Human Ecology, Kansas State University, Manhattan.

Author Biographies

David Thompson, PhD, is an assistant professor in the School of Family Studies and Human Services at Kansas State University. His research interests include helping families improve communication and effectively deal with conflict.

Joyce Baptist, PhD, LCMFT, is an associate professor in Marriage and Family Therapy at Kansas State University. She studies couples and family relationship maintenance including military families and other under-served groups, and clinical treatment for trauma and depression.

Bryant Miller, BS, is a master’s candidate in the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at Kansas State University. His research and clinical interests include assisting children, couples, and families build and maintain healthy relationships.

Una Henry, MA, LCMFT, is a doctoral candidate in Marriage and Family Therapy at Kansas State University. She studies adolescent identity development and behavioral outcomes. She works clinically with adolescents and their families.

References

Aranda

C. M.

Middleton

L. S.

Flake

Davis

B. E.

(2011). Psychosocial screening in children with wartime deployed parents. Military Medicine, 176, 402-407.

Barker

L. H.

Berry

K. D.

(2009). Developmental issues impacting military families with young children during single and multiple deployments. Military Medicine, 174, 1033-1040.

Birmaher

Bridge

J. A.

Williamson

D. E.

Brent

D. A.

Dahl

R. E.

Axelson

D. A.

. . .Ryan

N. D.

(2004). Psychosocial functioning in youths at high risk to develop major depressive disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 839-846.

Blumer

(1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cook

W. L.

Douglas

E. M.

(1998). The looking-glass self in family context: A social relations analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 12, 299-309.

Esposito-Smythers

Lemmon

K. M.

Wolff

Bodzy

Swenson

R. R.

Spirito

(2011). Military youth and deployment cycle: Emotional health consequences and recommendations for interventions. Journal of Family Psychology, 4, 497-507.

Glaser

B. G.

(1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

Goodman

S. H.

Tully

Connell

A. M.

Hartman

C. L.

Huh

(2011). Measuring children’s perceptions of their mothers’ depression: The Children’s Perceptions of Others Depression Scale–Mother Version. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 163-173.

Houston

J. B.

Pfefferbaum

Sherman

M. D.

Melson

A. G.

Brand

M. W.

(2013). Family communication across the military deployment experience: Child and spouse report of communication frequency and quality and associated emotions, behaviors, and reactions. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 18, 103-119.

10.

Jensen

P. S.

Martin

Watanabe

(1996). Children’s response to parental separation during Operation Desert Storm. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 433-441.

11.

Kerr

M. E.

Bowen

(1988). Family evaluation. New York, NY: Norton.

12.

Lara-Cinisomo

Chandra

Burns

R. M.

Jaycox

L. H.

Tanielian

Ruder

Han

(2012). A mixed-method approach to understanding the experiences of non-deployed military caregivers. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16, 374-384.

13.

LaRossa

Reitzes

D. C.

(1993). Symbolic interactionism and family studies. In Boss

P. G.

Doherty

W. J.

LaRossa

Schumm

W. R.

Steinmetz

S. K.

(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 135-163). New York, NY: Plenum.

14.

Lester

Peterson

Reeves

Knauss

Glover

Mogil

. . .Beardslee

(2010). The long war and parental combat deployment: Effects on military children and at-home spouses. Journal of the Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 49, 310-320.

15.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

16.

Matsueda

R. L.

(1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1577-1611.

17.

Mead

G. H.

(1934). Mind, self, and society ( Morris

, Introduction and Ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

18.

Minuchin

Nichols

M. P.

Lee

W. Y.

(2007). Assessing families and couples: From symptom to system. Boston, MA: Pearson.

19.

Pfefferbaum

Houston

J. B.

Allen

S. F.

(2012). Perception of change and burden in children of National Guard troops deployed as part of the global war on terror. International Journal of Emergency Mental Health, 14, 291-305.

20.

Schaeffer

E. S.

(1965). Children’s reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development, 29, 339-361.

21.

White

J. M.

Klein

D. M.

(2008). Family theories (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

22.

Clemens

Yang

Stanton

Deveaux

. . .Harris

(2006). Youth and parental perceptions of parental monitoring and parent-adolescent communication, youth depression, and youth risk behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality, 34, 1297-1310.