developmental change, stress in the form of systemic change becomes inevitable during everyday life, both within families and parent–child relationships (Lavee, 2013). An important contribution of family stress theory is to move the construct of “stress” from being used solely at the psychological level to both the parent-child relationship and family systems levels of analysis (Allen, 2017; Boss, 2002; Hennon et al., 2009; Lavee, 2013).
At the psychological level, parental stress (sometimes called “distress”) is commonly viewed as an aversive emotional reaction by an individual parent to the demands of childcare and child socialization (Crnic et al., 2005; Crnic & Low, 2002; Deater-Deckard, 2004). In contrast, stresses at relationship or family systems levels are defined as pressure or tension for development within a relationship system that is synonymous with change (Allen, 2017; Boss, 2002; Lavee, 2013). Depending on how parents and other family members view such pressures for change, this may contribute either to psychological distress or positive psychological feelings of individuals as they cope with challenging circumstances. Consequently, family level and parental or individual stress involve awareness of changes within a family’s structure, role relationships, and corresponding expectations that affect either the stability of family systems or family members’ personal assessments of these changes. Changes that may evoke such stressful reactions include dramatic crisis events, changes in family members’ behavior, alteration in the family’s authority structure, mundane daily hassles, and the pileup of several of these challenging circumstances at the same time (i.e., strain) (Allen, 2017: Lavee, 2013; McCubbin, & Patterson, 1983).
From a systems perspective, parental stress also must be viewed in terms of reciprocal or even multidirectional processes (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015). Stress experienced by parents is a product of connections with others (e.g., relationships with coworkers or with a person’s spouse or partner). Parental stress also is an activator of parental behavior and other responses that have developmental consequences for other family members, most importantly children and youth (Deater-Deckard, 2004; Deater-Deckard et al., 2005). Children themselves are another primary source of parental stress that shape the responses of parents to the young in a bidirectional or transactional manner (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Neece et al., 2012). For example, Matt’s high level of maturity, respect, and love that he displays within the family allows Tiffany to trust him to provide social support in the form of watching his siblings. Moreover, this trust lead’s to Tiffany’s willingness to grant him more autonomy, responsibility and privileges, including such things as use of the family car. Parental stress or positive feelings are a product of mothers’ and fathers’ circumstances based on their bidirectional or transactional connections with children and with other individuals, both inside and beyond family boundaries. Such systems-based conditions include sudden job loss, severe spousal conflict, parental divorce or remarriage, disengagement from families or excessive intrusions by extended family members to name just a few circumstances (Gerard, Krishnakumar, & Buehler, 2008; Peterson & Bush, 2015, Rich, 2017).
Parental stress also operates as a “systemic activator” within parent–child relationships by fostering changes in parents’ socializing behavior, which leads sometimes to dysfunctional parenting (Crnic & Low, 2002; Deater-Deckard et al., 2005; Deater-Deckard, 2004). Stressful responses by parents may then have consequences for the social, emotional, and cognitive development of children (Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Bush & Peterson, 2008; Cappa, Begle, Conger, Dumas, & Conger, 2011; Gerard et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2009). For example, highly stressed compared to less stressed parents are more inclined to be anxious, emotionally reactive, preoccupied with adult-centered goals, less able to maintain effective childrearing, and less likely to supervise their young effectively. Thus, parental stress tends to spill over systemically into parent–child relationships by contributing to parental behaviors that are less responsive, less likely to demonstrate rational control, and to be less warm, while being more neglectful, punitive, or even abusive toward children (Buehler & Gerard, 2002; Bush & Peterson, 2008; Carapito, Ribeiro, Pereira, & Roberto, 2018; Gerard et al., 2008). For example, Tiffany reports feeling very stressed about her finances toward the end of the month. During these times, she is more focused on providing food for her family and ensuring that the rent is paid instead of consciously demonstrating high-quality parenting behaviors. Declines in parenting quality may lead, in turn, to negative outcomes in children such as noncompliance, less effective social skills, problems with peer adjustment, feelings of rejection, lowered self-esteem, aggressive behavior, social withdrawal, and distressed psychological experiences (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Carapito et al., 2018, Crnic et al., 2005; Crnic & Low, 2002; Deater-Deckard, 2004; Deater-Deckard et al., 2005; Gerard et al., 2008). In contrast, parents who have lower stress and perceive positive change within the family system tend to be more responsive, warm, rational, and to use moderate control (i.e., firm control, reasoning, consistent rule enforcement, and better monitoring rather than punitive or neglectful behavior) with children (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Crnic et al., 2005; Deater-Deckard, 2004; Deater-Deckard et al., 2005; Gerard et al., 2008). Child outcomes associated with positive parental behaviors include high self-esteem, effective school achievement, competent social skills, effective peer adjustment, as well as a balance between conforming to parents and making progress toward autonomy. These child and adolescent qualities are key aspects of social competence, or what a variety of cultures often view as adaptive attributes by the young (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Peterson & Bush, 2015).
The systemic connections between parental stress and child characteristics are not limited to circumstances where social influence is viewed as flowing only from parent to child. Instead, children and their perceived attributes have considerable influence on the stress experienced by parents (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Cappa et al., 2011; Deater-Deckard, 2004; Gerard et al., 2008). The existing literature generally supports the family systems hypothesis that relationships, such as those between parents and children, are extensively interdependent, reciprocal, or transactional (Kuczynski & De Mol, 2015; Neece et al., 2012). Moreover, parents who report greater intimacy and communication in their marriages tend to be less stressed and are more responsive, affectionate, and moderately controlling with children (Bush & Peterson, 2013; Gerard et al., 2008). Clearly, the parent–child relationship is systemic in nature by having reciprocal or multidirectional connections, with parental stress being both a “product” and an “activator” of changes within the family system (Deater-Deckard, 2004; Kuczynski, & De Mol, 2015; Neece et al., 2012).
Stressors or Stressor Events for Parents: Factor A
Stressors or stressor events (the A factor) consist of occurrences that may be of sufficient magnitude to bring about changes within the larger family system, the parent–child subsystem and feelings of tension by parents (Boss, 2014). However, because many stressful circumstances do not occur for parents as discrete events, the general term stressor is now preferred. This distinction is important because parents may be dealing with circumstances that develop gradually over an extended time period and multiple stressors can accumulate to gradually determine the overall level of parental stress (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983; Rich, 2017).
Although a stressor has the potential to evoke systemic change and psychological responses, the occurrences that challenge parent–child relationships do not inevitably lead to the onset of stress. Stressors may threaten the status quo of families and parent–child relationships, but they are not solely responsible for fostering stress by imposing demands on individuals (e.g., parents) and relationships. By themselves, stressors (a) do not have all the necessary ingredients (i.e., the B factor, resources, and the C factor, definitions) for parental stress, (b) have no inherent positive or negative qualities, and (c) may never immobilize the parent–child relationship and bring about individual stress by parents. Instead, stressors are undefined phenomena that are capable of only applying pressures that range from developing dramatically to unfolding gradually. Rather than always being major disruptions, many stressors are of mild to moderate strength that can accumulate and “pile up” over time (Buehler, & Gerard, 2013; McCubbin & Patterson, 1983; Patterson, 2002).
Despite the fact that stressors have no inherent meaning, scholars have developed classification systems to identify common ways that parents and families tend to define and