Читать книгу Families & Change - Группа авторов - Страница 64

The foundation of family stress theory is provided in Reuben Hill’s (1949) classic work on the ABC-X model. Hill proposed that family crisis or stress (the X factor) results from a complex three-way combination of (1) the stressor event (the A factor), (2) the resources that families have available (the B factor), and (3) the definitions or meanings that families assign to the stressor (the C factor). Stressful or crisis situations do not result directly from the event by itself but are a product of the event, the interpretations of family members and how much family systems have abilities to cope and recover (Boss, 2002; Lavee, 2013; Patterson, 2002). In the most general sense, family stress is defined as a change or disturbance in the steady state of the family system which can have consequences that range along a continuum from very positive to very negative (Allen, 2017; Boss, 2014).

Originally, family stress theory examined only the circumstances of a “crisis” in which sudden, dramatic events had occurred (e.g., the flood that destroyed Tiffany’s previous mobile home or a when a child is suddenly diagnosed with life threatening cancer) that may seriously incapacitate the family. In contrast, more recent conceptualizations of the X factor have dealt with more normative, milder, cumulative, and long-term changes. Another increased focus for understanding family and parental stress is the systemic nature of these changes within parent-child relationships and the larger family system (Boss, 2014; Crnic et al., 2005; Crnic & Low, 2002; Hill, 1949; Lavee, 2013).

Family stress scholars view change in family systems as the stress and tension within families and parent–child relationships that varies widely (Boss, 2002, 2014; Hennon et al., 2008; Patterson, 2002). Various life transitions provide the essential ingredients for normal psychosocial development of individuals, but do so in conjunction with pressures for change in the roles and expectations that shape the larger family system. Because family members and family systems are subject to persistent developmental change, stress in the form of systemic change becomes inevitable during everyday life, both within families and parent–child relationships (Lavee, 2013). An important contribution of family stress theory is to move the construct of “stress” from being used solely at the psychological level to both the parent-child relationship and family systems levels of analysis (Allen, 2017; Boss, 2002; Hennon et al., 2009; Lavee, 2013).

At the psychological level, parental stress (sometimes called “distress”) is commonly viewed as an aversive emotional reaction by an individual parent to the demands of childcare and child socialization (Crnic et al., 2005; Crnic & Low, 2002; Deater-Deckard, 2004). In contrast, stresses at relationship or family systems levels are defined as pressure or tension for development within a relationship system that is synonymous with change (Allen, 2017; Boss, 2002; Lavee, 2013). Depending on how parents and other family members view such pressures for change, this may contribute either to psychological distress or positive psychological feelings of individuals as they cope with challenging circumstances. Consequently, family level and parental or individual stress involve awareness of changes within a family’s structure, role relationships, and corresponding expectations that affect either the stability of family systems or family members’ personal assessments of these changes. Changes that may evoke such stressful reactions include dramatic crisis events, changes in family members’ behavior, alteration in the family’s authority structure, mundane daily hassles, and the pileup of several of these challenging circumstances at the same time (i.e., strain) (Allen, 2017: Lavee, 2013; McCubbin, & Patterson, 1983).

From a systems perspective, parental stress also must be viewed in terms of reciprocal or even multidirectional processes (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). Stress experienced by parents is a product of connections with others (e.g., relationships with coworkers or with a person’s spouse or partner). Parental stress also is an activator of parental behavior and other responses that have developmental consequences for other family members, most importantly children and youth (Deater-Deckard, 2004; Deater-Deckard et al., 2005). Children themselves are another primary source of parental stress that shape the responses of parents to the young in a bidirectional or transactional manner (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Neece et al., 2012). For example, Matt’s high level of maturity, respect, and love that he displays within the family allows Tiffany to trust him to provide social support in the form of watching his siblings. Moreover, this trust lead’s to Tiffany’s willingness to grant him more autonomy, responsibility and privileges, including such things as use of the family car. Parental stress or positive feelings are a product of mothers’ and fathers’ circumstances based on their bidirectional or transactional connections with children and with other individuals, both inside and beyond family boundaries. Such systems-based conditions include sudden job loss, severe spousal conflict, parental divorce or remarriage, disengagement from families or excessive intrusions by extended family members to name just a few circumstances (Gerard, Krishnakumar, & Buehler, 2008; Peterson & Bush, 2015, Rich, 2017).

Parental stress also operates as a “systemic activator” within parent–child relationships by fostering changes in parents’ socializing behavior, which leads sometimes to dysfunctional parenting (Crnic & Low, 2002; Deater-Deckard et al., 2005; Deater-Deckard, 2004). Stressful responses by parents may then have consequences for the social, emotional, and cognitive development of children (Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Bush & Peterson, 2008; Cappa, Begle, Conger, Dumas, & Conger, 2011; Gerard et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2009). For example, highly stressed compared to less stressed parents are more inclined to be anxious, emotionally reactive, preoccupied with adult-centered goals, less able to maintain effective childrearing, and less likely to supervise their young effectively. Thus, parental stress tends to spill over systemically into parent–child relationships by contributing to parental behaviors that are less responsive, less likely to demonstrate rational control, and to be less warm, while being more neglectful, punitive, or even abusive toward children (Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Bush & Peterson, 2008; Carapito, Ribeiro, Pereira, & Roberto, 2018; Gerard et al., 2008). For example, Tiffany reports feeling very stressed about her finances toward the end of the month. During these times, she is more focused on providing food for her family and ensuring that the rent is paid instead of consciously demonstrating high-quality parenting behaviors. Declines in parenting quality may lead, in turn, to negative outcomes in children such as noncompliance, less effective social skills, problems with peer adjustment, feelings of rejection, lowered self-esteem, aggressive behavior, social withdrawal, and distressed psychological experiences (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Carapito et al., 2018, Crnic et al., 2005; Crnic & Low, 2002; Deater-Deckard, 2004; Deater-Deckard et al., 2005; Gerard et al., 2008). In contrast, parents who have lower stress and perceive positive change within the family system tend to be more responsive, warm, rational, and to use moderate control (i.e., firm control, reasoning, consistent rule enforcement, and better monitoring rather than punitive or neglectful behavior) with children (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Crnic et al., 2005; Deater-Deckard, 2004; Deater-Deckard et al., 2005; Gerard et al., 2008). Child outcomes associated with positive parental behaviors include high self-esteem, effective school achievement, competent social skills, effective peer adjustment, as well as a balance between conforming to parents and making progress toward autonomy. These child and adolescent qualities are key aspects of social competence, or what a variety of cultures often view as adaptive attributes by the young (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Peterson & Bush, 2015).

The systemic connections between parental stress and child characteristics are not limited to circumstances where social influence is viewed as flowing only from parent to child. Instead, children and their perceived attributes have considerable influence on the stress experienced by parents (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Cappa et al., 2011; Deater-Deckard, 2004; Gerard et al., 2008). The existing literature generally supports the family systems hypothesis that relationships, such as those between parents and children, are extensively interdependent, reciprocal, or transactional (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015; Neece et al., 2012). Moreover, parents who report greater intimacy and communication in their marriages tend to be less stressed and are more responsive, affectionate, and moderately controlling with children (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Gerard et al., 2008). Clearly, the parent–child relationship is systemic in nature by having reciprocal or multidirectional connections, with parental stress being both a “product” and an “activator” of changes within the family system (Deater-Deckard, 2004; Kuczynski, & De Mol, 2015; Neece et al., 2012).