LA AMORTIZACIÓN y LAS PROVISIONES

A number of theories focus attention on how culture and various structural factors across individuals’ various ecological levels influence and delimit coping options, the experience and appraisal of distress and successful adaptation. Thus, the main contribution of these theories is the hypothesis that individuals are nested within particular ecologies which will influence coping processes and adaptation. This is not to say that these models do not recognise the agency of individuals. Yet, different models pay differential attention to bi-directional influences between individuals and their various systems. Two of these models will be examined to illuminate the main ideas from these perspectives but interested readers may like to refer to the critical discussion paper by Kuo (2011).

Aldwin (2007) postulated a socio-cultural perspective of stress and coping. Coping efforts are hypothesised to bring about change in response to a stressor, which could include individual psychological effects, social, situational and/or cultural effects. The introduction of these widening outcomes beyond the individual is an important contribution of this model by recognising bi-directional influences across various ecological systems. The framework does not postulate what will be ‘adaptive’ or effective coping, the model postulates the assumption that coping efforts will bring about change in response to stressors. Furthermore, coping efforts can be ‘individual’ or ‘group’ such as a family, group of parents, or teachers amongst others. These ‘coping

24 efforts’ (whichever efforts may be engaged in) are conceived to be inextricably linked and influenced by the immediate situational and social context which is perceived to be embedded and influenced by the cultural beliefs and resources available. More specifically, cultural resources are perceived to affect situational resources and these are believed to affect the individual’s appraisal of the stressor (e.g. if cultural and situational resources provided families with ongoing respite care and access to professional support services to support and help manage the aggression of a child with ASD this would likely positively affect the appraisal of the aggression for siblings). In addition, cultural beliefs and values influence individuals’ beliefs and the reactions of others in the immediate situation, which, is also believed to affect individuals’ appraisal of the stressor. In this model, how an individual copes is perceived to be affected by four factors: the appraisal of stress, the individual’s coping resources, the resources provided by the culture and the reactions of others in the immediate surroundings.

Whilst this model provides a useful heuristic for considering environmental influences, it may be more helpful to integrate propositions of other theories into the socio-cultural perspectives. The construct of emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson, 1993) suggests the emotional reaction of others in the environment communicated through their non-verbal behaviours can be transferred and absorbed by others.

The resource congruence model of coping (Wong, Reker & Peacock, 2006) also implicitly recognises the influences of one’s cultural context on the stress and coping process but also pays particular attention to hypotheses relating to ‘effective’ coping. This model predicates that adaptive coping ensues when there is a ‘fit’ between one’s available coping resources and coping responses in response to a stressor. Additionally, congruence is also believed to be a function of individuals’ perceptions that their coping responses are in line with cultural rules and practices (Wong, Reker & Peacock, 2006). That is, what individuals choose to think or do (coping responses) is perceived by them to be an ‘appropriate’ response in line within their particular cultural beliefs. This model purports that culture affects the coping process by influencing (a) defining what is stressful, (b) predisposing individuals to respond to stress in a customary way, (c) delimiting the nature and the range of resources utilised and, (d) providing cultural knowledge for culturally appropriate coping responses in view of a given stressor.

25 1.8.6 Conclusion

Review of the theoretical perspectives of coping has highlighted a number of processes purported to be involved in adaptation to adversities. In addition, the perspectives have contributed to gaining an understanding of factors that are considered to influence the coping process. For example, the cognitive motivational theory of coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) introduces the meta-theoretical assumption of the dynamic and the cyclical nature of subjective appraisals relating to the stressor and problem and emotion focused coping efforts. This bi-directional relationship contends that both coping efforts and one’s appraisals of a stressor continually influence one another. Hypotheses are also presented and suggest an individual’s perceived controllability of a stressor will influence the degree to which coping efforts are more efficacious in reducing those appraisals of distress.

A central theme in a number of models has been the role of making sense of and developing meaning of the adversity in one’s life as key processes in adaptation. Janoff-Bulman & Yopyk (2004) identify the process of ‘meaning as comprehensibility’ where individuals will try to ‘fit’ the stressor into their existing worldviews. Yet, Taylor (1983) purports how developing causal attributions for the stressor has a role in adaptation by helping individuals to gain and feel a sense of understanding about the stressor and its significance in one’s life. The importance of benefit finding has been illuminated by a number of models, where, the significance of this cognitive process is through the individual being able to reconstruct positive meaning of the stressor (Park, 2010; Algoe & Stanton, 2009; Pakenham, 2007; Janoff-Bulman & Yopyk, 2004; Park and Folkman, 1997; Taylor, 1983). Nieymeyer’s (2001) model based on the social interactionist perspective, proposes the central role of meaning reconstruction through interaction and negotiation with others. In an extension to the construct of hedonic adaptation, Lyubromirsky (2011) suggests the variability of a stressor will play a central role in the level of attention that one pays to a stressor. It is proposed the less variable a stressor, individuals will attend less to the stressor which is purported will increased the speed at which an individual adapts.

Debate emerging from the literature also centres on the question regarding the role of the unconscious in an individual’s coping efforts. An individual’s ecological context is given more consideration by a number of other models. For example, Aldwin’s (1997)

26 socio-cultural model highlights the reactions of other’s in one’s immediate surroundings can influence both individual’s appraisals of the stressor and their subsequent coping choices. Wong, Reker & Peacock (2006) has offered additional insight by proposing that ‘adaptive’ coping responses are those where the individual perceives there is a ‘fit’ between coping responses which are culturally accepted in one’s ecology.

It is suggested these different theoretical perspectives on coping may provide insight into how siblings experience and perceive the effective underpinning coping processes involved with adapting to aggression by a brother or sister with ASD.