extensively about “alienation.” Alienation was conceptualized as synonymous with powerlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement, clearly under the general rubric of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). In psychology, stress was implicit as an organizing framework for thinking about psychopathology, especially in the theorizing of Freud and later psychologically oriented writers. Freudian psychology highlighted the process of coping and established the basis for a developmental approach that considered the effect of life events on later development and the gradual acquisition of resources over the life cycle. Early psychologists used anxiety to denote stress, and it was seen as a central component in psychopathology through the l950s. The reinforcement-learning theorists (e.g., Spence, 1956) viewed anxiety as a classically conditioned response that led to pathological habits of anxiety reduction. Existentialists (e.g., May, 1950) also focused on anxiety as a major barrier to self-actualization (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Developmentalists (e.g., Erickson, 1963) proposed various stage models that demand a particular crisis be negotiated before an individual can cope with subsequent developmental stages. Personal coping resources accrued during the adolescent–young adult years are thought to be integrated into the self-concept and shape the process of coping throughout adulthood (Moos, 1986). Crisis theorists (e.g., Caplan, 1964) conceptualized these life changes as crises, with the assumption that disequilibrium may provide stress in the short run but can promote the development of new skills in the long run.
The study of family stress began at the University of Michigan and the University of Chicago during the l930s and the upheavals of the Depression (Boss, 2002). Reuben Hill, often referred to as the father of family stress research (Boss, 2006), was the first scholar to conceptualize family stress theory (Hill, 1949, 1958, l971), when he developed the ABC-X model of family stress and his model of family crisis (Boss, 1988, 2002, 2006; Lavee, 2013). Subsequent generations of family stress researchers have made major contributions to this basic model (e.g., Boss, 1988, 2002, 2013; McCubbin, 1979; McCubbin & McCubbin, 1988; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013). Developments in family stress theory include emphases on (a) family strengths or resilience (Walsh, 2006; Henry, Morris, & Harrist, 2015); (b) culture, race or ethnicity (Emmen et al., 2013; McCubbin, & McCubbin, 2013); (c) spirituality and faith (Boss, 2006; Walsh, 2013a); and ambiguous loss (Boss, 2002, 2013).
Family Stress Theory
Ecological/Systems Perspective
Family theorists typically have used an ecological or systems approach (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1979) in their conceptualization of families under stress. As a result, families are viewed as living organisms with both symbolic and real structures. They have boundaries to maintain and a variety of instrumental and expressive functions to perform to ensure growth and survival (Anderson, Sabatelli, & Kosutic, 2013; Boss, 1988, 2013). As any social system, families strive to maintain equilibrium. Families are the products of both subsystems (e.g., individual members, dyads) and suprasystems (e.g., community, culture, nation).
Although most general stress theories have focused only on the individual, the primary interest of family stress theory is the entire family unit. Systems theory states that the system is more than the sum of its parts (Anderson et al., 2013; Boss, 2006; Hall & Fagan, 1968). In terms of families, this means that a collection of family members is not only a specific number of people but also an aggregate of particular relationships and shared memories, successes, failures, and aspirations (Anderson et al., 2013; Boss, 1988, 2002). At the same time, systems theory also involves studying the individual to more completely understand a family’s response to stress.
An ecological/systems approach allows the researcher to focus beyond the family and the individual to the wider social system (suprasystem). Families do not live in isolation; they are part of the larger social context. This external environment in which the family is embedded is referred to as the “ecosystem,” according to ecological theory. This ecosystem consists of historical, cultural, economic, genetic, and developmental influences (Anderson et al., 2013; Boss, 1988, 2002). Thus, the family’s response to a stressor event is influenced by living in a particular historical period, its cultural identification, the economic conditions of society, its genetic stamina and resistance, and its stage in the family life cycle.
ABC-X Model
The foundation for a systemic model of family stress lies in Hill’s (1949) classic research on war-induced separation and reunion. Although his ABC-X formulation has been expanded (e.g., Boss, 1988, 2002, 2013; Burr, Klein, & Associates, 1994; McCubbin, & McCubbin, 2013; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982; Walsh, 2013a), it has withstood careful assessment and is still the basis for analyzing family stress and coping (Boss, 2002, 2006; Darling, Senatore, & Strachan, 2012; Lavee, 2013). This family stress framework can be described as encompassing the following components: A (the provoking or stressor event of sufficient magnitude to result in change in a family)–interacting with B (the family’s resources or strengths)–interacting with C (the definition or meaning attached to the event by the family)–produces X (stress or crisis). The main idea is that the X factor is influenced by several other moderating phenomena. Stress or crisis is not seen as inherent in the event itself, but conceptually as a function of the response of the disturbed family system to the stressor (Boss, 1988, 2002, 2006; Burr, 1973; Hill, 1949; Lavee, 2013; Walsh, 2013a; See Figure 1.1.).
Stressor Events
A stressor event is an occurrence that provokes a variable amount of change in the family system. Anything that alters some aspect of the system, such as the boundaries, structures, goals, processes, roles, or values, can produce stress (Boss, 2002; Burr, 1973; Lavee, 2013; Walsh, 2013a). This variable denotes something different than the routine changes within a system that are expected as part of its regular, ordinary operation. This variable is dichotomous, that is, an event either changes or does not change (Burr, 1982). The stressor event by definition has the potential to raise the family’s level of stress. However, the degree of stress is dependent on the magnitude of the event as well as other moderating factors to be discussed. Also, both positive and negative life events can be stressors. Research has clearly indicated that normal or positive life changes can increase an individual’s risk for illness. Finally, stressor events do not always increase stress levels to the point of crisis. In some situations, the family’s stress level can be successfully managed and the family can return to a new equilibrium.
Figure 1.1 ABC-X Model of Family Crisis
Source: Hill, R. (l958). Social stresses on the family: Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, 39, 139–150. Reprinted with permission from Families in Society (www.familiesinsociety.org), published by the Alliance for Children and Families.
Researchers have attempted to describe various types of stressor events (e.g., Boss, 1988, 2002; Hansen & Hill, 1964; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013). Lipman-Blumen (1975) described family stressor events in terms of eight dimensions—these have been updated by adding two additional dimensions based on the research literature: (1) internal versus external, (2) pervasive versus bounded, (3) precipitate onset versus gradual onset, (4) intense versus mild, (5) transitory versus chronic, (6) random versus expectable, (7) natural generation versus artificial generation, (8) scarcity versus surplus, (9) perceived insolvable versus perceived solvable (e.g., ambiguous loss), and (10) substantive content (See Table 1.1 for definitions). The type of event may be highly correlated with the family’s ability to manage stress. Other researchers (e.g., McCubbin, Patterson, & Wilson, 1981; Pearlin & Schooler, 1978) have classified stressor events in terms of their intensity or hardship on the family.
One
