Not all stressor events, however, are straightforward or easily understood. As a result, a state of ambiguity is created. Boss (1999, 2006, 2013; Boss, Bryant, & Mancini, 2017) addressed the issue of ambiguous loss that can result from incongruency between physical and psychological/emotional presence or absence. There are two major types of ambiguous loss: (1) a person being physically absent but psychologically or emotionally present (missing children, divorce, a family member in prison, soldiers missing in action, immigrants); and, (2) when a person is physically present but psychologically or emotionally absent (a person that has Alzheimer’s disease or a chronic mental illness, chronic substance abuse; a spouse preoccupied with work; Boss, 1999, 2013). Ambiguous loss not only disrupts family functioning, it results in a lack of clarity regarding who is “in” and who is “outside” the family, as well as what are appropriate roles for family members. This type of ambiguity is the most stressful situation a person or family can experience. Boss attributed this high level of stress to (a) people feeling unable to problem solve because they do not know whether the problem is final or temporary, (b) the ambiguity preventing people from adjusting by reorganizing their relationship with the loved one, (c) families denying societal rituals associated with loss (e.g., funerals, death certificate) that in turn impede their ability to grieve, (d) friends or neighbors withdrawing rather than giving support, and (e) the extended continuation of ambiguous loss which leads to the physical and emotional exhaustion of affected family members (Boss, 1999, pp. 7–8).
Resources
The family’s resources buffer or moderate the impact of the stressor event on the family’s level of stress. Hansen (1965) uses the term vulnerability to denote the difference in families’ physical and emotional responses to stressful stimuli (Gore & Colten, 1991). This moderator denotes variation in a family’s ability to prevent a stressor event or change from creating disruptiveness in the system (Burr, 1973; Henry et al., 2015). When family members have sufficient and appropriate resources, they are less likely to view a stressful situation as problematic. McCubbin and Patterson (1985) defined resources as traits, characteristics, or abilities of (a) individual family members, (b) the family system, and (c) the community that can be used to meet the demands of a stressor event. Individual or personal resources include financial (economic well-being), educational (problem solving, information), health (physical and emotional well-being), and psychological resources which include self-esteem, optimism, sense of coherence, sense of mastery, and a positive family schema or ethnic identity (Everson, Darling, Herzog, Figley, & King, 2017; Garrard, Fennell, & Wilson, 2017; Lavee, 2013; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013).
The term family system resources refers to internal attributes of the family unit that protect the family from the impact of stressors and facilitate family adaptation during family stress or crisis. Family cohesion (bonds of unity) and adaptability (ability to change) (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1979, 1983; Patterson, 2002) have received the most research attention (Lavee, 2013). These two dimensions are the major axes of the circumplex model (Olson et al., 1979). This model suggests that families who function moderately along the dimensions of cohesion and adaptability are likely to make a more successful adjustment to stress (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1980).
Community resources refer to those capabilities of people or institutions outside the family upon which the family can draw from to deal with stress (Boss, Bryant, & Mancini, 2017). Social support is one of the most important community resources, such as informal support from friends, neighbors and colleagues, as well as formal support from community institutions (Lavee, 2013). Social support may be viewed as informational in terms of facilitating problem solving and as tangible in the development of social contacts who provide help and assistance. In general, social support serves as a protector against the effects of stressors and promotes recovery from stress or crisis. Increasingly, the concept of community resources has been broadened to include the resources of cultural groups, for example, ethnic minority families (Emmen et al., 2013; Hill, 1999; McCubbin, Futrell, Thompson & Thompson, 1998; McCubbin, & McCubbin, 2013; Yeh et al., 2006) as well as those offered within established neighborhoods and communities (Distelberg & Taylor, 2015; Lum et al., 2016).
Definition of the Event/Perceptions
The impact of the stressor event on the family’s level of stress is moderated by the definition or meaning the family gives to the event. This variable is also synonymous with family appraisal, perception, and assessment of the event. Thus, subjective definitions can vary from viewing circumstances as a challenge and an opportunity for growth, to the negative view that things are hopeless, too difficult, or unmanageable (Lavee, 2013; McCubbin & Patterson, 1985). Empirical findings suggest that an individual’s cognitive appraisal of life events strongly influences the response (Lazarus & Launier, 1978), and may be the most important component in determining an individual’s or family’s response to a stressor event (Boss, 2002; Hennon et al., 2009).
This concept has a long tradition in social psychology in terms of the self-fulfilling prophecy that, if something is perceived as real, it is real in its consequences (Burr, 1982). Families who are able to redefine a stressor event more positively (i.e., reframe it) appear to be better able to cope and adapt. By redefining, families are able to (a) clarify the issues, hardships, and tasks to render them more manageable and responsive to problem-solving efforts; (b) decrease the intensity of the emotional burdens associated with stressors; and (c) encourage the family unit to carry on with its fundamental tasks of promoting individual member’s social and emotional development (Lavee, 2013; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013; McCubbin & Patterson, 1985).
Additional factors which could influence families’ perceptions in a stressful situation include spirituality, values and beliefs, culture, and stage of the family life cycle (e.g., Emmen et al., 2013; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013; Walsh, 2013a; Yeh et al., 2006). As noted earlier, there has been an increased emphasis on the role of spirituality, beliefs, and faith on family stress. Boss (2002, 2006) discussed several cases where a strong sense of spirituality results in a more positive attitude, hope, and optimism when families are confronted with a stressful situation. Faith can be a major coping mechanism promoting family resilience (Martin, Distelberg, & Elahad, 2015) and causing families to turn to their religious institutions and communities more than cognitive problem solving (Walsh, 2013a). Of course, spirituality can be experienced within or outside formal religious institutions. Regardless of the source, spiritual associations can bring a sense of meaning, wholeness, and connection with others. For example, religious communities provide guidelines for living and scripted ways to make major life transitions, as well as congregational support in times of need (Walsh, 2006, 2013a).
The belief system or value orientation of families may also influence their perceptions of stressful events. Families with a mastery orientation may believe they can solve any problem and control just about anything that could happen to them. For example, a recent study found that adolescent mastery orientation served to increase health promotion behaviors in teens despite family stress (Kwon & Wickrama, 2014). In contrast, families with a fatalistic orientation are more likely to believe that everything is determined by a higher power, therefore, all events are predetermined and not under their control. This orientation could be a barrier to coping because it encourages passivity, and active coping strategies have been found to be more effective than passive strategies (e.g., Boss, 2002; Yeh et al., 2006). The influence of belief and value orientations can also be mediated by culture (McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013; Yeh et al., 2006).
Culture influences the family stress process through (1) values or value orientations and (2) minority and immigrant status—both of which influence perceptions, coping strategies, and resources (Emmen et al., 2013; Folkman & Moskowitz, 2004; Yeh et al., 2006; Walsh, 2013a).