Parent–Child Relational Processes Under Chronic Sociopolitical Adversity: A Mapping Review

Children and families exposed to chronic sociopolitical adversity experience not only individual psychological consequences but also disruptions to the relational processes through which family life is organized and sustained. Although research has examined family relationships in contexts of war, political violence, forced displacement, persecution, and related adversity, evidence remains dispersed across populations, disciplines, and relational constructs. This mapping review aimed to characterize how parent–child and family relational processes have been studied under chronic sociopolitical adversity, identify the relational domains represented, and examine their roles in vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience. Systematic searches were conducted across Scopus, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science. Following title, abstract, and full-text screening, 167 empirical studies met eligibility criteria and were descriptively mapped and narratively synthesized. Evidence was organized into six non-mutually exclusive domains: Parenting and Caregiving (113 studies; 67.7%); Communication and Meaning-Making (67; 40.1%); Caregiver Distress Spillover (56; 33.5%); Family Functioning and Reorganization (46; 27.5%); Attachment and Dyadic Regulation (38; 22.8%); and Reciprocal Processes (27; 16.2%). Across domains, chronic sociopolitical adversity appeared to enter family relationships through multiple, overlapping pathways rather than a single mechanism of intergenerational transmission. Caregiver distress, changes in parenting and family organization, communication about adversity, dyadic regulation, and reciprocal parent–child influences could contribute to vulnerability, while supportive caregiving, relational closeness, communication, and family cohesion could support adaptation. Substantial heterogeneity and the predominance of cross-sectional research, however, limited causal and temporal conclusions. Overall, the review positions family relationships as dynamic contexts in which sociopolitical adversity may be transmitted, negotiated, buffered, or transformed. It integrates a fragmented evidence base into a relational framework and identifies important gaps for longitudinal, dyadic, culturally grounded, and context-sensitive research.