AVOIDING RETRAUMATISATION OF CHILDREN IN CHH

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Compensatory and Challenge models of resilience

The Compensatory Model is an early model put forward by Garmezy in 1983. In this model Garmezy (1983) postulates that certain characteristics can compensate risk factors to reduce the risk and increase protection, for example, orphaned children who live in impoverished conditions are likely to experience negative outcomes than orphaned children in less impoverished conditions. However the presence of a responsive community can reduce the impact of negative outcomes. This therefore compensates for the risk factor of an impoverished environment. In the Challenge Model a stressful experience is viewed as a booster of competence. Stressful experiences challenge the individual to do better and cope. Competence is enhanced by moderate hardships and extreme hardships incapacitate the individual and he or she is left helpless (Yates, Egelang & Sroufe, 2003). Overcoming challenges strengthens the individual and increases resilience (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005).

Protective Factor and Protective Stabilising Models

The Protective Factor Model model was developed by Garmezy (1983) and Fergus and Zimmerman (2005). According to this model a conditional relationship exist between stress and personal attributes as they relate to adaptation. Personal attributes can increase or decrease the impact of a stressor in a child’s life (Fergus & Zimmerman, 2005). Protective factors have the ability of interacting with risk factors in a way that reduces the chances of a negative outcome, for example, with high levels of community support, the relationship between poverty and antisocial behaviours in CHH is reduced. In the Protective Stabilising Model, protective factors neutralise the effects of risks and have a stabilising effect on a negative outcome (Luthar, 2000). In the absence of a protective factor, high risk levels are connected to high levels of negative outcomes. On the other hand however, if the protective factor is present, no relationship exists between risk and outcome. For example, CHH with no material assets left by parents (risk factor) and do not have networking skills (protective factor) may steal food from neighbours (negative outcome). However the CHH in similar situations but with networking skills may navigate their way in the social environment to get what they want. Hence the presence of a protective factor stabilises the impact of risk.

Protective Reactive and Protective Protective Models

The Protective Reactive Model postulates that a protective factor may not necessarily remove a risk, however the presence of the protective factor weakens the connection between risk and negative outcome (Luthar, 2000). On the other hand the absence of protective factors increases the connection between risk and negative outcome. However, according to the Protective protective model, a combination of protective factors reduces negative outcomes where one protective factor allows the emergence of another protective factor, for example, academic excellence can amplify other protective factors like problem solving, meaning making and
networking skills to reduce negative outcomes.

READ Second language learning and affective variables

Attachment theory perspectives on resilience

According to Atwool (2006), although attachment theory and resilience theory have developed separately, the concepts of the two theories are complementary in nature. Considerable literature exists providing evidence that children can achieve positive outcomes in the face of adversity without fully understanding the processes that enable these children to do so (Luthar & Brown, 2007). Atwool (2006) postulates that the dynamics of attachment provide a clearer explanation of resilience.
Rutter (1986, 1987) underscores the importance of secure and harmonious relationships as central to the establishment of a positive self-concept, which is crucial in the development of resilience. According to Masten and Coatsworth (1998), the competence of an infant is embedded in the caregiving system. These studies reinforce the concept that the quality of attachment is instrumental in the four central areas associated with resilience which include individual characteristics, supportive family, positive connections with adults or agencies in the environment, and culture. It is rare for these individual characteristics to develop in the absence of a secure child relationship with at least one other adult where they feel worthy and loveable. This is in agreement with Grothberg’s (1995) I HAVE source of resilience, where the child needs to have people who love them unconditionally, and whom they can trust, to be able develop resilience.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
1.2 CONTEXTUAL POLICY BACKGROUND ON CHH
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT
1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.6 RATIONALE
1.7 JUSTIFICATION
1.8 ASSUMPTIONS OF THE STUDY
CHAPTER TWO: EXPERIENCES OF CHH
2.1 INTRODUCTION
2.2 PROBLEMS FACED BY CHH
2.3 SOCIAL NETWORKS IN CHH
2.4 COPING IN CHH
2.5 AVOIDING RETRAUMATISATION OF CHILDREN IN CHH
2.6 SUMMARY
CHAPTER THREE: THE CONCEPT OF RESILIENCE IN CHH
3.1 INTRODUCTION
3.2 DEFINITION OF RESILIENCE AND RELATED TERMS
3.3 COMPONENTS OF RESIIENCE
3.4 CONSTRUCTIONIST THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
3.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF RESILIENT CHIDREN
3.6 BUILDING RESILIENCE
3.7 RESILIENCE INTERVENTION STRATEGIES IN CHH
3.8 MEASUREMENT OF RESILIENCE
3.9 SUMMARY
CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY
4.1 INTRODUCTION
4.2 RESEARCH DESIGN
4.3 STUDY SITE
4.4 STUDY POPULATIO
4.5 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES
4.6 DATA MANAGEMENT
4.7 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
4.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
CHAPTER FIVE: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION