In addition to serving as a barrier to change and growth, maladaptive forms of coping serve as a source of stress. There are three ways that coping itself may be a source of additional hardship (Roskies & Lazarus, 1980). One way is by indirect damage to the family system. This occurs when a family member inadvertently behaves in such a way as to put the family in a disadvantaged position. For example, a father may become ill from overwork to ease his family’s economic stress. The second way that coping can serve as a source of stress is through direct damage to the family system. In this instance, a family member may use an addictive behavior or violence to personally cope with stress, but this behavior will be disruptive, even harmful, to the family system. The third way that coping may increase family stress is by interfering with additional adaptive behaviors that could help preserve the family. For example, the denial of a problem may preclude getting necessary help and otherwise addressing the stressor event (Lavee, 2013; McCubbin et al., 1980).
Adaptation
Another major interest of family stress researchers has been the assessment of how families are able to recover from stress or crisis. Drawing from Hansen’s (1965) work, Burr (1973) described this process in terms of a family’s “regenerative power,” denoting a family’s ability to recover from stress or crisis. Accordingly, the purpose of adjustment following a crisis or stressful event is to reduce or eliminate the disruption in the family system and restore homeostasis (Lavee, 2013; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). However, these authors also note that family stress has the potential of maintaining family relations and stimulating desirable change. Because system theorists (e.g., Anderson et al., 2013; Buckley, 1967) hold that all systems naturally evolve toward greater complexity, it may be inferred that family systems initiate and capitalize on externally produced change in order to grow. Therefore, reduction of stress or crisis alone is an incomplete index of a family’s adjustment to crisis or stress.
McCubbin and Patterson (1982) use the term adaptation to describe a desirable outcome of a crisis or stressful state. Family adaptation is defined as the degree to which the family system alters its internal functions (behaviors, rules, roles, perceptions) or external reality to achieve a system (individual or family)-environment fit (Henry et al., 2015). Adaptation is achieved through reciprocal relationships in which (a) system demands (or needs) are met by resources from the environment and (b) environmental demands are satisfied through system resources (Hansen & Hill, 1964; McCubbin & McCubbin, 2013).
Demands on the family system include normative and nonnormative stressor events as well as the needs of individuals (e.g., intimacy), families (e.g., launching of children), and social institutions and communities (e.g., governmental authority; Lavee, 2013; McCubbin & Patterson, 1982). Resources include individual (e.g., education, psychological stability), family (e.g., cohesion, adaptability), and environmental (social support, medical services) attributes. Adaptation is different than adjustment. Adjustment is a short-term response or modification by a family that changes the situation temporarily. Adaptation implies a change in the family system that evolves over a longer period of time or is intended to have long-term consequences involving changes in family roles, rules, patterns of interaction, and perceptions (Henry et al., 2015; McCubbin, Cauble, & Patterson, 1982).
McCubbin and Patterson (1982) expanded Hill’s (1949) ABC-X model by adding postcrisis/poststress factors to explain how families achieve a satisfactory adaptation to stress or crisis. Their model consists of the ABC-X model followed by their Double ABC-X configuration. (See Figure 1.2.)
McCubbin and Patterson’s (1982) Double A factor refers to the stressor pileup in the family system, and this includes three types of stressors. The family must deal with unresolved aspects of the initial stressor event, the changes and events that occur regardless of the initial stressor (e.g., changes in family membership), and the consequences of the family’s efforts to cope with the hardships of the situation (e.g., intrafamily role changes). The family’s resources, the Double B factor, are of two types. The first are those resources already available to the family and that minimize the impact of the initial stressor. The second are those coping resources (personal, family, and social) that are strengthened or developed in response to the stress or crisis situation. The Double C factor refers to (a) the perception of the initial stressor event and (b) the perception of the stress or crisis. The perception of the stress or crisis situation includes the family’s view of the stressor and related hardships and the pileup of events as well as the meaning families attach to the total family situation. The family’s postcrisis or poststress perceptions involve values and beliefs, redefining (reframing) the situation, and endowing the situation with meaning.
The Double X factor includes the original family crisis/stress response and subsequent adaptation. The xX factor represents a continuum ranging from maladaptation (family crisis/stress) on one end to bonadaptation (family adjustment over time) on the other; and illustrates the extent of fit between individual family members, the family system, and the community in which they are imbedded (Lavee, 2013).
Figure 1.2 Double ABC-X Model
Source: From McCubbin, H. I., & Patterson, J. M. (1982). Family adaptation to crisis. In H. I. McCubbin, A. E. Cauble, & J. M. Patterson (Eds.), Family stress, coping, and social support. (pp. 26–47). Reprinted by permission of Charles C. Thomas, Publisher, Springfield, IL.
Boss (1988, 2002) has cautioned against the use of the term, adaptation, to describe the optimal outcome of a stressful or crisis state. She contends that the family literature appears to assume that calm, serenity, orderliness, and stability are the desired ends for family life. Like Hoffman (1981), Boss maintains that systems naturally experience discontinuous change through the life cycle in the process of growth. If adaptation is valued over conflict and change, then families are limited to a perspective that promotes adjustment to the stressor event at the expense of individual or family change. Boss contends that sometimes dramatic change must occur for individual and family well-being, including breaking family rules, changing boundaries, and revolution within the system. For example, an abused wife may need to leave or at least dramatically change her family system to achieve a sense of well-being for herself and perhaps for other family members. Therefore, in order to avoid circular reasoning, Boss prefers use of the term managing to refer to the coping process that results from the family’s reaction to stress or crisis. Specifically, “unless crisis occurs, the family is managing its level of stress. Managing high stress and being resilient are indeed the alternative outcome to falling into crisis” (Boss, 2002, p. 89).
Patterson (1988) revised the Double ABC-X model to include the community system as well as the individual and family system. This complex form of analysis requires that the (a) stressors; (b) resources; and (c) meanings/definitions of the individual, family, and community systems as well as their interactions be considered. Patterson’s extension of the Double ABC-X model is consistent with biopsychosocial systems models that attempt to deal with the complex interplay and multiplicative interactions among biological, psychological, and social phenomena regarding health and illness (e.g., Masten & Monn, 2015; Repetti, Robles, & Reynolds, 2011). A few examples include research on parental coping in the context of child illness (Didericksen, Muse, & Aamar, 2019) and research linking marital conflict, children’s stress reactivity (e.g., cortisol and alpha-amylase) and children’s emotional and behavioral regulation strategies (Koss et al., 2014).
Resilience
Resilience has its roots in family stress and is both an individual and family phenomena. It has been defined as “the capacity to rebound from adversity strengthened and more resourceful … an active process of endurance, self-righting, and growth in response to crisis and challenges” (Walsh, 2006, p. 4). In addition, resiliency is referred to as the ability to stretch (like elastic) or flex (like a suspension bridge) in response to the pressures and strains of life (Boss, Bryant, & Mancini, 2017). In