6A. Family Strengths

Learning Outcomes

At the end of this chapter, you will be able to do the following:

• Analyze family strengths and relate how they are fostered.

• Recall threats to a strong family.

• Recall proactive measures to combat family breakdown.

The good news for fans of family relationships is that the family is here to stay. The family is by far the most enduring and central institution in society and has been throughout all human history. Family homogeneity, meaning all families are similar, is a thing of the past. Family diversity is the theme of the future. The formation, maintenance, and perpetuation of the family will continue as it has for thousands of years; it will adapt itself to changing technologies and economies, it will adapt itself to religious and political influences, and it will adapt itself to scientific discovery. Most importantly, it will persist as long as humans persist.

World surveys of human values continue to document the selection of family issues as the most important value to people worldwide (Jamal, 2023). Billions continue with their traditions of tribal, monogamous, polygamous, matriarchal, and patriarchal family forms. Lesbian and gay couples continue to carve their niche into the mainstream of the various societies in which they live. Low-income families, average families, and wealthy families continue to perform the core family functions and create another generation of adult children who will likely do the same by socially reproducing the next generation of fathers and mothers, husbands and wives.

The General Social Surveys (GSS) are national surveys of U.S. persons and have been conducted from 1972 to the present. When asked if a girl’s or boy’s chances for a happy family life were better than yours, about the same, or worse than yours, thousands of respondents (24,070), 19% reported girls had a better chance and 17% said boys had a better chance; 45% (girls) and 48% (boys) said about the same chance; and 36% (girls) and 35% (boys) said a worse chance

In the U.S., families are a source of satisfaction. When asked another question about how much satisfaction they get from their family life, 43% said a very great deal, 34% said a great deal, and 11% said quite a bit. When asked in general how satisfied they were with their family, 90% indicated satisfaction at some level.

Researchers have been very interested in what can be done to strengthen families with all the challenges families face. A wealth of research has been conducted investigating what strong families do to stay strong.

Fostering Rituals, Traditions, and Holidays

Have you ever wondered why Grandma or Mom keeps asking you to attend the family picnic or reunion? What might they know that you don’t know? Even though it sometimes feels annoying, when you do attend, why are you glad you did? Perhaps your Mom and Grandma know that family rituals, traditions, and holidays are the way to build a connection between generations, create new memories, and keep family traditions alive.

Scientists have found that reunions and celebrations tend to promote cohesion and adaptability in family systems while offering mutual support between nuclear and extended family members. Rituals are significant to the family. These can be as simple as eating three meals a day together, holding weekly movie parties, buying fresh doughnuts on Saturday morning, or reading to small children at bedtime. Rituals, when practiced, come to be expected. The ritual of taking driver’s education and obtaining a driver’s license is a common experience. For many family members, it marks a rite of passage or an event that signifies the transition of a person from one stage in life to another (e.g., non-driver to driver). When a new driver emerges among the teen children, a new “taxi driver” emerges as well. Siblings can transport family members around town and provide the entire family with much-needed support. A first date, high school or college graduation, and even marriage are also rituals that serve as rites of passage. Some rituals that take place outside of the family institution are also important.

Religion and Spirituality

Religious rituals are found among the world’s major religions. Religion is a unified system of beliefs, rituals, and practices that typically involve a broader community of believers who share common definitions of the sacred and the profane. Religions provide meaning to us about what is sacred and what is profane. According to Durkheim, the sacred is the supernatural, divine, awe-inspiring, and spiritually significant aspects of our existence, and the profane is that which is part of the regular everyday life experience. These definitions originated from Durkheim’s studies of religion (Durkheim, 1947). For you, religion might be a personal definition of how you feel about your place in the universe. It may also reflect how you understand categories of people who share a common belief system that differs from your own (Jews, Muslims, Christians, etc.).

Religion shapes the attitudes and values of individuals. The Gallup polling corporation, which assesses public opinion, collected US religiosity data during 2008. Religiosity is the measurable importance of religion to a person’s life. Religiosity can be measured by considering how active someone feels in her religion, how often she attends formal services, how much money she donates, how often she privately worships in her home, and other factors.

In January 2009, Gallup reported that after interviewing 350,000 U.S. individuals, there were some collective religiosity patterns that emerged. The ten most religious states were all in the South Eastern U.S. The ten least religious states were North Eastern (7), North Western (2), and Nevada in the West. They also reported that 65% of people in the U.S. said, “Yes, religion is an important part of their daily life” (Gallup, 2009). How important is religion globally? According to a Pew Research poll, much of the world responded that religion is very important:

_{Figure 1: The Importance of Religion Internationally (Pew Research Center, 2022)}

There are many religious holidays, but religiously-based family rituals are often a source of strength to families which use them for tradition and family cohesion. Many families also have spiritual rituals independent of formal religion. There are family fasts, family prayers on behalf of others, family offerings made in hopes of receiving blessings, and family outings designed to get family members in touch with nature and the forces of peace and creation.

Family History

One tradition utilized by many families is that of oral histories. All of us have an ancestral heritage. Family history is the process of documenting and cataloging one’s ancestral heritage. Millions of family members worldwide have begun personal family histories to pass down to their children and grandchildren.

On the Internet, genealogy and family history searches account for the second most common Internet search topics today (Google Trends, 2023). Family history enthusiasts can trace their ancestry back to the 1500s before records become sparse.  There are a number of family history websites, with ancentry.com being one of the largest and most comprehensive. Many who study and write down their family history share it with their children and grandchildren, creating bonds of unity that span the generations.

Quality Family Time

Another key strategy is spending quality time together as a family. Work, school, friends, recreation, and entertainment exact a tremendous toll on family cohesion and adaptability because it distracts them from taking time to simply be together. Family members need time together, not just doing electronic stuff but being bored, doing chores, cleaning, and cooking together. When we get bored, we get talkative and start opening up to one another. We then get an idea of what’s going on in each other’s life and become aware of the details that make us who we are. We know each other’s hopes and fears, concerns, and aspirations. Conversation and interaction is needed to reinforce loyalties and affirmations of one another.

Resisting Family Entropy

All of the rituals, traditions, holidays, and spiritual approaches mentioned above are valuable because of the intimate bond that persists between family members. Family system entropy is the process of decay within a nuclear family system that is facilitated by the diverse roles and demands placed on family members as they travel their life courses together. Children are very close to their parents before their teen years. It is essential to connect with children and establish a strong bond before they reach age 13. Around the time of puberty, rational thinking processes mature, self-consciousness increases, and the importance of peer-acceptance increases. All this happens while teens prefer their friends over their family, especially over their parents. That is not to say that teens hate their parents, typically the opposite is true, they need their parents, but crave peer-acceptance and interaction.

Make sure to control your technology; don’t let it control you. Remember that technology demands attention. While you use it, your attention is distracted from people. Experts have even found that driving while talking on the cell phone impairs your judgment because you are distracted mentally from the details of driving. The same is true for being distracted by TV, video games, texting, iPods, and computers. It is safe to assume that all our electronic devices are a distraction and they have the potential to undermine our relationships if not managed. Some families declare a techno-free day where all the electronic devices are turned off for 24 hours and family-together time is shared.

Resisting Marital Entropy

By far, and with few exceptions, the marital bond is the core of a nuclear family system. Married couples are decidedly better off than singles in a number of key quality-of-life areas. Couples may not be aware of how much their quality of life is enhanced by being married. Awareness in this case hopefully will bring a strong commitment to resist marital entropy (couples have to work diligently against the forces of decay and chaos that wear down a marital bond). A family system functions much better when the married heads of the family have strength and unity in their marriage.

Threats to a Strong Family

Parenting and work stressors, financial burdens, health issues, long-term fatigue, extended-family issues, electronic distractions, over-complicated schedules, grudge-holding, and entitlement issues all lead to breakdown in a family. Good communication skills are a strength, but if one spouse is overburdened with parenting or work stressors, is distracted by electronic gadgets, or the spouses rarely see each other because of complicated schedules, good communication becomes a challenge. Health issues of one family member are a common threat to family security. These challenges are often accompanied by financial burdens. The more threats present, the more difficult it is to maintain a strong family.

Factors that Help Families Resist Decay

Parental dating, romantic gestures, united (and written down) goals, the practice of stress management techniques, having fun regularly, and seeking professional help, when needed, are some proactive measures families can take to avoid the breakdown of their family.

Judith Wallerstein wrote about strong married couples' ability to support and nurture one another and manage the daily wear and tear on the marriage and family (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1995). Rescuing one another is one of the duties and benefits that come with marriage. Today, the husband may help her get through difficult times. In a few years, she may reciprocate and support him. The key is to take the time, sacrifice the needed resources, and be your spouse’s number one support, especially when a difficult situation arises. Wallerstein (1995) also talked about using humor and having fun with and without the children. When a couple discovers one another, they establish a relationship filled with fun, romance, and togetherness. Once married and pursuing their goals, married life bears down so heavily at times that it becomes easy to forget those early attractions that prompted you to marry.

Finally, families can be the most fun, most meaningful, and most rewarding social groups we belong to in our lives. Many elderly say their family relationships are among the most satisfying aspects of their golden years. The family experience can be valued or endured, cherished or loathed, essential or distracting. Regardless of the circumstances we face in life, our efforts to build and enjoy the family as individuals, couples, and other family members will most likely be rewarding to us throughout our entire lives. If neglected, just the opposite could prove to be true.

6B. Family Functionality and Crisis

At the end of this chapter you will be able to do the following.

• Define crisis

• Define life stressor

• Differentiate between the types of abuse

• Differentiate normative and acute stressors

Family Functions and Disfunctions

Families are functional at some levels and simultaneously dysfunctional at others. No two families are exactly alike, and very few families experience blissful ideal family experiences. Family functions are the tasks and goals that support and sustain the family. Dysfunctions are failures in the family to accomplish these tasks and goals. Functions are intended; dysfunctions are typically unintended. For example, family members do not intend to establish poor communication patterns, invisible sexual boundaries (incest), or economic hardships. The basic family functions which are intended include economic cooperation, control of sexuality, socializing children, identity and social status, and social and emotional need fulfillment. Families that meet family members’ needs well are referred to as high-resource families. Low-resource families might meet some needs well, and other needs poorly or not meet many of the needs. Resources can include an inherent resiliency, money, extended family, a strong friend network, or a strong religious community.

Family dysfunctions can be handed down from generation to generation, with few family members aware that something is wrong in the family system. A dysfunction is a breakdown or disruption in the family (the individuals or the family as a whole) that threatens its stability. Drug or alcohol abuse, pregnancy, or loss of a job are some common dysfunctions. A pregnancy can be planned or unplanned; in either case, it is a dysfunction since it causes a disruption in the family.

Family Stressors

There are a variety of crisis events that families must deal with over the life course. A crisis is a dramatic emotional or circumstantial upheaval in a person’s or family’s life course (Collins English Dictionary, 2023). The life course of the family refers to the culturally defined sequence of stages in human life, rather than to precise periods of years or to biological development and is measured in relation to their time together, presence of children, ages, and work experiences. In young families, the adults tend to be in their 20s and 30s; they have young children, are establishing their careers and buying assets, and have less than a decade together. These families have many stressors that accompany the process of establishing their family. Normative stressors are expected life events and processes that bring stress by virtue of their nature. Having a baby, getting a new job, and buying a home are all normative stressors at this stage of the life course.

Many married couples experience a noticeable decline in marital satisfaction which accompanies the birth of their first child. Judith Wallerstein is quoted as having said, “Each couple must embrace the daunting roles of parents and absorb the impact of the baby’s dramatic entrance while protecting the couples’ own privacy.”2 Many researchers have established a decline in marital satisfaction after the birth of a child, especially the first child. The better the couple are as friends, the less the impact the first child has on their marriage. To transition to the role of parents, it was found that couples who planned to have the baby and who work closely and in a mutually supportive manner make the best adjustments (Wallerstein & Blakeslee, 1995).

Middle families are in their 30s to 50s, their children are teens or young adults, they are in mid-career, and are financially established with a home and cars. Middle families launch children into college, military, and jobs while maintaining steady earnings. They typically have some retirement investments and are paying off mortgages and other loans. As they age into their 50s, they find that some of their married children return home for a short season because of marital or financial hardships. Parents begin to witness the death of their own parents and siblings and are much more aware of their pending move into the ranks of the elderly. These families have fewer normative stressors than younger families.

Elderly families have more freedoms from childrearing than the younger families have. They are 60 plus and are often grandparents, have their homes paid off, and are looking forward to retirement. Their grandchildren graduate college and become parents in their own right. They have experienced the passing of their grandparents, parents, aunts and uncles, and sometimes siblings. They also have begun to face the sober realities of their biological health declines. These families have far fewer normative stressors than younger families.

Acute stressors are typically unexpected, sudden, and demand tremendous resources to cope with them. Bankruptcies, illnesses, crime victimization, loss, and natural hazards are just a few of the acute stressors that could impact a family. Wallerstein and Blakesly (1995) also reported that happily married couples had “confronted and mastered the inevitable crises of life, maintaining the strength of the bond in the face of adversity.”

Life Stressors

In the 1970s, two psychiatrists, Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe, developed a scale that measured life stressors that could have impacted an individual or his or her family over the last three years (Brown & Harris, 2012; Holmes & Rahe, 1967). For families in the young family stage, getting married, having a baby, buying a home, or having a parent die ranked as the most stressful events. For middle and older families, having your spouse die, divorce or separation, moving, and getting married were among the most stressful events. In this paradigm, one of these events can be coped with fairly well if the family members can gather enough resources to meet the challenge. Two or more acute stressors can pile up into your normative stressors and overwhelm you to the point of illness.

How families respond to stressors makes a huge difference in their quality of life. Researchers have established that stress can strengthen you or destroy you, depending on how you cope with stressors as individuals or families. When a series of normal and less significant stressors accumulate, it can have the same effect as a m ajor acute stressor. If both happen together, stress can pile up. Stressor pileup occurs when stressful events accumulate in such a manner that resolution has not happened with existing stressors before new stressors are added. Stressor pileup can be detrimental if adequate resources are not obtained to meet the demands of the stressors (Rosino, 2016). One of the common stressors in families is financial stress. This generation of families does not share the same conservative financial tendencies as did the generation of our grandparents.  In the U.S., many desire to have what they desire now, even if debt has to be incurred to get it. Now-time gratification (also called present time) is the individual perspective that seeks immediate satisfaction of their needs, wants, and desires. Delayed gratification is the ability to invest time and effort now in hopes of a payoff in the future. Delayed gratification is very common among college students who are willing to put in 4-6 years of higher education for the promise of a life-long career of better earnings and life experiences.

Family Violence and Abuse

Family abuse is the physical, sexual, or emotional maltreatment or harm of another family member. Abuse is perpetrated by powerful people on less powerful people. You may have heard that there is a chain of abuse passed from parent to child to grandchild. Some estimates are that 1 in 3 sexually abused children grow up to be abusers. Many abuse survivors are meticulous about marrying non-abusers and over-protecting their children from potential abusers.

Child Abuse

Sexual abuse is one form of child abuse. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry reported that 80,000 cases of child sexual abuse are reported each year in the U.S., with many more cases unreported (AACAP, 2004). Symptoms of sexual abuse in children include the following: avoiding or showing an unusual interest in things of a sexual nature, problems sleeping or having nightmares, signs of depression or becoming withdrawn from friends or family, seductive behavior, talking about their bodies as dirty, being concerned that there is something wrong with their genitals, refusing to go to school, delinquent behaviors, conduct problems, being secretive, being unusually aggressive, exhibiting suicidal behavior, and illustrating sexual molestation in drawings, games, or fantasies.

Recent U.S. data indicate that there were 3,300,000 alleged cases of child abuse and neglect in 2010. It was reported that 78% were neglected, eight percent suffered emotional abuse, nine percent suffered sexual abuse, and 18% suffered physical abuse. They also reported that girls (9.7 per 1,000 children) were slightly more abused than boys (8.7 per 1,000 children).

Figure 1 shows child abuse data from 2000 to 2007 for males, females, and combined males and females. The number of substantiated cases declined between 2006 and 2007, but this drop still represents hundreds of thousands of cases. The actual number of cases may be two or three times that high since many cases go unreported. Figure 2 shows the specific types of abuse that have occurred. These, too, are declining, yet consistent, in their relationship to one another. Neglect cases are by far the most common, with over ½ million each year. Medical neglect is the least common abuse. Other national studies of child abuse report similar findings (Finkelhor et al., 2005; The Administration for Children and Families, 2007; Theodore et al., 2005).

Figure 2. Numbers of U.S. Child Abuse Cases Substantiated, 2000-2007 (United States Census Bureau, n.d.).

_{Figure 3. Numbers of U.S. Child Abuse Cases Substantiated between 2000-2007 (United States Census Bureau, n.d.).} 

The U.S. now has a national Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) which is designed to gather more accurate data on child maltreatment. Figure 3 shows the numbers of child abuse victims by their ages. The highest numbers of abuse cases were found among the two- to five-year olds, with rates declining as children age. One website reported that 12% of high school girls and five percent of high school boys had been sexually abused (RAINN, 2022).

Over half of the reports of child maltreatment came from professionals (57%). This report stated that in 2007, about 1,760 children died, mostly from neglect. In 2010, an estimated 1,560 children died from maltreatment in the United States.

Figure 4. Numbers of U.S. Child Abuse Cases Substantiated, 2000-2007 (United States Census Bureau, n.d.).

Spousal Abuse

Abuse may also be perpetrated by adults against adults in families. When violence occurs between adult spouses or partners, it is often called intimate partner violence or IPV. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) provides a useful definition. “…intimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as actual or threatened physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, or stalking abuse by an intimate partner. An intimate partner can be a current or former spouse or non-marital partner, such as a boyfriend, girlfriend, or dating partner….”. The guidelines from the CDC focus on frequency of physical, sexual, and emotional abuse.

Figure 4. Numbers of Violent Crimes against Males and Females, 2008 (United States Census Bureau, n.d.).

Figure 5: Family Maltreatment

Figure 5 presents family maltreatment on a continuum of violence and control. In families, normal disagreements occur. These are typically not at the degree of violence or control that authorities would become involved. Many parents have spanked their children. A spanking can be a simple swat used rarely and with low levels of violence and control; this would not concern authorities. However, some parents use spanking at high levels of violence and control. They may emotionally, physically, and or sexually abuse their children in the name of spanking. All abuse is emotional or has emotional underpinnings because in families we are emotionally connected to each other, and we all filter experience through our emotions.

Figure 6. Family Maltreatment Considering Degree of Violence and Conflict.

The sexual assault, stalking, and homicide categories of maltreatment are typically considered to be between adults and other adults, but parents do injure children to the point of death. Family violence is  common and mostly perpetrated by males on others, but males are also victims of family violence. Even though violent crime has been declining since 1994, males are far more likely to be victimized than females (except in sexual violence). In less common circumstances, women perpetrate violence on men (Carney et al., 2007). There are networks of shelters for men abused by women and or by other men. 

Spousal/intimate partner abuse is particularly important to those who try to intervene in family violence. One study using a sample of 16,000 adults in the U.S. reported that 25% of women and 7.5% of men had been assaulted by their spouse, cohabiting partner, or date; these data yield estimates of over two million intimate partner assaults per year in the U.S. (Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000). Scientists at the CDC estimate that there were over $8 billion in medical costs for spousal violence in 1995 and eight million lost work days.

Intimate partner violence used to be called domestic violence. It can be physical, emotional, sexual, threats of violence, or stalking. Stalking is when someone harasses or threatens another repeatedly; even knowing their pursuit is unwanted. Various studies indicate that intimate partner violence is more common among the poor, unemployed, younger parents, and substance abusing partners.

CDC’s goal is to prevent Intimate partner violence before it begins.

It is very important to understand how violence and abuse transpire in intimate relationships. A 2006 study identified the nature of control and violence between the two people involved. Four types of relationships emerged based on violence and control. The main person is violent. His or her controlling behavior and partner’s violent and controlling behavior determines what type the relationship is. The first type is when the individual is violent and controlling, but the partner is not; this is called intimate terrorism. The next type is called violent resistance; this is when the individual is violent but not controlling and the partner is the violent and controlling one. In situational couple violence, the individual is violent, but not controlling and the partner is neither violent nor controlling. In mutual violent control, the individual and the partner are both violent and controlling (Johnson, 2006).

In the 1970s, new models emerged that helped professionals understand and intervene in abusive situations. These models focused on the cyclical nature of abuse. That means abusers typically cycle in and out of violence with their intimate partners. For example, after the relationship becomes established, abusers go through a stage of tension and frustration buildup. These times are filled with perceived offenses by the perpetrator, who begins to define himself/herself as being victimized. Eventually, the perpetrator attacks and releases this pent-up anger and hostility. Shortly thereafter, the perpetrator feels remorse and apologizes to the victim (Walker, 2009). 

Figure 7: Cycle of abuse. (2023, August 27) (Wikipedia, 2023).

Sometimes, there is a phase of calm that lasts until the perpetrator recycles back into the tension and frustration build-up stage again, repeating the violent cycle over and over (Mills, Linda G., 2008). Why some women and men stay with their abuser is difficult to explain but is a major component of successful efforts to intervene. Some have learned that this is part of an intimate relationship-to suffer and forgive. Others stay because they see no economic possibilities if they did leave. Others stay to minimize the relationship break up and the impact the harm of that breakup may cause to their children. Communities have responded to this ongoing problem in multiple ways and at multiple levels. Coordinated efforts have been designed to get police, medical personnel, courts, and other social agencies working in the same direction for the best outcomes. The most common model used today to intervene in domestic violence is called the Duluth Model.

The Duluth Model came in the 1980s from Duluth, Minnesota, where an experiment was attempted that united 11 community agencies to reduce violence against women (The Duluth Model, 2023). This model claims that it is the community that controls abusers (not the spouse), that there are differing types of abuse and each must be responded to in appropriate ways, that socio-economic and historical factors of persons involved must be considered, and that intervention must include perpetrators and victims (The Duluth Model, 2023).

Critics of the Duluth model point out the absence of counseling and therapeutic efforts. Other critics argue that it is the court and legal avenues that ultimately protect the victims. Intervention models often include Duluth and cognitive behavioral therapy plus community intervention strategies. One study found that when considering the most common intervention models, there was really no strong indication that one might be better than the other.

Elder Abuse

There is also a concern about the large numbers of elderly abused by younger family members. Family elder abuse is the maltreatment of older family members in emotional, sexual, physical, financial, neglect, and other ways, especially where trust was expected and violated (Robinson et al., 2023). Cooper and others (2008) estimated that 1 in 4 elderly persons may be at risk for abuse in Western Nations (Cooper et al., 2008).

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) estimates that $2.6 billion dollars is lost each year from younger persons abusing the finances of the elderly (Rosengren, 2022). The National Center on Elder Abuse reports that care facilities also work diligently to prevent sexual, emotional, physical, and other forms of abuse by employees and family members. This Center estimates about two million elderly who’ve been abused, even though it admits that there is no uniform system in place to track the abuses (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983).

The ABC-X Model

A helpful tool for working with stress in a family is the ABC-X model. This model was developed by Reuben Hill (1949) (Hill, 1971), a family sociologist (1912-1985). In this model, A represents the event or situation that causes stress on the family, a stressor. B represents the resources the family has with which to moderate the crisis. These can be personal, family, and community resources. C is the perception of the event. How does the family interpret this event? And X represents the degree of stress the family experiences from the combination of the stressor (A) being moderated by their resources (B) and their perception (C). X can range from low stress to high stress, or crisis (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983).

This tool can be used to help families deal with crisis events by helping them identify resources (B) that they can use in order to moderate the effects of the stressor. Some examples of resources can include having saved money, a job, a supportive spouse and family members, good medical care, or even a church congregation to assist the family in various supportive ways. Resources are anything that helps a family deal with the stressor. Additionally, this tool can be used to help families identify their current perception of the event and suggest other ways of seeing the stressor that are more helpful. For example, a counselor could be working with a client who lost his job. Perhaps instead of a crisis, this could be an opportunity to return to school and learn another profession that pays more and is more fulfilling.

Figure 8: Reuben Hill’s (1949) ABC-X Model of Family Stress (Hill, 1971)

Segrin, C. _& Flora, J. (2005): Models of Family Stress and Coping.

In C. Segrm & J. Flora, Family Communication. E-book. (Segrin & Flora, 2011)

The ABC-X model has been expanded upon to become the Double ABC-X Model.

Figure 9: The Double ABCX Model.

Source: McCubbin & Patterson (1983). (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983)

McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). Family stress and adaptation to crises: A Double ABCX Model of family behavior. In D. H. Olson & R. C. Miller (Eds.), Family studies review yearbook: Vol. 1 (pp. 87–106). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

In this expansion of the original model, one can look at the original stressor over time and the final outcome for the family. In this model aA represents the pileup, the original stressor with additional stressors that have come due to the original stressor. bB is the existing resources the family had and the new resources the family has identified through the process of dealing with this event. cC is the total perception of the resulting crisis (or stress level) with the addition of aA (the pileup) and bB (existing and new resources). This leads to teh xX, adaptional, which is defined as how the family fares over the duration of of the events. They can can end up somewhere in a range of bonadaptation (doing better as a family as a result of this process) to maladaptation (doing worse as a result of this process).

The most helpful aspects when using this model is helping the family bolster their resources and adjust their perception.

Regulation of Stress

Lazarus and Folkman (1984) distinguished two fundamental kinds of coping: problem-focused coping and emotion-focused coping. In problem-focused coping, one attempts to manage or alter the problem that is causing one to experience stress (i.e., the stressor). Problem-focused coping strategies are similar to strategies used in everyday problem-solving: they typically involve identifying the problem, considering possible solutions, weighing the costs and benefits of these solutions, and then selecting an alternative (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). As an example, suppose Bradford receives a midterm notice that he is failing statistics class. If Bradford adopts a problem-focused coping approach to managing his stress, he would be proactive in trying to alleviate the source of the stress. He might contact his professor to discuss what must be done to raise his grade, he might also decide to set aside two hours daily to study statistics assignments, and he may seek tutoring assistance. A problem-focused approach to managing stress means we actively try to do things to address the problem. (Spielman et al., 2020)

Emotion-focused coping, in contrast, consists of efforts to change or reduce the negative emotions associated with stress. These efforts may include avoiding, minimizing, or distancing oneself from the problem, or positive comparisons with others (“I’m not as bad off as she is”), or seeking something positive in a negative event (“Now that I’ve been fired, I can sleep in for a few days”). In some cases, emotion-focused coping strategies involve reappraisal, whereby the stressor is construed differently (and somewhat self-deceptively) without changing its objective level of threat (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). For example, a person sentenced to federal prison who thinks, “This will give me a great chance to network with others,” is using reappraisal. If Bradford adopted an emotion-focused approach to managing his midterm deficiency stress, he might watch a comedy movie, play video games, or spend hours on social media to take his mind off the situation. In a certain sense, emotion-focused coping can be thought of as treating the symptoms rather than the actual cause.

While many stressors elicit both kinds of coping strategies, problem-focused coping is more likely to occur when encountering stressors we perceive as controllable, while emotion-focused coping is more likely to predominate when faced with stressors that we believe we are powerless to change (Folkman & Lazarus, 1980). Clearly, emotion-focused coping is more effective in dealing with uncontrollable stressors. For example, the stress you experience when a loved one dies can be overwhelming. You are simply powerless to change the situation as there is nothing you can do to bring this person back. The most helpful coping response is emotion-focused coping aimed at minimizing the pain of the grieving period.

Fortunately, most stressors we encounter can be modified and are, to varying degrees, controllable. A person who cannot stand her job can quit and look for work elsewhere; a middle-aged divorcee can find another potential partner; the freshman who fails an exam can study harder next time, and a breast lump does not necessarily mean that one is fated to die of breast cancer (Spielman et al., 2020).

Coping Strategies

Coping strategies are the choices that a person makes in order to respond to a stressor. A strategy can be adaptive (effective) or maladaptive (ineffective or harmful). The ideal adaptive coping strategy varies depending on the context, as well as the personality traits of the person responding. The coping strategies can be problem-solving or active strategies, emotional expression and regulation strategies, seeking understanding strategies, help or support-seeking strategies, and problem avoidance or distraction strategies.

Here is one example of an intervention strategy that shows how to effectively cope with daily and transitional stressors. The strategy is called Shift-and-Persist (Chen & Miller, 2012), and it requires individuals to first shift views of the problem. To shift, you need to (1) recognize and accept the presence of stress, (2) engage in emotional regulation and control negative emotions, and (3) practice self-distancing from the stressor to gain an outsider’s perspective of the stressful context. To persist, you would need to (1) plan for the future through goal setting, (2) recognize a broader perspective when obstacles arise, (3) determine what brings meaning to your life, and (4) become flexible to determine new pathways to goals.

Table 1 below presents a list of coping strategies and is a summary of strategies reported in Clarke, 2006; Skinner, et al., 2003; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2005. Although completed lists are more extensive, this table presents styles reported across the three studies that presented similar types of responses. (Jason et al., 2019)

Figure 10: Coping Strategies and Types of Responses (Jason et al., 2019)

Social Support

Coping can be aided by asking others for support to help overcome problems. Support-seeking strategies include seeking advice or information or direct assistance. Individuals who engage in these types of help-seeking strategies are more likely to obtain social support. Seeking help from relatives may prove to be successful, which might contribute to it becoming a frequently employed coping mechanism. Barker (2007) suggests that youth’s help-seeking behaviors set up the conditions to create a rich supportive network for them, and the feeling that there is available support.

The need to form and maintain strong, stable relationships with others is a powerful, pervasive, and fundamental human motive (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Building strong interpersonal relationships with others helps us establish a network of close, caring individuals who can provide social support in times of distress, sorrow, and fear. Social support can be thought of as the soothing impact of friends, family, and acquaintances (Baron & Kerr, 2003). Social support can take many forms, including advice, guidance, encouragement, acceptance, emotional comfort, and tangible assistance (such as financial help). Thus, other people can be very comforting to us when we are faced with a wide range of life stressors, and they can be extremely helpful in our efforts to manage these challenges. Even in nonhuman animals, species mates can offer social support during times of stress. For example, elephants seem to be able to sense when other elephants are stressed and will often comfort them with physical contact—such as a trunk touch—or an empathetic vocal response (Krumboltz, 2014).

Scientific interest in the importance of social support first emerged in the 1970s when health researchers developed an interest in the health consequences of being socially integrated (Stroebe & Stroebe, 1996). Interest was further fueled by longitudinal studies showing that social connectedness reduced mortality. In one classic study, nearly 7,000 Alameda County, California, residents were followed over 9 years. Those who had previously indicated that they lacked social and community ties were more likely to die during the follow-up period than those with more extensive social networks. Compared to those with the most social contacts, isolated men and women were, respectively, 2.3 and 2.8 times more likely to die. These trends persisted even after controlling for a variety of health-related variables, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, self-reported health at the beginning of the study, and physical activity (Berkman & Syme, 1979).

Since the time of that study, social support has emerged as one of the well-documented psychosocial factors affecting health outcomes (Uchino, 2009). A statistical review of 148 studies conducted between 1982 and 2007 involving over 300,000 participants concluded that individuals with stronger social relationships have a 50% greater likelihood of survival compared to those with weak or insufficient social relationships (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, & Layton, 2010). According to the researchers, the magnitude of the effect of social support observed in this study is comparable with quitting smoking and exceeds many well-known risk factors for mortality, such as obesity and physical inactivity (Figure 14.23).

A number of large-scale studies have found that individuals with low levels of social support are at greater risk of mortality, especially from cardiovascular disorders (Brummett et al., 2001). Further, higher levels of social support have been linked to better survival rates following breast cancer (Falagas et al., 2007) and infectious diseases, especially HIV infection (Lee & Rotheram-Borus, 2001). In fact, a person with high levels of social support is less likely to contract a common cold. In one study, 334 participants completed questionnaires assessing their sociability; these individuals were subsequently exposed to a virus that causes a common cold and monitored for several weeks to see who became ill. Results showed that increased sociability was linearly associated with a decreased probability of developing a cold (Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper, & Skoner, 2003).

For many of us, friends are a vital source of social support. But what if you find yourself in a situation in which you have few friends and companions? Many students who leave home to attend and live at college experience drastic reductions in their social support, which makes them vulnerable to anxiety, depression, and loneliness. Social media can sometimes be useful in navigating these transitions (Raney & Troop Gordon, 2012) but might also cause increases in loneliness (Hunt, Marx, Lipson, & Young, 2018). For this reason, many colleges have designed first-year programs, such as peer mentoring (Raymond & Shepard, 2018), that can help students build new social networks. For some people, our families—especially our parents—are a major source of social support.

Social support appears to work by boosting the immune system, especially among people who are experiencing stress (Uchino, Vaughn, Carlisle, & Birmingham, 2012). In a pioneering study, spouses of cancer patients who reported high levels of social support showed indications of better immune functioning on two out of three immune functioning measures, compared to spouses who were below the median on reported social support (Baron, Cutrona, Hicklin, Russell, & Lubaroff, 1990). Studies of other populations have produced similar results, including those of spousal caregivers of dementia sufferers, medical students, elderly adults, and cancer patients (Cohen & Herbert, 1996; Kiecolt-Glaser, McGuire, Robles, & Glaser, 2002).

In addition, social support has been shown to reduce blood pressure for people performing stressful tasks, such as giving a speech or performing mental arithmetic (Lepore, 1998). In these kinds of studies, participants are usually asked to perform a stressful task either alone, with a stranger present (who may be either supportive or unsupportive), or with a friend present. Those tested with a friend present generally exhibit lower blood pressure than those tested alone or with a stranger (Fontana, Diegnan, Villeneuve, & Lepore, 1999). In one study, 112 female participants who performed stressful mental arithmetic exhibited lower blood pressure when they received support from a friend rather than a stranger, but only if the friend was a male (Phillips, Gallagher, & Carroll, 2009). Although these findings are somewhat difficult to interpret, the authors mention that it is possible that females feel less supported and more evaluated by other females, particularly females whose opinions they value.

Taken together, the findings above suggest one of the reasons social support is connected to favorable health outcomes is because it has several beneficial physiological effects in stressful situations. However, it is also important to consider the possibility that social support may lead to better health behaviors, such as a healthy diet, exercising, smoking cessation, and cooperation with medical regimens (Uchino, 2009).

(Spielman et al., 2020)

Resilience

Individuals who experience significant and chronic stressors are often referred to as being “at-risk” of something, whether it be poor school performance, problems with alcohol or drugs, or engaging in illegal activities. However, not all individuals “at risk” of negative outcomes end up struggling with the outcomes. Some people are able to avoid negative outcomes and even thrive despite the adversity they face. Why is it that some people are successful in spite of seemingly insurmountable obstacles?

This question was at the heart of early studies of resilience. Resilience is a dynamic process characterized by positive outcomes despite adversity or stress (Luthar et al.,2015). In other words, resilience refers to how people maintain, or in some cases develop, healthy and positive outcomes in spite of stressful situations. The study of resilience stemmed from researchers who began to notice that a subset of their participants, often children facing significant adversity, did well despite their difficult circumstances. For example, Garmezy (1974) studied children of parents with schizophrenia. Among this group of at-risk children, all were expected to struggle in various aspects of life and likely develop schizophrenia. But a subset of children exhibited surprisingly positive and adaptive behavioral patterns despite their level of risk. Another large-scale study recruited all of the children born on the island of Kauai, Hawaii (Werner, 1996). The original goal of the study was to assess the long-term consequences of stressful living environments (e.g., family discord, divorce, parental alcoholism, mental illness). Most of the children living in these stressful environments struggled academically and behaviorally. However, one-third of these “high-risk” children did not develop learning or behavioral problems; in fact, many of them thrived. Studies like these helped to shift our focus from a deficits-only approach to one more able to consider both deficits and strengths.

Resilient children were thought to have been invulnerable and able to weather any storm. Traits found to characterize resilience include high creativity, effectiveness, competence, and ability to relate well to others. Now, resilience is viewed as the interaction between the person and their environment, and given the right combination of individual and environmental support, it might be possible for anyone to be resilient. 

So far, we have considered resilience as an individual construct. Individuals can be resilient to adversity. However, it is also possible to apply this idea of resilience to groups of people. Community resilience is the collective ability of a defined group of people to deal with change or adversity effectively (Aldrich & Meyer, 2015). When adversity, like a disaster, financial struggle, or war strikes a community, will the community as a whole be able to overcome and bounce back?

Resilient communities often have many characteristics in common. Communities that are resilient frequently have access to both resources and relationships that support resilient outcomes. An important element of community resilience includes members’ knowledge of their own community, both its weaknesses and strengths. In addition, resilient communities have strong community social networks in which people work together to achieve goals, with competent governance and leadership. Often there is also an economic investment, both before and after adversity strikes. Another important factor is individual, family, and government preparedness. And finally, resilient communities have positive attitudes and an acceptance of change (Patel et al., 2017). Both research and community work is now being done to help communities build these resources and relationships to protect against adversity (Jason et al., 2019).

Summary

We all experience stress. However, we respond to this stress in different ways. Sometimes low levels of stress can actually be helpful as it could motivate you to study for an exam. Although the experience of stress is very subjective, stress elicits physiological, emotional, and cognitive reactions in us all. To deal with these stressors, we mobilize resources for coping with the problems confronting us. The success of our coping efforts will depend on ourselves as well as the environmental challenge. For example, most of us have the resources to deal with the stress of a thunderstorm, but we might really be challenged if we are confronted with a tornado that comes through our neighborhood. So there are different levels of stressors that we face. In this chapter, we examined the relationship between stressors and coping, and we reviewed the different coping styles and the relationship between individual and context and coping outcomes, including resilience. We hope that this review of stress has provided you with some new insights about how you might use a variety of coping strategies to deal with stress and to work toward the reduction of stress among others (Jason et al., 2019).

References

AACAP. (2004). Responding To Child Sexual Abuse. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28. http://www.aacap.org/galleries/FactsForFamilies/09_child_sexual_abuse.pdf

Brown, G. W., & Harris, T. (Eds.). (2012). Social Origins of Depression: A study of psychiatric disorder in women (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203714911

Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 108–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.002

Collins English Dictionary. (2023). Dictionary.com. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/crisis

Cooper, C., Selwood, A., & Livingston, G. (2008). The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: A systematic review. Age and Ageing, 37(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afm194

Durkheim, E. (1947). The elementary forms of religious life. Glencoe Press.

Finkelhor, D., Ormrod, R., Turner, H., & Hamby, S. L. (2005). The Victimization of Children and Youth: A Comprehensive, National Survey. Child Maltreatment, 10(1), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559504271287

Gallup. (2009, January). Religion. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1690/Religion.aspx

Google Trends. (2023). Google Trends. https://trends.google.com/trends/

Hill, R. (1971). Families under stress: Adjustment to the crises of war separation and reunion. Greenwood Press.

Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H. (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 11(2), 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4

Jamal, A. (2023, October 23). The Ronald F. Inglehart Honorary Lecture 2023. https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSNewsShow.jsp?ID=475

Jason, L. A., Glantsman, O., O’Brien, J. F., & Ramian, K. N. (2019). Introduction to Community Psychology: Becoming an Agent of Change. Creative Commons Attribution. https://press.rebus.community/introductiontocommunitypsychology/

Johnson, M. P. (2006). Conflict and Control: Gender Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801206293328

McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1983). The Family Stress Process: The Double ABCX Model of Adjustment and Adaptation. Marriage & Family Review, 6(1–2), 7–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J002v06n01_02

Mills, Linda G. (2008). Violent Partners A Breakthrough Plan for Ending the Cycle of Abuse. Basic Books.

Pew Research Center. (2022). Key Findings From the Global Religious Futures Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/12/21/key-findings-from-the-global-religious-futures-project/

RAINN. (2022). Victims of Sexual Violence: Statistics [..Org]. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence

Robinson, L., Saisan, J., M.S.W, & Segal, J. (2023). Elder Abuse and Neglect. Help Guide. https://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/elder-abuse-and-neglect.htm

Rosengren, J. (2022). 5 Ways to Prevent Elder Financial Exploitation. AARP. https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-2021/prevent-elder-financial-exploitation.html

Rosino, M. (2016). Model of Family Stress and Coping. In C. L. Shehan (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Family Studies (1st ed., pp. 1–6). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119085621.wbefs313

Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2011). Family Communication (0 ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203857830

Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax.

The Administration for Children and Families. (2007). Child Maltreatment 2007. U.S Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cm07_0.pdf

The Duluth Model. (2023). What is The Duluth Model? [..Org]. The Duluth Model. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/what-is-the-duluth-model/

Theodore, A. D., Chang, J. J., Runyan, D. K., Hunter, W. M., Bangdiwala, S. I., & Agans, R. (2005). Epidemiologic Features of the Physical and Sexual Maltreatment of Children in the Carolinas. Pediatrics, 115(3), e331–e337. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-1033

Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/181867.pdf

United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). United States Census Bureau [..Gov].

Walker, L. E. (2009). The battered woman syndrome: With research associates (3rd ed). Springer Pub. Co.

Wallerstein, J., & Blakeslee, S. (1995). The Good Marriage. Warner Pub.

Wikipedia. (2023, November 19). Cycle of abuse [..Org].