Читать книгу Families & Change - Группа авторов - Страница 81

Family stress theory also proposes that events or phenomena by themselves do not create the actual experience of stress or crisis. Instead, parents and other family members impose subjective “definitions” or personal cognitive appraisals on their circumstances. These definitions are shaped, in part, by varied expectations for parenting that are prevalent within different cultural, ethnic and socioeconomic groups (Finegood et al. 2017; Jones et al., 2009; Marsiglio & Roy, 2013; Peterson & Bush, 2013). Consequently, the meanings that individuals and families assign to phenomena (the C factor) help to determine whether they experience stressor or crisis events in the form of positive, negative, or neutral definitions (Boss, 2002; McCubbin & Patterson, 1983; see Chapter 1).

Although the appraisals of each person or family are at least somewhat unique, a typology of appraisals has been developed based on general patterns that have been identified (Hennon et al., 2009). Benign appraisals, for example, signify that a stressor situation is not hazardous, whereas, challenges are demanding appraisals that may pose some difficulty but are likely to be handled appropriately. Appraisals classified as threatening, in turn, are circumstances having the potential to cause considerable harm or loss to the family, though such negative outcomes have not yet happened (e.g., growing financial difficulties that may lead to bankruptcy or a child’s first signs of disruptive behavior in school). If managed appropriately, threatening forms of appraisal can be avoided. If the threatening definition cannot be dealt with effectively, however, eventual harm can result for a family or parent–child relationship. Finally, a fourth category, harm/loss, represents situations appraised as having already damaged the family system. Such conditions may arise when the progression of a child’s cancer is found to be progressing more rapidly than expected or when a teenage son’s chronic delinquent behavior results in repeated periods of problematic behavior and incarceration.

The overall significance of appraisal categories is that virtually identical events may evoke varied responses from different parents and other family members. Subjective appraisals of similar circumstances either increase to decrease parental stress associated with changes and challenging events through such diverse feelings as mastery, hopelessness, denial of reality, or acceptance in the face of unpredictable circumstances (Boss, 2002; Finegood et al. 2017; Jones et al., 2009; Marsiglio & Roy, 2013; McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). Variability in appraisals that leads to different stress levels is rooted in many sources, including such things as previous life experience, diversity in ethnic and cultural background, differences in family traditions, and a particular person’s beliefs and available resources (Boss, 2002).

These ideas from family stress theory are reinforced by research findings concerning the subjective experiences of parents. Of special importance are findings indicating that parental beliefs, values, attitudes, expectations, and “developmental scenarios” provide meaning for parents’ relationships with their children and help to determine how they will respond to the young. Specifically, parents make attributions about their children’s moods, motives, intentions, responsibilities, and competencies that shape the parents’ emotional responses (e.g., positive stress or distress) as well as their subsequent child-rearing approaches (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Marsiglio & Roy, 2013; Peterson & Bush, 2013). Parents tend to hold their children accountable for negative behavior when they believe that the young are intentionally misbehaving and could instead choose to exercise self-control. Parents who make such attributions are more likely to be distressed and to use punitive behavior with their children, partly because they perceive children as “knowing better.” In contrast, parents who view younger children (e.g., infants and toddlers) as being immature, not yet fully competent, or as lacking in intention for their actions often have more positive feelings and are less inclined to experience stress. Parents who experience greater negative stress, in turn, tend to become more punitive and rejecting toward children. Diminished parental stress tends to result in greater expressions of nurturance and moderate forms of reasoning, monitoring, and consistent rule enforcement. Consequently, awareness of parental beliefs and subjective definitions are critical for understanding how parents’ positive or negative stress can influence how parents respond to their children (Deater-Deckard, 2004, Deater-Deckard et al., 2005; Peterson & Bush, 2013).

A closely related means of conceptualizing how subjective appraisals can lead to parenting stress and behavior is the degree to which parents view their children’s characteristics as deviating from social standards of normality within a specific culture or ethnic group (Goodnow, 2005; Jones et al., 2009; Richman & Mandara, 2013). Parents can define their children as deviating from their expectations in either positive or negative directions, with greater deviations from accepted norms possibly leading to greater distress or satisfaction by parents (Goodnow, 2005; Jones et al., 2009; Richman & Mandara, 2013). The most frequent parental responses to perceived negative deviations (e.g., aggressive or conduct disorder behavior) are (a) adverse appraisals (e.g., psychological distress) and (b) the communication of parent’s negative feelings toward children through punitive, withdrawn, or rejecting behaviors. In contrast, some parents may experience satisfaction or positive feelings (positive stress) regarding specific developmental changes (e.g., successful school achievement), which is viewed as affirming both their own sense of parental competence and their beliefs about what is viewed as youthful competence (Peterson & Bush, 2013, 2015). Common responses to positive interpretations include parental supportive behavior and moderate control strategies, such as the use of reasoning and rule-based supervision. The specific responses of parents to children are often shaped, not only by children’s actual characteristics, but also how parents define these qualities, which may or may not reflect objective standards (Goodnow, 2005).