LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

possess coping strengths that enable them to benefit from the challenges of adversity. The ability to successfully deal with a stressor event actually results in outcomes as good or better than those that would have been obtained in the absence of the adversity (Cicchetti & Garmezy, 1993; Hawley & DeHaan, 2003; Henry et al., 2015).

      While early research and theorizing about the impact of stress on families focused mainly on the adverse effects of stressor events of families, more recent scholarship and theorizing have emphasized family resilience (Distelberg & Taylor, 2015; Henry et al., 2015; Lavee, 2013; Martin et al., 2015). Scholars have moved beyond viewing resiliency as a characteristic of an individual to providing a framework for viewing resiliency as a quality of families (Hawley & DeHaan, 2003; Henry et al., 2015). Following the family resilience model (FRM)—when family risk interacts with family protection and vulnerability in such ways that result in short-term and long-term family system adaptation, family resilience is present (Henry et al., 2015). Henry and colleagues (2015) describe the FRM as consisting of four key elements: (1) the presence of family risk, (2) family protection, (3) family vulnerability, and (4) short-term adjustment and long-term adaptation. Several key principles from individual resilience theories are applied, including variables that serve as protective or promotive functions in one circumstance, yet serve as risks or vulnerabilities in others (e.g., across cultural contexts).

      Rather than a pathological view, or deficient model of families, the emphasis is on family wellness and strengths (Hawley & DeHaan, 2003; McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988, 2013; Walsh, 2006, 2013b). In contrast to Hill’s (l949) original model which hypothesized that, following a crisis, families would return to functioning at a level below or above their previous level, resilient families are expected to return to a level at or above their previous level (Henry et al., 2015). A valuable conceptual contribution from the family resilience literature has been the recognition of a family ethos (i.e., a schema, world view, or sense of coherence) which describes a shared set of values and attitudes held by a family unit that serves as the core of the family’s resilience (Hawley & DeHaan, 2003; McCubbin, 2006; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013).

      Conclusion

      Families today are being challenged with a compelling number of changes and problems that have the capacity to produce stress and crisis. After many years of focusing on individual stress responses, researchers have begun systematic assessments of whole family responses, often by focusing on resiliency. Major theoretical paradigms that have been used to study family responses to stressor events include human ecology models (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979) and family systems models (e.g., Anderson et al., 2013). Developing from Hill’s (1949) work on the effect of wartime separation, various characteristics of stressor events as well as the mediating effects of perceptions and resources have been studied, suggesting that there is nothing inherent in the event per se that is stressful or crisis producing. More recently, family stress research has moved beyond the linear relationship of stressor, buffer or moderator, and response to look at coping and adaptation as a process that continues over time—that is, how families actually manage stress or crisis. Coping is conceptualized as an ongoing process that facilitates family organization but also promotes individual growth. Increasingly, the outcome of interest is adaptation, that is, the ability of a family to make needed changes and ultimately recover from stress and crisis. Adaptation, like coping, however, should not be perceived as a definitive end product because families are always growing and changing. Further, the serenity and stability synonymous with adaptation are not always functional for family members and for some families the response to a stressor event may result in a higher level of functioning. Finally, emphasis on the resilience of families has received increasing attention. By acknowledging the ability of families to successfully manage stressful events, scholars are broadening our understanding of how some families thrive in the face of adversity.

      References

      Aldous, J. C. (1996). Family careers: Rethinking the developmental perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

      Anderson, S. A., & Gavazzi, S. M. (1990). A test of the Olson Circumplex Model: Examining its curvilinear assumption and the presence of extreme types. Family Process, 29, 309–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1990.00309.x

      Anderson, S.A., Sabatelli, R. M., & Kosutic, I. (2013). Systemic and ecological qualities of families. In G. W. Peterson & K. R. Bush (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (3rd ed., pp. 121–138). New York, NY: Springer.

      Boss, P. G. (1988). Family stress management. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

      Boss, P. G. (1999). Ambiguous loss, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

      Boss, P. G. (2002). Family stress management: A contextual approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

      Boss, P. G. (2006). Loss, trauma, and resilience: Therapeutic work with ambiguous loss. New York, NY: Norton.

      Boss, P. G. (2013). Resilience as tolerance for ambiguity. In D. S. Becvar (Ed.), Handbook of family resilience (pp. 285–297). New York, NY: Springer.

      Boss, P. G., Bryant, C. M., & Mancini, J. A. (2017). Family stress management: A contextual approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

      Brody, L. (1999). Gender, emotion and the family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

      Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

      Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

      Burr, W. R. (1973). Theory construction and the sociology of the family. New York, NY: Wiley.

      Burr, W. R. (1982). Families under stress. In H. I. McCubbin, A. E. Cauble, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Family stress, coping, and social support (pp. 5–25). Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

      Burr, W. R., Klein, S. R., & Associates. (1994). Reexamining family stress: New theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

      Cannon, W. B. (1932). The wisdom of the body. New York, NY: Norton.

      Caplan, G. (1964). Principles of preventive psychiatry. New York, NY: Basic Books.

      Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (1989). Overview: The changing family life cycle-A framework for family therapy. In B. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), The changing family life cycle: A framework for family therapy (pp. 3–28). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

      Carter, B., & McGoldrick, M. (2005). The expanded family life cycle: Individual, family, and social perspectives. Boston, MA: Pearson.

      Cicchetti, D., & Garmezy, N. (1993). Prospects and promises in the study of resilience. Developmental and Psychopathology, 5, 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006118

      Darling, C. A., Senatore, N., & Strachan, J. (2012). Fathers of children with disabilities: Stress and life satisfaction. Stress and Health: Journal of The International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 28(4), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1427

      Didericksen, K.W., Muse, A., & Aamar, R. (2019). Rethinking parental coping with child health: A proposed theoretical model. Marriage & Family Review, 55(5), 423–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2018.1501631

      Distelberg, B., & Taylor, S. (2015). The roles of social support and family resilience in accessing healthcare and employment resources among families living in traditional public housing communities. Child & Family Social Work, 20, 494–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12098

      Dohrenwend, B. S., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1974). Stressful life events: Their nature and effects. New York, NY: Wiley.

      Emmen, R. G., Malda, M., Mesman,

Скачать книгу