this model,
A refers to the event or situation
B refers to resources
C refers to perception
X refers to the degree of stress which is low, high, or crisis.
All the elements are represented by cylindrical shapes and are connected to each other, both sideways and diagonally. A crack is seen in the shape for degree of stress, between crisis and high.
Back to Figure
In this model,
Time is shown along the horizontal axis which is divided into precrisis, crisis, and postcrisis.
Precrisis consists of the elements a, b, and c (in lower case). a refers to stressor, b refers to existing resources, and c refers to perception of a. Double-headed arrows show the interlinking of the elements a and b, b and c, and a and c.
Precrisis leads to crisis which consist of the factor x.
Crisis leads to postcrisis.
Postcrisis refers to coping which points to pileup represented by lower case a uppercase A, existing and new resources represented by lower case b upper case B, and perception of X plus lower case a upper case A plus lower case b upper case B, represented by lower case c upper case C. Coping also points to adaptation which in turn points to bonadaptation above and maladaptation below. Maladaptation is represented by lower case x upper case X.
Chapter 2 Everyday Hassles and Family Relationships
Heather M. Helms, Kaicee B. Postler, and David H. Demo
For many American families, daily life involves negotiating a maze of activities that includes cooking; cleaning; running errands; paying bills; dropping off and picking up children; commuting to and from work; tending to pets; scheduling appointments; attending events (community, religious, and school related); returning phone calls, e-mails, and texts; caring for aging family members; and remembering birthdays—often while parents fulfill the duties of full- or part-time jobs. These routinized experiences define the rhythm of family life, and family members can experience them at times as rewarding and at other times as hassles. Whether family members perceive a particular event to be a hassle, a pleasure, or both can depend on any number of factors. For example, women and men define and react to hassles differently; socioeconomic resources, cultural context, and work schedules make it easier for some families and harder for others to deal with daily hassles; and differences in personality characteristics and coping resources influence how individual family members experience and respond to everyday hassles.
In this chapter, we discuss the everyday hassles that researchers have examined in studies of daily stress and family life. We first define the kinds of events that constitute such hassles and then describe the methods researchers use to study them, including the means by which researchers explore invisible dimensions of family life. We then examine how everyday hassles are associated with family functioning, paying particular attention to the variability in family members’ experiences. We present Karney and Bradbury’s (1995) vulnerability-stress-adaptation (VSA) model as a helpful way to frame the research on daily hassles and family relationships, focusing on the diversity that exists both across and within families in each of the three domains proposed in the model. Because elements of context such as socioeconomic factors, workplace policies, and macrosocietal patterns (e.g., institutionalized discrimination based on race, gender, and sexual orientation) potentially introduce differential opportunities and constraints for family members that are likely to affect the links between each element of the model, we adapt Karney and Bradbury’s model by nesting it within the ecological niches that families inhabit. In so doing, we underscore how contextual factors moderate the associations between vulnerability, stress, and adaptation. Furthermore, given the gendered meanings attached to many routinized family activities and the often divergent experiences of women and men in families, our approach is necessarily feminist. We conclude the chapter with a discussion of how existing social policies in the United States fail to mesh with the daily reality of most American families and thus contribute to family members’ experiences of everyday hassles. We close with implications and suggestions for family policy interventions.
What are Everyday Hassles?
Everyday hassles are the proximal stressors, strains, and transactions of day-to-day life that can be viewed as common annoyances. These events are relatively minor and arise out of routinized daily activities, such as the tasks involved in maintaining a home, caring for family members, working at a paid job, and participating in community activities (e.g., Serido, Almeida, & Wethington, 2004). Both anticipated and unanticipated events constitute daily hassles (Wheaton, Young, Montazer, & Stuart-Lahman, 2012). For example, commuting to work in morning traffic, chauffeuring children to and from school and activities, and working longer hours at particular times of the year (e.g., holiday season for retailers, tax season for accountants) are all daily hassles that families routinize and anticipate. Unanticipated daily hassles, in contrast, are distinct in their episodic nature. Examples of such hassles include an argument with a spouse, a midday phone call concerning a sick child who needs to be picked up from a childcare center, a flat tire on the way to work, or an unexpected text from a boss demanding attention during nonwork hours. Although many unexpected daily hassles are relatively minor, they often disrupt the flow of everyday life and thus add to family stress.
Whether anticipated or unanticipated, everyday hassles are distinct from other daily stressors that are severe in nature (e.g., microaggressions, discrimination, racism) and the major life events or transitions discussed in other chapters of this book (e.g., death of a loved one, divorce, job loss, immigration). First, everyday hassles represent a more frequent and continuous form of stress than the relatively rare events that constitute major life changes. Because of their frequency, everyday hassles may be more important determinants of family stress than major, but less frequent, life events (Repetti & Wood, 1997b; Serido et al., 2004). Accordingly, the aggregate effects of everyday hassles have the potential to compromise family and individual well-being and even increase vulnerability to major life events. Second, hassles are characterized by relatively minor ongoing stressors that occupy daily living. Although they may contribute to a major life stressor or co-occur with other more toxic forms of daily stress, everyday hassles are viewed as conceptually distinct from other forms of daily stress (Serido et al., 2004). These conceptually distinct forms of stress may interact; families experiencing major life changes also confront daily hassles and continuous toxic stressors. For example, a family member who is adjusting to a major life event, such as immigration to the United States, may feel heightened stress if they miss an appointment or has to pick up a sick child from school. The stress from a relatively minor everyday hassle is likely to be heightened for a recent immigrant who may also be exposed to more severe chronic stressors related to English competency, legal status, or discriminatory practices at work.
Methods for Studying Everyday Hassles and Family Relationships
Researchers who study the links between everyday hassles and family relationships have utilized a variety of methods to assess family members’ experiences of daily stress. In early studies, researchers defined hassles as “those irritating, frustrating, distressing demands and troubled relationships that grind on us day in and day out” (Miller & Wilcox, 1986, p. 39). Participants in these studies were presented with lists of various kinds of hassles and were asked to rate the frequency and severity with which they had experienced each hassle in the past month (Kanner, Coyne, Schaefer, & Lazarus, 1981). One criticism of this method is that it does not take into account the complexity of individuals’ experiences of daily hassles. For example, Lazarus (1999) argued that the likelihood that an individual perceives or experiences a particular event as a hassle depends on the person’s appraisal of the event as well as their coping resources. To account more fully for individual differences in appraisals of daily hassles, DeLongis, Folkman,