Managing Frequent Relocation in Families? Considering Prospect Theory, Emotional Framing, and Priming

Abstract

We review the evidence and impact of relocation on outcomes in child development in civilian and military families, both those who relocate regularly and those who do not. Research with broad samples of families and conventional wisdom suggests that frequent relocation leads to negative outcomes in children. However, this observation is not consistently observed for military families or for some civilian families who regularly relocate. The reasons for these differences are not clear, but maternal attitude and parent–child interactions have been suggested as a possible moderator of relocation resilience. Nevertheless, the exact mechanisms or approach for promoting relocation resilience is not clear in the evidence base. Through an analysis of the limited available data, we propose that effectively promoting relocation resilience may involve three primary approaches and related psychological processes: (i) managing the perception of risk (based on prospect theory), (ii) emotional framing, and (iii) priming. These processes are reviewed and presented for further consideration in future research on promoting relocation resilience.

Enhancing Family Stability During a Permanent Change of Station: A Review of Disruptions and Policies

“…4 Although Table 2.1 contains a lengthy list of disruptions to family stability created by PCS moves, we point out three important caveats. First, there are potentially positive effects from frequent location, such as promoting a service member's career progression and increasing family member resilience (e.g., Spencer, Page, and Clark, 2016). In our interviews with SMEs, the most common positive aspect of PCS moves mentioned was increased readiness and resilience, particularly among children.…”

What factors influence the willingness of protected area communities to relocate? China's ecological relocation policy for Dashanbao Protected Area

“…Many factors, such as family income (Sina et al, 2019), family assets (Du and Zou, 2018), and house location (Xu et al, 2006) affect expected gains and willingness to participate in ER. Furthermore, prospect theory and expected utility theory have been applied to this inquiry (Spencer et al, 2016), suggesting that people who tend to take risks were more willing to participate in environmental programs (Wang et al, 2018a(Wang et al, , 2018b. Theory of place attachment has helped some scholars understand willingness to relocate from an environmental psychology perspective (Boğaç, 2009).…”