LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

models of coping have made some strides in identifying how cultural values and social norms influence coping strategies. Scholars in this area have asserted that coping is not dualistic (e.g., Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) with only action oriented coping strategies resulting in positive outcomes, but rather cultural context also plays a part (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Lam & Zane, 2004; Yeh et al., 2006). While taking direct action (e.g., confronting others, standing up for oneself) is a preferred and effective strategy in individualist cultural contexts; in collectivistic contexts, the emphasis on group harmony and interdependence leads individuals to enact coping strategies that focus on changing themselves to meet the needs of the group, instead of attempting to change the situation (Lam & Zane, 2004; Yeh et al., 2006). Scholars examining the cultural context of stress and family stress have focused on models that account for the depth and complexity of cultural and ethnic influences on family systems related to family stress and resilience. For example, McCubbin and McCubbin (2013) created the Relational and Resilience Theory of Ethnic Family Systems, which was designed to identify and validate competencies among ethnic/cultural families that facilitate successful adaption in the context of family stress. Similarly, McNeil Smith and Landor (2018) developed the sociocultural family stress model to help better understand the experience of family stress within racially and ethnically diverse families (see James, Barrios, Roy, & Lee, Chapter 12 in this volume).

      The stage of the family life cycle can also influence a family’s perceptions during a stressful event. Where the family currently exists in the family life cycle, points to the variation in structure, composition, interaction (between family members as well as between the family and the outside culture), and resources of that family (Henry et al., 2015; Price et al., 2000; Walsh, 2013b). Consequently, families at different stages of the life cycle vary in their response to stressful situations. This is particularly relevant as families move from one stage of development to another during normative transitions. It is during these periods of change (a child is born, children leave home, a family member dies) that families are likely to experience high levels of stress as they adjust rules, roles, and patterns of behavior (Aldous, 1996; Carter & McGoldrick, 2005). This stress is also affected by whether the transition is “on time” or “off time” as well as expected or unexpected (Rodgers & White, 1993). In general, off time (e.g., a child dies before a parent dies) and unexpected (a family member is diagnosed with a terminal illness) transitions create periods of greater stress. The significance of this stress could, at least partially, be attributed to the family members’ perception of the stressful situation as being overwhelming or unfair.

      Stress and Crisis

      According to systems theory, stress represents a change in the family’s steady state. Stress is the response of the family system to the demands experienced as a result of a stressor event. Stress itself is not inherently bad—it becomes problematic when the degree of stress in the family system reaches a level at which the family becomes disrupted or individual members become dissatisfied or display physical or emotional symptoms. The degree of stress ultimately depends on the family’s definition of the stressor event as well as the adequacy of the family’s resources to meet the demands of the change associated with the stressor event.

      The terms stress and crisis have been used inconsistently in the literature. In fact, many researchers have failed to make a distinction between the two. Boss (1988, 2006) makes a useful distinction as she defines crisis as (a) a disturbance in the equilibrium that is overwhelming, (b) pressure that is so severe, or (c) change that is so acute that the family system is blocked and incapacitated. When a family is in a crisis state, at least for a time, it does not function adequately. Family boundaries are no longer maintained, customary roles and tasks are no longer performed, and family members are no longer functioning at optimal physical or psychological levels. The family has thus reached a state of acute disequilibrium and is immobilized.

      Family stress, on the other hand, is merely a state of changed or disturbed equilibrium. Family stress therefore is a continuous variable (degree of stress), whereas family crisis is a dichotomous variable (either in crisis or not). A crisis does not have to permanently break up the family system. It may only temporarily immobilize the family system and then lead to a different level of functioning than that experienced before the stress level escalated to the point of crisis. Many family systems, in fact, become stronger after they have experienced and recovered from crisis (Boss, 1988, Walsh, 2013b).

      Coping

      Family stress researchers have increasingly shifted their attention from crisis and family dysfunction to the process of coping. Researchers have become more interested in explaining why some families are better able to manage and endure stressor events rather than documenting the frequency and severity of such events (e.g., Henry et al., 2015). In terms of intervention, this represents a change from crisis intervention to prevention (Boss, 1988; McCubbin et al., 1980; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013).

      The study of family coping has drawn heavily from cognitive psychology (e.g., Lazarus, 2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) as well as sociology (e.g., Pearlin & Schooler, 1978; McCubbin, 2006). Cognitive coping strategies refer to the ways in which individual family members alter their subjective perceptions of stressful events. Sociological theories of coping emphasize a wide variety of actions directed at either changing the stressful situation or alleviating distress by manipulating the social environment (McCubbin et al., 1980; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013). Thus family coping has been conceptualized in terms of three types of responses: (a) direct action (e.g., acquiring resources, learning new skills); (b) intrapsychic (e.g., reframing the problem); or (c) controlling the emotions generated by the stressor (e.g., social support, use of alcohol; Boss, 1988; Lazarus, 2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). These responses can be used individually, consecutively, or, more commonly, in various combinations. Specific coping strategies are not inherently adaptive or maladaptive; they are very much situation specific (e.g., Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Yeh et al., 2006). Flexible access to a range of responses appears to be more effective than the use of any one response (Moos, 1986; Yeh et al., 2006). Coping interacts with both family resources and perceptions as defined by the B and C factors of the ABC-X model. However, coping actions are different than resources and perceptions. Coping represents what people do—their concrete efforts to deal with a stressor (Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978). Having a resource or a perception of an event does not imply whether or how a family will react (Boss, 1988; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Yeh et al., 2006).

      Although coping is sometimes equated with adaptational success (i.e., a product), from a family systems perspective, coping is a process, not an outcome per se. Coping refers to all efforts expended to manage a stressor regardless of the effect (Lazarus, 2006; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Thus, the family strategy of coping is not instantly created but is progressively modified over time. Because the family is a system, coping behavior involves the management of various dimensions of family life simultaneously: (a) maintaining satisfactory internal conditions for communication and family organization, (b) promoting member independence and self-esteem, (c) maintenance of family bonds of coherence and unity, (d) maintenance and development of social supports in transactions with the community, and (e) maintenance of some efforts to control the impact of the stressor and the amount of change in the family unit (McCubbin et al., 1980). Coping is thus a process of achieving balance in the family system that facilitates organization and unity and promotes individual and family system growth and development (McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013). This is consistent with systems theory, which suggests that the families who most effectively cope with stress are strong as a unit as well as in individual members (Anderson et al., 2013; Buckley, 1967).

      Boss (1988) cautions that coping should not be perceived as maintaining the status quo; rather, the active managing of stress should lead to progressively new levels of organization as systems are naturally inclined toward greater complexity. In fact, sometimes it is better for a family to “fail to cope” even if that precipitates a crisis. After the crisis, the family can reorganize into a better functioning system. For example, a marital separation may be very painful for a family, but it may be necessary to allow the

Скачать книгу