VARILLA DE ACERO GALVANIZADO (AG)

The individual characteristics of a child that have been identified by studies to have a bearing on his or her disaster experience are: his or her stage of development, age, gender, socio-economic status, religious and cultural beliefs, level of intelligence, communication skills, self-efficacy, coping skills, family situation, ethnicity, and pre-existing anxiety (W. Silverman & La Greca, 2002; Vogel & Vernberg, 1993a; Weissbecker et al., 2008). As was pointed out when discussing the vulnerabilities of children, there is no single trait that controls a child’s experience, but rather it is the combination of several traits (Peek & Stough, 2010). Despite this there are some characteristics that will be more influential than others. Poverty has already been mentioned as having an intensify affect on “almost all of the … impacts” (Bartlett, 2008b, p. 73). Another characteristic, which Ronan & Johnston (1999, 2005) asserted includes the most significant elements influencing a child’s experience, is the child’s family situation; that is, parental distress, significant distress in other family members, conflict in family and lack of a supportive environment. They believed that these particular factors (in combination with others mentioned) heavily govern children’s reaction and response to disaster.

As individuals, children’s psychological responses to disaster vary. However, commonly reported reactions are post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, emotional distress, sleep disorders, somatic complaints, and behavioural problems (Norris et al., 2002; Peek, 2008; Peek & Stough, 2010). A study of adolescents aged 11 to 15 years in Aceh following the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami found common reactions to the event to be:

rebellion in home, refus[al] to undertake responsibilities, school problems (absenteeism, fighting, withdrawal, loss of interest, attention seeking behaviour), physical problems (headaches, vague pain, skin eruptions, psychosomatic complaints), loss of interest in peer social activities, decreased attention and/or concentration, ang[ry] outburst and/or aggression, increased

145 negative and deviant behaviour, and increased risk of substance abuse. (Hestyanti, 2006, p. 305)

The expression of psychological trauma by children in this Indonesian study is similar to many Western findings (Balaban, 2006; Murray, 2006; W. Silverman & La Greca, 2002). It is possible that children exhibit similar reactions regardless of culture, but this statement cannot be conclusive because, as Balaban (2006) pointed out at the time of his publication, no study exists which directly compared the psychological responses of children to disasters from one culture to those in another.

When discussing the reactions of children, it is essential to remember that even though children are vulnerable they also possess characteristics that make them highly resilient. Weissbecker et al. (2008) noted a recent shift in literature from “identifying vulnerabilities” to “considering people’s own strategies to cope and adapt” (p. 43). Many of the characteristic variables that influence children’s vulnerability and act as predictors to their psychological reactions have been identified, but research lags in the determination of what (personal) variables make children more resilient and what types of interventions can promote their resilience (La Greca et al., 2002a; Peek, Sutton, & Gump, 2008).

One study that does specify the factors which contribute to children’s resiliency is Hestyanti’s (2006) study of Acehnese adolescents. The participant that were found to be resilient had “internal protective factors” such as “strong internal motivation to recover, good heart, open to other people, high motivation to bond to religiosity, self-responsible, sense of humor, and easygoing” (p. 303). The outward expression of their resilience was seen in their ability to “live normally”: “participate in school activities, play with friends, perform daily chores, be involved in religious activities, [and] develop healthy relationships with caregivers and peers” (p. 303).

Duncan and Arntson (2004) named similar characteristics of resiliency in children in their evaluation manual Children in Crisis: Good Practices In Evaluating Psychosocial Programming. The manual, which was developed in collaboration with Save the Children Federation to assist relief organisations in critically reviewing of their own psychosocial programs that are implemented during a crisis, identifies traits and signifiers that can be used to ascertain whether a child is resilient. A child is considered resilient if he or she has “strong attachment to caring adults and/or peer groups [and] encouraging role models” (p. 10). He or she is “socially competent at interacting with adults and children; independent

146 and requests help when necessary; curious and explores the environment; plays actively; adapts to change; likely to think before acting; confident he or she can control some parts of his or her life; involved in hobbies, activities, and has multiple talents” (p. 10). These authors also described resiliency as being “a result of the interplay between children’s needs and capacities, and the risk and protective factors within their environment”, and emphasised the point that “this interplay will always reflect and be shaped by the culture and local circumstances” (p. 10). Hence, the resiliency of children is not necessarily exhibited in the same manner in each culture, nor can be it be encouraged by a psychosocial program using a “‘one size fits all’” approach (p. 10).

Therefore children’s individual characteristics affect their experience of the disaster event by influencing their reaction to the event, their vulnerability and their resiliency. Yet it is clear from the descriptions of the characteristics of resilient children that external factors such as family and community support also play a significant role in shaping children’s experiences of disasters. These external factors typically come to light in the post-disaster context of the event.