Tuesday, July 17, 2007

The first hour of Wednesday's class will cover assessment of family stress, coping, and related concepts. By assessment (or measurement), we mean developing ways to find out if an individual or family is experiencing small or large amounts of a condition, or is exhibiting small or large amounts of an attitude, trait, or behavior.

Typically, we use questionnaires, with numerical values for the choices (e.g., 1 = strongly disagree/never to 7 = strongly agree/frequently). However, other methods are available, such as behavioral observation or qualitative in-depth interviews. The general page on measurement from my Texas Tech research methods site is available here.

Two important qualities we want to establish for a questionnaire are reliability (results are reproducible and consistent) and validity (measures what it's supposed to measure). My research page on reliability and validity is here.

We will go over several specific measures, some of which are available via the links section.

***

The last hour of class will be devoted to discussion of Chapter 1 (also pp. 137-142 of Chapter 6). As the students in "Group A" e-mail in their questions, I will add them below...

Coping and adaptation are two areas of interest pertaining to family stress management mentioned in Chapter 1. According to the book, how are the two similar? Dissimilar? In some families, responses (the coping or adapting) to certain life stresses may result in a higher level of functioning; what might be some examples of this? Are there any examples where the response results in a lower level of functioning?

In relation to the "Sisters" episode we watched in class, what types of resources (the B factor of the ABC-X Model) does Georgie seem to have that will enable her to cope with the stress of her son's struggle with leukemia?

How is it that researchers can look at family stress in terms of the social system?

Why do you think families of ethnic minority are said to have "more elaborate and efficient patterns of social support" (p. 12) ?

Figure 1.1, the ABC-X Model of Family Crisis, shows that stress is the outcome of everything else that's going on. It's interesting to see that everyone has many different things going on in life and yet everyone is affected differently. How are people able to be unaffected by everything around them and others have nervous breakdowns? This question leads to a question regarding the ten dimensions of family stressor events. Most of the dimensions refer to the degree or distinction of how it relates to the crisis. How are the different degrees and distinctions determined? While some people see a type of crisis as nothing or something harmless, others see it as detrimental. At what point is the stressor event so big that it turns into a crisis?

Describe some examples of normative and non-normative stressor events on the family unit.

Boss defines crisis as "a disturbance in equilibirum that is so overwhelming, a pressure that is so severe, or a change that is so acute that the family system is blocked, immobilized, or incapacitated" (p. 14). Adaptation is the desirable outcome of a crisis. Is it possible that a family can reach a crisis state and simply be unable to successfully adapt? In other words, can stresses pile up and lead to crisis after crisis - a sort of downward spiral - and the family become too overwhelmed to adapt and reach a new state of complexity and balance? Or is there a finite limit to what families can handle before forced to adapt?

Not all stressor events are clear cut; therefore, a state of ambiguity arises. Boss addresses two major types of ambiguous loss situations. Describe these situations. This ambiguity creates the most stressful situations that individuals and/or families can experience. Boss blames this high level of stress to five characteristics of such situations. What are the five characteristics?

Note from Dr. Reifman: Pauline Boss's ideas, as summarized in Chapter 1, seem to have sparked some interest. She is an emeritus professor at the University of Minnesota, and here is her webpage.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

In response to the question on pg 12, ...ethnic minority families are thought to be characterized by more elaborate and efficient patterns of social support.

Community resources are those capabilities of PEOPLE and INSTITUTIONS outside the family on which the family can draw when dealng with stress. This sentence begins the paragraph where the above question ends the paragraph.

Our history tells us about how African Americans were able to cope with the oppression of slavery through singing hymns and spiritual songs together in the cotton fields and attending church regularly. Those who attended church regularly became a large extended family to smaller families. As for other minority groups depending on the culture many of them also maintained some form of religious affiliation for support. Today, although minority groups still remain close to the church for support there are other institutions outside of the family available such as: Department of Social Services,Family Services Association, YWCA, and other organizations.

Anonymous said...

In response to one of the subjects we were discussing in class on Wednesday, I would just like to add an interesting piece of information concerning the difference between a more collectively based society versus a more individually based society; I recently took HDFS 474, and we watched a clip in class from a study that was being done about the differences between the way little children in a preschool in Japan are taught, versus the way little children in a U.S. preschool are taught. And watching the clip filmed inside the Japanese preschool was very interesting, because when the children were playing in one area, and the teacher was cleaning in another, and one of the children picked on another, and then one of the children started throwing things out the window, one of the other students ran over to the teacher to tell her about it. And the teacher's response to the little student was to ask her why she was telling her, and what was she- the little student- going to do about it, and then went on cleaning. So the little student went back to the area where all the kids were, and talked to the one who had been picked on- telling him not to play with that other student anymore because she always picks on him, etc. And the reaction of American teachers and viewers to this response from the Japanese preschool teacher was that they were apalled that she did not react differently- so as to go over to the students and punish the student that had picked on another, and punish the student that was throwing things out the window, etc. But for other Japanese teachers and viewers who also watched the clip, they thought the Japanese preschool teacher did the right thing. So this just goes to show you the difference between two societies- in this case, Japanese and American- in which the Japanese people are taught from a very early age to function more collectively than individually, and the American people are taught from a very early age to function more individually than collectively.

Anonymous said...

In response to what we were discussing based on one of the discussion questions, I wanted to add that I do agree that a family functions as a social system, or like a machine, so-to-speak, so that one event that occurs to one person in the family can and often does effect everyone else in the family. From my own personal expereinces, I have an older brother by one grade in school. When I was very little- in the first few years of elementary school- my brother was struggling a lot in school, and would come home and have tantrums and was eventually diagnosed with ADD, etc. And I remember at that time, how there were specific moments when I wanted to talk to my parents or show them something that I had done or learned in school, but I couldn't, because they were both busy trying to help my brother, and trying to figure out what they could do to make his school expereince more positive and productive and all that. And they would later try to make it up to me by spending more time with me at a different time, but it was often the case that they were busy trying to help my brother. So, because my brother had some serious issues going on in his life at the time, it effected my parents in that they devoted a lot of their time to him, and then effected me because I often felt slighted in terms of getting attention from my parents. So it would make sense then- the theory about how a family runs like a machine, and that if something happens to one family member, it effects everyone- the whole system/machine.

Anonymous said...

>Why do you think families of ethnic minority are said to have "more elaborate and efficient patterns of social support...

One's culture forms the context in which a stressful life-event is perceived on a spectrum from least-highly stressful. In a sense, one derives the meaningfulness of all life experiences, stresses included from their culture, and hence it only seems natural that persons with similar upbringing/culture would cling to each other more in order to find meaning/support in different life events. This support structure becomes especially more relevant when you are living as an immigrant/minority in a different culture from the one you grew up in.

Anonymous said...

Responses to stresses leading to a higher functioning of the "family" as a whole - reminded me of this film called "Jakob the Liar", set in WWII time-period.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120716/plotsummary

Jakob, a ghetto prisoner (Robin Williams) attempts to keep spirits high in the ghetto by telling a lie that he owns a radio set so he can listen to the news (forbidden), and reporting movements of the Russian troops closing in on the German army - indicating that they would soon be freed... his rumors spread much hope, and a little "normalcy" in persons in the ghetto, and keeps their spirits high...

A rather extreme example, however what do you guys think?