Communicative predictors of social network resilience skills during the transition to college

Abstract

Persisting in college requires resilience for emerging adults, who must adapt to a new culture with different norms. Many also struggle with financial pressure, mental health issues, and interpersonal stressors. This longitudinal study proposes and tests a model of the communication factors that predict social network resilience skills during the transition to college. A sample of 436 first-year college students in the Mountain West region of the United States reported their family communication patterns, perceived friend and family support, communication confidence, and social network resilience skills (SNRS) at two points in time. Model testing revealed that friend support, family support, and communication confidence mediate the positive effect of conversation orientation on SNRS. Friend support mediates the positive effect of conformity orientation on SNRS. Theoretical implications for the Communication Theory of Resilience and Family Communication Patterns Theory are discussed.

Keywords

College students family family communication patterns resilience social networks support transition

Although often conceptualized as a trait, emerging research illustrates the ways in which people can engage in resilience through interaction (Buzzanell & Houston, 2018). Indeed, communication is a fundamental component in reconceptualizing resilience to be behavior-focused instead of innate (Buzzanell, 2018a). This trend is important considering people who demonstrate resilient behaviors experience a variety of advantageous outcomes such as overcoming mental health issues (Eisenberg et al., 2016) and persistence in college (Leary & DeRosier, 2012). Emerging adults, despite dedicated interventions, commonly experience stress, mental health issues, and interpersonal upheaval during the transition to college (Dyson & Renk, 2006). The transition to college requires that all incoming students learn a new culture including a “foreign set of norms, traditions, and rituals, and a new language and environment” (Hunter, 2006). Recognizing that different groups of students face far more adversity than others, all students stand to benefit from resilience skills when coping with the transition to college (Bowman, 2010). For this study, we conceptualize resilience as an interactive “process of meaning making through everyday messages and stories that enable reintegration from life’s disruptions” (Lucas & Buzzanell, 2012, p. 190). We posit that the ability to enact resilience develops over time and that its development is intimately tied to communicative factors (i.e., factors based on or tied to communication) such as the communication environment people grow up in, their confidence in communicating, and the supportive communication they perceive from friends and family.

The primary goal of this manuscript is to test an integrated model of the predictors (e.g., friend/family support, family communication patterns) of social network resilience skills (SNRS) in the context of students transitioning to college in the Mountain West region of the United States (US). SNRS include utilizing and maintaining social networks to engage in the process of resilience (Buzzanell, 2010). The model is integrative because it brings together existing theories and frameworks (e.g., family communication patterns (FCP), resilience theorizing, social support) to explain how communicative factors contribute to emerging adults’ SNRS.

Communicative resilience during the transition to college

A common but challenging transition for emerging adults (i.e., people between 18–25 years-old; Arnett, 2000) is the transition to college (Hunter, 2006). Almost half of the undergraduate students currently enrolled in US universities will not graduate within 6 years (National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, 2015). Of those 9.5 million students, 30% will drop out of college in their first year, motivating university administrators to focus on successful transitions and retention (Beckstead, 2017; Krause et al., 2005). Retention factors include students’ ability to engage in resilience and build/maintain enduring personal resources such as supportive relationships and communication skills (Upcraft et al., 2005). The focus on resilience is apt, considering research suggests that resilience is a better predictor of college adjustment than high school grade point average, SAT scores, and levels of life stress (Fassig, 2004). Students who demonstrate resilience are more likely to adapt to their college environment than their less resilient peers (Banyard & Cantor, 2004). Avery and Daly (2010) recommend that building resilience and strong social ties are the best way to increase equitable degree attainment.

Better understanding resilience during times of transition is becoming increasingly important. Indeed, emerging adult mental health issues, especially in college student populations, have been growing steadily; some estimate that about one-third of undergraduates have clinically significant mental health issues such as anxiety and depression (Eisenberg et al., 2013). Researchers have concluded that lack of resilience is a primary factor that contributes to what many consider a mental health crisis (Gabriel, 2010). Eisenberg and his colleagues (2016) advocate that to increase retention and assuage some mental health issues, student affairs professionals need to consider focusing on helping students acquire resilience skills during the transition to college.

Resilience is a communicative process that evolves and continues over the life course (Buzzanell, 2018b; Masten, 2001). Taking a lifespan approach to resilience is important considering periods of transition, such as the transition from adolescence to emerging adulthood, often come with increased responsibility that amplifies the risk of distress (Arnett, 2014; Mirowsky & Ross, 2001). Transitions involve significant demands for successful adjustment to new social settings and increasing social competencies (Conger & Conger, 2002). Resilience processes identified by previous research attend to these stress-inducing demands.

The communicative theory of resilience

Buzzanell’s (2018a) Communicative Theory of Resilience explains how people use various resources to attain a “new normal” for their lives after facing adversity and hardship. Buzzanell (2010, 2018a) identified five resilience strategies families and family members use to create that “new normal.” First, Buzzanell (2010) explains that people engage in crafting normalcy, or talking normalcy into being. For example, a student might insist that working, attending class, and maintaining a social life is “normal” during this stage of their life in order to get through the lack of sleep and busy schedule. Affirming identity anchors focuses on highlighting meaningful identities that are not changing such as “sister” or “friend” in the face of dynamic social identities like the move from “teen” to “adult” (Buzzanell, 2018a). People who maintain and use their communication networks harness social capital to fill important roles such as “supportive friend.” The process of engaging alternative logics involves thinking about circumstances differently, even if the new ways of thinking do not make logical sense. A student might recognize asking their boss for more flexibility is a good financial decision even though they need consistent pay from their job. Finally, legitimizing negative feelings while foregrounding productive action requires people to look forward and think about their next steps without forgetting the pain and stress they have gone through to this point. A student might brainstorm ways to be more efficient with their time while recognizing their busy schedules are contributing to their distress.

Our interest as communication scientists lies with understanding communicative aspects of the process of resilience that require coordination with others. These strategies include reaching out to social networks when faced with a problem, talking with others to help make sense of stressful events, and reframing negative life events as positive learning experiences through conversation with others. The model proposed and tested here focuses on the communicative resilience skill of utilizing and maintaining social networks (i.e., SNRS) based on the work of Buzzanell (2010, 2018a). We have chosen to focus on maintaining social networks because it is a resilience process that has consistently been recognized in previous communicative resilience literature in the face of different challenges (e.g., Dorrance Hall, 2018). Buzzanell and Houston (2018) suggested that social connections and support might be a “cross-cutting resilience component” (p. 26). The model proposed here is concerned with understanding the factors that lead to the use of SNRS (e.g., reaching out to social networks when in need), recognizing that the use of SNRS likely predict adjustment to college in turn (Banyard & Cantor, 2004; Fassig, 2004).

Family communication patterns theory

Existing research has helped both scholars and practitioners recognize the importance of studying and building resilience, illuminating both its sources (i.e., antecedents) and outcomes (Conger & Conger, 2002). Specifically, researchers have overwhelmingly identified cognitive factors (e.g., self-regulation; Nota et al., 2004), family environments and perceived social support (e.g., from family and friends; Afifi, 2018; Conger et al., 1992, 1993; Simons et al., 1994) as important factors that influence resilience. Yet, family environments are not only comprised of cognitive and emotional components. A large literature from the field of communication suggests that an open communication climate influences a myriad of outcomes such as how (a) adaptable children are to interpersonal situations (Ledbetter, 2009), (b) much interpersonal skill and confidence in communicating they possess (Schrodt et al., 2007), (c) emerging adults adjust to college (Dorrance Hall et al., 2016), and (d) motivated and able they are to seek supportive communication (High & Scharp, 2015). Balanced family functioning (operationalized by a ratio of family cohesion and flexibility) is positively associated with resilience (Carr & Koenig Kellas, 2018). Furthermore, FCPs have been linked to resilience in high school students through emotional intelligence, foreshadowing the usefulness of FCPs in understanding the development of resilience in an academic context (Sabri et al., 2015).

FCP theory captures how families create a shared view of reality. FCPs influence children long after they leave their parents’ home by shaping their perceptions of social environments and developing protective social factors including modeling interaction and conflict management strategies and integrating children into supportive peer networks (Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 2005). Cole et al. (2009) argue that one of the most important determinants of students’ ability to successfully transition to college is their family environment, mainly the communication climate established before the transition. Some scholars even argue that the family communication environment is itself a protective factor that contributes to resilience (Bryan, 2005).

Families communicate in relatively predictable ways that constitute patterns of communication. These patterns are captured in two orientations; conversation orientation and conformity orientation (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Conversation orientation refers to whether parents encourage or discourage open communication about a variety of topics. Children who come from high conversation-oriented families perceive they could talk to their parents, even if they choose not to bring up an issue. To date, research broadly suggests that parents who foster a more open communication environment have children who are more motivated to manage their conflict (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997) and more motivated to seek supportive communication when experiencing distress for moderate to severe problems (High & Scharp, 2015). This is likely due to the encouragement of discussion and expression of emotions and ideas in high conversation orientation families (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Important in this study, research suggests that students who report high conversation orientation experience less student adjustment concerns and have a more positive overall perception of the impact of the college transition on their lives (Dorrance Hall & Scharp, 2018).

Family conformity orientation is marked by homogeneous attitudes, beliefs, and values among family members (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Children from high conformity families often lack the ability to effectively deal with challenges in their lives because they might choose to avoid discussing or resolving conflict and might not seek support (Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 2005). Although family conformity orientation yields inconsistent outcomes across the literature (Horstman et al., 2018), research particular to student adjustment suggests that coming from a high conformity family could facilitate productive outcomes. For example, High and Scharp (2015) found that college students with moderate to severe problems were more motivated to seek supportive communication when they came from high conformity families. With regard to student adjustment, students from high conformity-oriented families had more positive perceptions about the transition to college (Dorrance Hall & Scharp, 2018) and reported higher academic self-efficacy and less loneliness (Dorrance Hall et al., 2016). Taken together, it is possible that high conformity facilitates the transition to college for emerging adults.

A growing number of scholars argue that extant research fails to acknowledge the importance of time in the resilience process (e.g., Nota et al., 2004). For example, Conger and Conger (2002) argue that families influence resilience largely through processes that change over time. Indeed, parents who are nurturing and involved in their young children’s lives tend to have adolescent children who suffer fewer negative consequences when faced with significant adversity (Masten, 2001). Based on the need to capture the effect of FCPs on resilience over time, we propose that these orientations, as measured before entering college, will be linked to resilience during the first semester of college.

H1: Family (a) conversation orientation and (b) conformity orientation will be positively related to SNRS in the first semester of college.

Social support and communication confidence

Unlike FCPs which pertains to a social environment marked by where families fall on conversation and conformity orientations, social support is a key interpersonal process that helps people in need to cope with problems, manage emotions, and maintain a positive sense of self (Burleson, 2003). When provided in the form of encouragement, appreciation, or advice, social support might help emerging adults handle transition-related challenges by bolstering self-esteem or provide needed resources (e.g., information, money). This logic is based on homesickness research that suggests that social support, especially from family and friends, helps students adjust to their new situation, especially when they perceive the availability of support throughout the transition (Tognoli, 2010). Supportive social connections broadly are influential factors that promote resilience in emerging adults (Leary & DeRosier, 2012). For example, Conger and Conger found that resilience was promoted by both family support and support from social network members outside of the family (Conger & Conger, 2002).

In addition to perceptions of support from friends and family, communication apprehension, or the lack thereof, might be an important communicative factor that influences resilience. Communication apprehension is the extent to which people feel anxious when communicating with others in social situations. Our focus is on the resilience benefits associated with low communication apprehension (i.e., communication confidence; a state marked by a lack of anxiety about communicating with others and feeling confident in social situations). Avoiding or overcoming communication apprehension is a protective factor during the transition to college (Dorrance Hall & Scharp, 2018). For example, emerging adult communication skill and confidence has been linked to leadership, adaptability, and multicultural appreciation (Blume et al., 2013). Furthermore, Hawken et al. (1991) found that low communication apprehension was associated with better roommate rapport and better academic performance. College students who are less apprehensive about communicating are also less likely to drop out of school (Ericson & Gardner, 1992). Adolescents who have higher communication confidence are better able to cope and achieve their goals (Ewart et al., 2002). Because social support and communication confidence can facilitate transition factors, we pose our next hypothesis:

H2: Family support (a), friend support (b), and communication confidence (c) at two time points (the spring before starting college and during the first semester) will be positively related to SNRS during the first semester of college.

Linking FCPs and resilience through support and communication confidence

In addition to directly influencing resilience, existing research and theorizing point to the explanatory role of personal resources such as social support and communication confidence during transition periods (see Figure 1). It is likely that FCPs do not only directly influence SNRS, but also work through pro-social factors such as facilitating supportive relationships and increased communication confidence to influence an emerging adults’ SNRS. Empirical evidence supports this logic. Perceived social support also has been identified as an influential mediator between risk/protective factors and resilience. For example, Masten (2001) found that parent support for their children mediates the relationship between risk factors (e.g., economic pressure) and resilience. Indeed, the function of family support (i.e., parent and sibling) as a mediator has been established in a myriad of longitudinal resilience studies (e.g., Conger et al., 1994; Conger et al., 1992, 1993). Children from high conversation oriented families have lower communication apprehension when providing supportive communication about relationship concerns (Koesten, 2004; Koesten & Anderson, 2004). Given the function of support and communication confidence as mediators in previous research, we pose our final hypothesis:

Figure 1.

Conceptual model of the communicative predictors of social network resilience skills (SNRS) during the transition to college. Note: Friend Support T1 → SNRS T2 not pictured. SNRS at T1 was included as a covariate.

H3: Family support (a), friend support (b), and communication confidence (c) will mediate the relationship between conversation orientation and SNRS.

When other explanatory factors (e.g., mediators) are included in the equation, results surrounding the effects of conformity orientation become more varied. For example, whereas some studies have found that high conformity is helpful in seeking supportive communication (High & Scharp, 2015), others have found the opposite (Fitzpatrick & Koerner, 2005). Schrodt et al. (2008) meta-analysis illustrated that conversation is generally a stronger predictor than conformity orientation on a variety of outcomes. Based on these varied outcomes, we pose the following research question:

RQ1: Do (a) family support (b), friend support, and (c) communication confidence mediate the relationship between conformity orientation and social network resilience?

In addition to our hypotheses, we also are interested in the relationships between personal resources (i.e., cross-lag paths). For example, it is likely that family support just before starting college will positively predict family support perceived during the first semester college as supportive families tend to stay supportive. It is also likely that communication confidence will remain relatively stable across the transition, but it is less clear what relationship friend support before college (i.e., likely focused on high school friends) will have with friend support during the first semester (i.e., likely focused on new college friends). Consequently, we ask:

RQ2: How do perceived family support, friend support, and communication confidence influence each other over time?

Method

Participants included 436 first-year students at a public university in the Mountain West region of the US. With Institutional Review Board approval (IRB), participants were surveyed as they signed up for orientation in the spring before their first year and again in November during their first semester of college. Of the 3,947 students who signed up for orientation, 2,252 students (57%) completed the survey and consented to include their data in this study. Although all students were required to take this survey for University purposes, students were able decide whether their responses could be used for research by opting-in or out. In November, participants were recruited via emails sent to all first-year students through the Office of Student Affairs. Time 1 and 2 data were matched using student identification numbers. The retention rate from spring to the November survey (N = 436) was 19.4%. No incentives were offered to students to take either survey, likely resulting in low retention rates. Participants had to be over the age of 18 and were only included in this study if they completed both online surveys, which were 20 minutes each. Participants were 65.1% female, 31.7% male, .2% other, and 3% missing. The majority of students were White (89.9%), followed by 2.8% Hispanic, 1.4% African American/Black, 1.1% Asian, 0.9% chose not to disclose, .9% other, 3% missing. In addition, 7.3% of participants were first generation students (i.e., the first in their immediate family to attend college). These demographics are similar to the overall student population (54% female, 82% White, 15% first generation).

Measures

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted on all measures. A measurement model including all variables and indicators was also tested. To assess model fit, three fit indices were used: 1) the model chi-square and degrees of freedom, 2) the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and 3) the comparative fit index (CFI). Good model fit was determined when the Chi-square value was not significant, the RMSEA was below .08, and the CFI values were above .90 (Bollen, 1989; Hu & Bentler, 1999). All scales that included measurement at time one (T1) before starting college and time two (T2) during the first semester of college were tested in a second order CFA where T1 and T2 were treated as two sub-scales of one overall construct for the CFAs only.

FCP (measured at T1)

Conversation orientation was measured using five items tapping the conversation orientation dimension from the Revised Family Communication Patterns Short Form measure (RFCP-SF; Wilson et al., 2014). Conversation orientation items include: “I can tell my parents almost anything,” and “I really enjoy talking to my parents, even when we disagree.” All items were measured with a Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (M = 3.57, SD = .89). This model fit the data well, χ² (3) = 4.96, p = .18, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04 (.00–.09) and was reliable (α_T1 = .89).

Conformity orientation was measured using six items tapping the conformity orientation dimension of FCP theory (RFCP-SF; Wilson et al., 2014). Conformity orientation items include: “In my family, my parents usually have the last word,” and “My parents often say things like “There are some things that just shouldn’t be talked about.” “All items were measured with a Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree (M = 2.59, SD = .75). This model had adequate fit, χ² (9) = 38.53, p < .001, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .09 (.06–.11) and was reliable (α_T1 = .81).

Family support (measured at T1 and T2)

Family support was measured using four items from Zimet et al. (1988) perceived Social Support Scale. The items were measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree (M_T1 = 4.18, SD = .83; M_T2 = 4.28, SD = .73). For example, “My family really tries to help me.” This model fit the data well, χ² (14) = 40.76, p < .001, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .07 (.04–.09) and was reliable (α_T1 = .91, α_T2 = .87).

Friend support (measured at T1 and T2)

Friend support was measured using three items from Zimet et al.’s (1988) perceived Social Support Scale. The items were measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree (M_T1 = 4.07, SD = .79; M_T2 = 3.98, SD = .84). For example, “I can talk about my problems with my friends.” This model fit the data well, χ² (5) = 1.70, p = .89, CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .00 (.00–.03) and was reliable (α_T1 = .91, α_T2 = .86).

Communication confidence (measured at T1 and T2)

Communication confidence was measured using 14 items from Wrench et al. (2008) communication apprehension scale (M_T1 = 3.43, SD = .79; M_T2 = 3.30, SD = .79). All items were reverse scored so that high values indicated communication confidence. We focus on communication confidence (as opposed to CA) to create a parsimonious model where all mediators are “positive” constructs (i.e., generally, high support and communication confidence are linked to positive outcomes). All questions were asked on a five point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Example items include: “I am at ease at parties,” and “social interaction is the best part of my day.” Because of the large number of items and the limited power available in the larger model, this scale was parceled randomly into two groups of four items and two groups of three items. Parceling larger scales increases reliability and power by decreasing the number of parameters estimated (Little et al., 2002). The model including four parcels at T1 and four parcels at T2 had poor fit due to a high RMSEA, so modification indices were used to correlate items 1 and 3 at T1. After this change, model fit was good, χ² (14) = 45.96, p < .001, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .07 (.05–.09) and was reliable (α_T1 = .93, α_T2 = .93).

Social network resilience skills (measured at T1 and T2)

A four-item measure of SNRS were developed for this study. The authors developed the items based on Smith et al. (2008) measure of resilience, but focused the items on one aspect of communicative resilience: the importance of relying on one’s social support network as identified by Buzzanell (2010). Questions included, “Talking with others helps me make sense of the stressful events in my life,” “I reach out to my social network for support when I am recovering from a stressful event,” “I often talk through my problems with others,” and “Talking with others helps me focus on the potential positive outcomes of the challenges I face” (M_T1 = 4.43, SD = 1.27; M_T2 = 4.79, SD = 1.26). All questions were asked on a seven point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The four-item model fit well χ² (14) = 31.92, p < .01, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .05 (.03–.08) and was reliable (α_T1 = .81, α_T2 = .82).

Data analysis

To test the proposed model, data were analyzed using AMOS 25 software for structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM allows for the simultaneous testing of multiple independent and dependent variables. Missing data were accounted for using the maximum likelihood approach to estimating means and intercepts. Proposed models exhibit good fit if they represent the relationships in the collected data. Our overall latent model fit the data well, χ² (722) = 1371.93, p < .001, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05 (.04–.05), and accounted for 55.5% of the variance in resilience at T2 (R² = .55), 45% of the variance in family support at T2 (R² = .45), 28% of the variance in friend support at T2 (R² = .28), and 62% of the variance in communication confidence at T2 (R² = .62). Phantom modeling with bias-corrected bootstrapping (5000 samples) determined the significance of indirect paths. Unstandardized path coefficients (betas) are reported in Tables 2–3.

Results

At the zero-order correlation level, conversation orientation was positively associated with family and friend support and communication confidence at both time points (Table 1). In addition, conversation orientation was positively associated with SNRS at both time points. Conformity orientation was negatively associated with friend and family support at both time points and positively associated with communication confidence at T1 only. All variables at T1 were significantly and positively correlated with the same variable at T2 (e.g., family support at T1 was positively associated with family support at T2). SNRS at T2 was significantly and positively associated with all variables in the model (i.e., conversation orientation, family and friend support at T1 and T2, communication confidence at T1 and T2, and SNRS at T1).

Table 1.

Correlations.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Conversation T1	-
2. Conformity T1	−.43**	-
3. Family Support T1	.73**	−.32**	-
4. Family Support T2	.56**	−.27**	.58**	-
5. Friend Support T1	.33**	−.11*	.48**	.35**	-
6. Friend Support T2	.23**	−.13*	.22**	.37**	.45**	-
7. Comm Conf T1	.11*	.10*	.14**	.11*	.28**	.20**
8. Comm Conf T2	.10*	.09	.07	.12*	.18**	.21**	.76**
9. SNRS T1	.41**	−.07	.39**	.31**	.39**	.30**	.31**	.27**	-
10. SNRS T2	.32**	−.04	.28**	.36**	.31**	.47**	.28**	.34**	.66**	-

Note: p < .01**, p < .05*, Comm Conf = communication confidence. SNRS = social network resilience skills.

Direct effects

Hypothesis 1 predicted that (a) conversation orientation and (b) conformity orientation at T1 would be directly and positively related to SNRS at T2, above and beyond SNRS as measured at T1. At the zero-order correlation level, conversation orientation was significantly and positively associated with SNRS, however, when accounting for other variables in the model and the association of SNRS measured at T1, the associations of conversation orientation and conformity orientation with SNRS were not significant (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Direct effects of family communication patterns, support, and communication confidence on SNRS.

Direct Path	b	SE	p	Direct Path	b	SE	p
Conversation → SNRS T2	−.049	.135	.713	Conformity → SNRS T2	.169	.109	.122
Conversation → Fam Support T1	.617***	.041	***	Conformity → Fam Support T1	.063	.051	.216
Conversation → Fam Support T2	.213**	.066	.001	Conformity → Fam Support T2	−.036	.054	.512
Conversation → Fri Support T1	.401***	.052	***	Conformity → Fri Support T1	.174*	.082	.034
Conversation → Fri Support T2	.104	.084	.218	Conformity → Fri Support T2	−.090	.071	.206
Conversation → Comm Conf T1	.205***	.046	***	Conformity → Comm Conf T1	.288***	.076	***
Conversation → Comm Conf T2	.107	.061	.079	Conformity → Comm Conf T2	.055	.051	.216
Fam Support T1→ SNRS T2	−.014	.157	.928	Fri Support T1→ SNRS T2	−.180*	.082	.028
Fam Support T1 → Fam Support T2	.224**	.078	.004	Fri Support T1 → Fam Support T2	.084*	.035	.017
Fam Support T1 → Fri Support T2	−.156	.100	.119	Fri Support T1 → Fri Support T2	.410***	.049	***
Fam Support T1 → Comm Conf T2	−.137	.072	.057	Fri Support T1 → Comm Conf T2	−.027	.033	.410
Fam Support T2 → SNRS T2	.419***	.123	***	Fri Support T2 → SNRS T2	.632***	.097	***
Comm Conf T1 → SNRS T2	−.248*	.120	.039
Comm Conf T1 → Fam Support T2	.017	.036	.636
Comm Conf T1 → Fri Support T2	.092	.047	.052
Comm Conf T1 → Comm Conf T2	.757***	.041	***
Comm Conf T2 → SNRS T2	.421***	.124	***

Note: All betas are unstandardized. Comm Conf = communication confidence, SNRS = social network resilience skills, Fri = friend, Fam = family, T1 = measured at time 1, T2 = measured at time 2. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Hypothesis 2 predicted (a) family support, (b) friend support, and (c) communication confidence at times 1 and 2 would be positively associated with SNRS. These hypotheses were partially supported as follows. Family support at T2 was positively related to SNRS but family support at T1 was not (see Table 2). Friend support at T1 and T2 were associated with resilience, but in opposite directions, partially supporting hypothesis 2b (i.e., T1 friend support was negatively associated with SNRS whereas T2 friend support was positively associated with SNRS). H2c was also partially supported in the same pattern as H2b. That is, T1 communication confidence (negative) and T2 (positive) were associated with SNRS at T2. In sum, the positive associations between T2 family support, T2 friend support, and T2 communication confidence and SNRS were in line with the predicted associations of H2. T1 friend support and T1 communication confidence were significantly associated with SNRS but in the opposite direction than predicted.

Indirect effects

Hypothesis 3a-c predicted indirect associations where support or communication confidence at T1 and T2 mediated the effect of conversation orientation on SNRS. Friend and family support positively mediated the relationship supporting H3a and H3b (see Table 3). Communication confidence also positively mediated the relationship between conversation and SNRS supporting H3c.

Table 3.

Indirect effects of family communication patterns, support, and communication confidence on SNRS.

Indirect Paths	b	SE	p
Conversation → Family Support T1 → Family Support T2	.138*	.062	.030
Conversation → Family Support T1 → Family Support T2 → SNRS T2	.058*	.032	.019
Conversation → Friend Support T1 → Friend Support T2	.164***	.031	.000
Conversation → Friend Support T1 → Friend Support T2 → SNRS T2	.104***	.027	.000
Conversation → Comm Conf T1→ Comm Conf T2	.155***	.038	.000
Conversation → Comm Conf T1→ Comm Conf T2 → SNRS T2	.065**	.026	.001
Conformity → Family Support T1 → Family Support T2	.014	.015	.155
Conformity → Family Support T1 → Family Support T2 → SNRS T2	.006	.007	.124
Conformity → Friend Support T1 → Friend Support T2	.071*	.040	.045
Conformity → Friend Support T1 → Friend Support T2 → SNRS T2	.045*	.027	.037
Conformity → Comm Conf T1→ Comm Conf T2	.041	.040	.300
Conformity → Comm Conf T1→ Comm Conf T2 → SNRS T2	.017	.019	.218

Note: All betas are unstandardized. Comm Conf = communication confidence, SNRS = social network resilience skills. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Research question 1 asked whether (a) family support (b), friend support, and (c) communication confidence mediated the relationship between conformity orientation and SNRS. The only serial mediated effect between conformity and SNRS was the positive indirect effect through friend support. All other indirect effects involving conformity orientation were nonsignificant.

Cross-lag effects

Research question 2 asked how friend support, family support, and communication confidence would influence each other. Significant cross-lag associations included the auto-regressive paths of friend support T1 on friend support T2, family support T1 on family support T2, communication confidence T1 on communication confidence T2 (See Table 2 for path coefficients). In addition to auto-regressive T1 variables effecting T2 variables, friend support at T1 was related to family support at T2 and family support at T1 was related to communication confidence at T2 at a trend level. No other cross-lag relationships were significant.

Discussion

In response to calls to test resilience as a communicative phenomenon (Buzzanell & Houston, 2018), this study proposed and tested an integrative and longitudinal model of communicative predictors (e.g., friend/family support, family communication patterns) of SNRS in the context of the transition to college. The patterns of findings contribute to a robust corpus of literature on the ways in which supportive communication contributes to resilience processes and add empirical evidence to theorizing about communication concepts (i.e., FCPs and communication apprehension/confidence) that promote SNRS and facilitate coping with transitions. Specifically, family and friend support along with communication confidence at two points in time influenced SNRS. Conversation orientation positively influenced SNRS indirectly through perceptions of friend and family support and communication confidence. Conformity orientation also indirectly promoted SNRS through friend support. The communicative predictors of SNRS tested here (e.g., friend/family support, family communication patterns) might be applied to predict resilience in other life transitions. Indeed, it is possible that SNRS could not only be used across contexts but also in a variety of interventions. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed below.

Theoretical implications for communicative resilience

In this study, growing up in a high conversation orientation family environment, experiencing supportive friend and family relationships, and reporting high confidence in one’s ability to communicate in social settings (i.e., communication confidence) was associated with having the tools and resources to engage in resilience processes that require coordination with others. The study findings bolster the idea that lacking supportive relationships can make enacting certain types of resilience strategies difficult and that fostering supportive relationships upon entering college should be a priority to students, parents, and college administrators who want students to thrive throughout their collegiate experience.

By proposing and testing a model of SNRS before and during the first semester of college, we have a better understanding of the process that contributes to SNRS in transitions. The model that predicts participants’ SNRS pushes forward theorizing about resilience-as-behavior and as processes people engage in through conversation with others. The model casts FCP as a theory (among several other communication processes; Afifi, 2018) that can explain how young adults learn to engage in resilience processes with others. Moving beyond past research that has identified the importance of family influence and social network support in predicting resilience as a trait and capacity (Conger et al., 1992, 1993; Dorrance Hall, 2018; Simons et al., 1994; Theiss, 2018), this study digs into the roles of both communication and specific types of network members (i.e., family and friends) in predicting resilience during a key life transition that many experience. In this way, the model both confirms what past research has identified as important elements of resilience as a trait, while highlighting the importance of taking a communicative lens to these concepts and focusing on resilience skills in interaction.

In addition, this study provides a longitudinal test of predictors of SNRS, finding that communicative constructs such as social support and communication confidence predict SNRS during the first semester of college above and beyond SNRS reported at the spring before starting college. The serial mediation findings indicate, as previous research has done, that the ability to engage in resilience processes at any given time are related to the sum of a person’s experiences thus far including the environment in which they grew up (i.e., FCP), the resources they have to draw upon (i.e., friend and family support), and their ability to confidently communicate. The models included a reported SNRS at T1 (before entering college), illustrating that SNRS are also predicted by previous perceptions of SNRS.

Theoretical implications for FCP

The model tested here furthers our understanding of the mechanisms by which family environments (i.e., conversation and conformity orientation) positively influence people after they have grown and likely no longer live at home with their parents. With an eye toward making theoretical contributions to understanding communication as a process, recent research identified some of these mechanisms. A myriad of mediators have been tested between FCP orientations and outcomes such as psychosocial adjustment (Dorrance Hall et al., 2016), friendship closeness (Ledbetter, 2009), and child-to-parent inclusion of the other in the self (Ledbetter & Beck, 2014), among others. These studies’ findings point to positive relationships between conversation orientation and adjustment/relational outcomes. Scholars who test FCP theory have long claimed that growing up in a family marked by open and frequent communication can work in people’s lives to impact other types of relationships, well-being, and resilience. The current study strengthens this claim by identifying three variables by which conversation orientation has a positive influence on SNRS at a later point in time.

Specifically, this study’s results show that growing up in a family marked by high conversation orientation set participants up to experience supportive communication from friends and family during a transitionary period of their lives. This experience of support, in turn, fueled their ability to reach out to others in times of need (i.e., SNRS). Indeed, the effect of conversation orientation on SNRS during the first semester of college was fully mediated by friend/family support and communication confidence. In this study, conversation orientation did not have a direct association with SNRS, instead, it worked through other communicative constructs (i.e., support and communication confidence). Emerging adults from families marked by open and frequent communication reported support from their friends and family and confidence in their abilities to communicate with friends, professors, and others, which in turn boosted in their SNRS. These findings indicate that conversation orientation alone does not explain SNRS, instead, the social benefits of conversation orientation reach outside the family (e.g., social support and confidence in communicating) are associated with SNRS. This, along with research detailed above, begins to explicate the process by which conversation orientation has positive influence on adjustment and wellbeing in adulthood.

In addition to the implications for conversation orientation described above, this study adds to the conversation concerning the inconsistent implications of growing up in a high conformity oriented family (Horstman et al., 2018). At the zero-order correlation level, conformity orientation is negatively associated with variables known to be protective factors during the transition to college (i.e., support from friends and family). Both before starting college and during the first semester of college, participants from high conformity orientation families experienced less support from their family and friends indicating that those low levels of support are carried forward from high school into college. However, when considered in the larger model (controlling for conversation orientation), the findings indicate one significant indirect effect of conformity on SNRS; a positive path through friend support. Emerging adults with families marked by strict adherence to parental views and beliefs might seek more support from friends, which in turn provides them a friend-based social network with which they can engage in resilience processes before and after entering college. Indeed, for students in this sample, growing up in a high conformity orientation family meant that they reported having more friend support before entering college, which in turn predicted higher friend support during their first semester and higher SNRS.

Future directions

The findings speak to future directions that along with this study, provide implications for higher education practitioners who are tasked with helping students transition to college. Future research could design and test resilience cultivation programs for students that are facilitated by universities or high schools and incorporate various communicative antecedents of SNRS. Communication scholars and practitioners have created interventions that encourage people to reach out for network support and talk with others to refocus on positive emotions, for example, narrative interventions for adolescent girls’ mental health (i.e., translational storytelling; Willer & Koenig Kellas, 2019). Existing interventions could be adapted to teach students SNRS and other related resilience skills.

The patterns of findings in this model suggest that these variables could be important in predicting SNRS in other life transitions. For example, researchers might examine how the model predicts SNRS in the transition to retirement. The transition to retirement can be especially stressful as older adults (re)negotiate their identities outside of their careers (Sterns & Dawson, 2012). Past research has indicated that attitudes toward retirement and “bridge” identities/roles that are salient before and after retirement such as friend and parent have been predictors of successful adjustment (Reitzes & Mutran, 2004). The role of such identities provides a foundation for the usefulness of our model in explaining resilience in retirement as perceived support from friends and family play key mediating roles. The influence of family communication environment needs to be tested in later life transitions, and perhaps altered to focus on the participants’ communication with their children rather than with their family of origin.

Strengths & limitations

A strength of this model is the test of predictors of SNRS over time. Controlling for SNRS at T1, we were able to test the effects of study variables on SNRS above and beyond the SNRS participants reported before starting college. This approach is limited by the small percentage of the first-year student class we were able to retain in our sample, likely due to passive recruiting strategies (i.e., offering no incentive to complete the survey and sending emails through the student affairs office). Additionally, the sample is from just one university where the student population is primarily non-Hispanic White. Future research should examine this model at more diverse campuses.

Although the transition to college is challenging and requires adjustment for all students, students face varied levels of adversity depending on factors that put some students at higher risk of dropping out than others (e.g., first generation college students). Further tests of SNRS models should be broadened to include measures of adversity prior to coming to college and later-in-time resilience outcome variables such as adjustment to college in years two and beyond, retention through graduation, and academic success. Although our sample was large, it was a college student sample of mostly White students at one university. Cultural factors likely influence the resilience process, so tests of the model on diverse samples are needed. This study also examined only one type of transition. Future research is needed to test the applicability of the model in other contexts and create interventions for high schools, colleges, and college students.

Conclusion

This study provided a test of a theoretically driven model of transition resilience using longitudinal data from students in the Mountain West region of the US. Based on the model fit and predictive power of the variables chosen, we conclude that the model including family environment, social support, and confidence in communicating, offers a strong representation of the communicative contributors of SNRS and provides implications for researcher and practitioner understanding of resilience and how it is developed and facilitated in emerging adults.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Utah System of Higher Education [grant number 200475-00001].

ORCID iD

Elizabeth Dorrance Hall

Kristina M. Scharp

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: edh@msu.edu.

References

Afifi

T. D.

(2018). Individual/relational resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1426707

Arnett

J. J.

(2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469–480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

Arnett

J. J.

(2014). Adolescence and emerging adulthood. Pearson.

Avery

C. M.

Daly

A. J.

(2010). Promoting equitable educational outcomes for higher-risk college students: The roles of social capital and resilience. Journal of Equity in Education, 1, 20–50.

Banyard

V. L.

Cantor

E. N.

(2004). Adjustment to college among trauma survivors: An explanatory study of resilience. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2004.0017

Beckstead

(2017, June 27). College dropout rates and statistics. College Atlas. https://www.collegeatlas.org/college-dropout.html

Blume

B. D.

Baldwin

T. T.

Ryan

K. C.

(2013). Communication apprehension: A barrier to students’ leadership, adaptability, and multicultural appreciation. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12, 158–172. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2011.0127

Bollen

(1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17, 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124189017003004

Bowman

N. A.

(2010). The development of psychological well-being among first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 51(2), 180–200. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.0.0118

10.

Bryan

(2005). Fostering educational resilience and achievement in urban schools through school-family community partnerships. Professional School Counseling, 8, 219–227.

11.

Burleson

B. R.

(2003). The experience and effects of emotional support: What the study of cultural and gender differences can tell us about close relationships, emotion, and interpersonal communication. Personal Relationships, 10, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6811.00033

12.

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2010). Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being. Journal of Communication, 60, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01469.x

13.

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2018a). Communication theory of resilience: Enacting adaptive-transformative processes when families experience loss and disruption. In Braithwaite

D. O.

Suter

E. A.

Floyd

(Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication (2nd ed., pp. 98–109). Routledge.

14.

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2018b). Organizing resilience as adaptive-transformational tensions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1426711

15.

Buzzanell

P. M.

Houston

J. B.

(2018). Communication and resilience: Multilevel applications and insights—A Journal of Applied Communication Research forum. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2017.1412086

16.

Carr

Koenig Kellas

(2018). The role of family and marital communication in developing resilience to family adversity. Journal of Family Communication, 18, 68–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1369415

17.

Cole

J. S.

Kennedy

Ben-Avie

(2009). The role of precollege data in assessing and understanding student engagement in college. New Directions for Institutional Research, 141, 55–69.

18.

Conger

K. J.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Jr (1994). Sibling relations during hard times. In Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

(Eds.), Families in troubled times (pp. 235–252). Aldine de Gruyter.

19.

Conger

K. J.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Jr Simons

Whitbeck

(1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526–541. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01644

20.

Conger

K. J.

Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

Jr Simons

Whitbeck

(1993). Family economic stress and adjustment of early adolescent girls. Developmental Psychology, 29, 206–219. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.29.2.206

21.

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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00361.x

22.

Dorrance Hall

(2018). The communicative process of resilience for marginalized family members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516683838

23.

Dorrance Hall

McNallie

Custers

Timmermans

Wilson

Van den Bulck

(2016). A cross-cultural examination of the mediating role of family support and parental advice quality on the relationship between family communication patterns and first-year college student adjustment in the United States and Belgium. Communication Research. (online first). https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216657755

24.

Dorrance Hall

Scharp

K. M.

(2018). Testing a mediational model of the effect of family communication patterns on student perceptions of the college transition through social communication apprehension. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1502461

25.

Dyson

Renk

(2006). Freshman adaptation to university life: Depressive symptoms, stress, and coping. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62, 1231–1244. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20295

26.

Eisenberg

Hunt

Speer

(2013). Mental health in American colleges and universities: Variation across student subgroups and across campuses. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 201, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0b013e31827ab077

27.

Eisenberg

Lipson

S. K.

Posselt

(2016). Promoting resilience, retention, and mental health. In Levine

Stock

S. R.

(Eds.), College student mental health. Josey-Bass.

28.

Ericson

P. M.

Gardner

J. W.

(1992). Two longitudinal studies of communication apprehension and its effects on college students’ success. Communication Quarterly, 40, 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369828

29.

Ewart

C. K.

Jorgensen

R. S.

Suchday

Chen

Matthews

(2002). Measuring stress resilience and stress coping in vulnerable youth: The social competence interview. Psychological Assessment, 14, 339–352. https://doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590/14.3.339

30.

Fassig

S. I.

(2004). Attachment and resilience as predictors of adjustment to college in college freshmen. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 64(7-B). pp. 3520.

31.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

Koerner

A. F.

(2005). Family communication schemata: Effects on children’s resiliency. In Dunwoody

Becker

L. B.

McLeod

Kosicki

(Eds.), The evolution of key mass communication concepts: Honoring Jack M. McLeod. Hampton Press.

32.

Gabriel

(2010, December 19). Mental health needs seen growing at colleges. The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/20/health/20campus.html?_r1/41&emc1/4tnt&tntemail11/4y

33.

Hawken

Duran

R. L.

Kelly

(1991). The relationship of interpersonal communication variables to academic success and persistence in college. Communication Quarterly, 39, 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379109369807

34.

High

A. C.

Scharp

K. M.

(2015). Examining family communication patterns and seeking social support: Direct and indirect effects through ability and motivation. Human Communication Research, 41, 459–621. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12061

35.

Horstman

H. K.

Schrodt

Warner

Koerner

Maliski

Hays

Colaner

C. W.

(2018). Expanding the conceptual and empirical boundaries of family communication patterns: The development and validation of an Expanded Conformity Orientation Scale. Communication Monographs, 85, 157–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2018.1428354

36.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

37.

Hunter

M. S.

(2006). Fostering student learning and success through first-year programs. Peer Review. 8(3), 4–7.

38.

Koerner

A. F.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48, 59–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510979709368491

39.

Koerner

A. F.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00260

40.

Koesten

(2004). Family communication patterns, sex of subject, and communication competence. Communication Monographs, 71, 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/0363775052000343417

41.

Koesten

Anderson

(2004). Exploring the influence of family communication patterns, cognitive complexity, and interpersonal competence on adolescent risk behaviors. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 99–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327698jfc0402_2

42.

Krause

Hartley

James

McInnis

(2005). The first-year experience in Australian universities: Findings from a decade of national studies. Australian Department of Education, Science and Training.

43.

Leary

K. A.

DeRosier

M. E.

(2012). Factors promoting positive adaptation and resilience during the college transition. Psychology, 3, 1215–1222. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2012.312A180

44.

Ledbetter

A. M.

(2009). Family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior: Direct and mediated associations with friendship closeness. Human Communication Research, 35, 10–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01341.x

45.

Ledbetter

A. M.

Beck

S. J.

(2014). A theoretical comparison of relational maintenance and closeness as mediators of family communication patterns in parent-child relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 230–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2014.908196

46.

Little

T. D.

Cunningham

W. A.

Shahar

Widaman

K. F.

(2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_1

47.

Lucas

Buzzanell

P. M.

(2012). Memorable messages of hard times: Constructing short-and long-term resiliencies through family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 189–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2012.687196

48.

Masten

A. S.

(2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227

49.

Mirowsky

Ross

C. E.

(2001). Age and the effect of economic hardship on depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 132–150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090174

50.

National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. (2015). Graduation rates. NCHEMS Information Center. http://www.higheredinfo.org/dbrowser/index.php?measure=19

51.

Nota

Soresi

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2004). Self-regulation and academic achievement and resilience: A longitudinal study. International Journal of Educational Research, 41, 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2005.07.001

52.

Reitzes

D. C.

Mutran

E. J.

(2004). The transition to retirement: Stages and factors that influence retirement adjustment. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 59, 63–84. https://doi.org/10.2190?NYPP-RFFP-5RFK-8EB8

53.

Sabri

Fouladchang

Mohammadi Dahghani

Golzar

H. R.

(2015). The relationship between family communication pattern dimensions and resilience in high school students: Mediating role of emotional intelligence. Journal of Psychological Methods and Models, 5, 109–128.

54.

Schrodt

Ledbetter

A. M.

Ohrt

J. K.

(2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators of family communication patterns and children’s mental well-being. The Journal of Family Communication, 7, 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267430709336667

55.

Schrodt

Witt

P. L.

Messersmith

A. S.

(2008). A meta-analytical review of family communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, 75, 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750802256318

56.

Simons

R. L.

Whitbeck

L. B.

(1994). Resilient and vulnerable adolescents. In Conger

R. D.

Elder

G. H.

(Eds.), Families in troubled times (pp. 121–160). Aldine de Gruyter.

57.

Smith

B. W.

Dalen

Wiggins

Tooley

Christopher

Bernard

(2008). The brief resilience scale: assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 15, 194–200.

58.

Sterns

H. L.

Dawson

N. T.

(2012). Emerging perspectives on resilience in adulthood and later life: Work, retirement, and resilience. Annual Review of Gerontology & Geriatrics, 32, 211–230. https://doi.org/10.1891/0198-8794.32.211

59.

Theiss

J. A.

(2018). Family communication and resilience. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46, 10–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1426706

60.

Tognoli

(2010). Leaving home: Homesickness, place attachment, and transition among residential college students. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 18, 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1300/J035v18n01_04

61.

Upcraft

M. L.

Gardner

J. N.

Barefoot

B. O.

(2005). Challenging and supporting the first-year students: A handbook for improving the first year of college. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

62.

Willer

E. K.

Kellas

J. K.

(2019). Testing a social aggression and translational storytelling intervention. In Lippert

L. R.

Hall

R. D.

Miller-Ott

A. E.

Davis

D. C.

(Eds.), Communicating mental health: History, contexts, and perspectives (pp. 101–124). Lexington Books.

63.

Wilson

S. R.

Chernichky

S. M.

Wilkum

Owlett

J. S.

(2014). Do family communication patterns buffer children from difficulties associated with a parent’s military deployment? Examining deployed and at-home parents’ perspectives. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 32–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2013.857325

64.

Wrench

J. S.

Brogan

S. M.

McCroskey

J. C.

Jowi

(2008). The relationships among social phobia, communication apprehension, and willingness to communicate. Human Communication, 11, 409–430.

65.

Zimet

G. D.

Dahlem

N. W.

Zimet

S. G.

Farley

G. K.

(1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2