Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
3, June 2000
FIGURE 1
Event
The scale of perceived severity of patient behaviors (Creer & Wing, 1975;
Platt, Weyman, & Hirsch, 1983) and the scale of perceived frequency
of patient behaviors (Barrowclough & Tarrier, 1987; Biegel, Milligan,
Putnam, & Song, 1994a; Biegel, Song, & Chakravarthy,1994b; Creer &
Wing, 1975; Gopinath & Chaturvedi, 1992; Hewitt, 1983; Hoult, Rey-
nolds, Charbonneau, Coles, & Briggs, 1981; Levene, Lancee, & Seeman,
1996; Mueser, Webb, Pfeiffer, Gladis, & Levinson, 1996; Reinhard, 1994;
Runions & Prudo, 1983; Szmukler et al., 1996; Tessler, 1989) can both
be linked to the concept of event. This is justified by the fact that
these two rating scales serve to document the “reality” of the encounter
(patient behaviors) as perceived by the caregiver. Because they do not
provide any information about the caregiver’s meaning of the patient
behaviors, they cannot be considered as an appraisal. Rather, they
are “plain” indicators of the caregiver’s personal observations of the
occurrence of patient behaviors.
Appraisal
Immediate Effects
Event
Appraisal
part of the secondary appraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and apply
it to disturbing behaviors. In particular, more knowledge is needed
about the efficacy expectations (e.g., “I am able to do the things needed
to cope with the behavior”) related to distinct categories of behaviors.
A second avenue of research is the systematic evaluation of the per-
ceived changeability of each patient behavior. While the patient’s own
perception of the changeability of his or her symptoms has been ad-
dressed in relation to coping strategies (Wiedl & Schöttner, 1991), this
dimension of secondary appraisal has been neglected from the caregiv-
er’s perspective. Its evaluation will allow for testing the assumption
that emotion-focused and problem-focused coping do vary in function
of the perceived changeability of the encounter (see Figure 1).
A third avenue of research is the study of causality, responsibility,
and blame attributed to the patient for the occurrence of disturbing
behaviors, as additional components of secondary appraisal. While
causal attribution corresponds to the “factors that produce an event,”
responsibility attribution implies a “judgment regarding an individual’s
accountability for the event,” and blame attribution refers to an “evalua-
tive judgment concerning the implicated individual’s liability for censure
(Bradbury & Fincham, 1990, p. 18). An orderly sequence, or entailment
process, has been suggested for the three types of attributions, that is,
a blame attribution presupposes a judgment of responsibility, which
rests upon the determination of causality (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990;
Shaver, 1985).
Lazarus and Folkman (1984) treated causal attributions as “cold cog-
nitions” and considered them as nonrelevant components of the ap-
praisal process. However, the caregiver’s efforts to understand the occur-
ence of the patient behaviors in identifying their related causes and in
determining the patient’s accountability and liability for sanction for
them are meaningful attempts to answer the fundamental question“why
are those behaviors happening?” The proposed entailment model for
the three types of attribution highlights, in particular, the caregiver’s
evaluative judgment about the patient behaviors, which is a major di-
mension in clinical interventions aimed at the effective management of
disturbing behaviors (Kanter, 1984).
Causal attributions have been investigated mainly in high and low
expressed emotion families. Relatives who considered the causes of prob-
lem behaviors to be personal to the patient and controllable by him
or her tended to be more critical and/or hostile toward the patient
(Barrowclough, Johnston, & Tarrier, 1994; Brewin, MacCarthy, Duda &
Vaughn,1991; Weisman, Lopez, Karno, & Jenkins, 1993). For behavioral
Helene L. Provencher, Ph.D., et al. 303
Immediate Effects
REFERENCES
Folkman, S., Chesney, M., McKusick, L., Ironson, G., Johnson, D.S., & Coates, T.J. (1991). Translat-
ing coping theory into an intervention. In J. Eckenrode, The social context of coping (pp.
239–260). New York: Plenum.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1985). If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping
during three stages of a college examination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,
150–170.
Folkman, S., & Lazarus, R.S. (1988). The relationship between coping and emotion: Implications
for theory and research. Social Science and Medicine, 26, 309–317.
Gopinath, P.S., & Chaturvedi, S.K. (1992). Distressing behaviour of schizophrenics at home. Acta
Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 86, 185–188.
Greenberg, J.S., Seltzer, M.M., & Greenley, J. (1993). Aging parents of adults with disabilities:
The gratifications and frustrations of later-life caregiving. The Gerontologist, 33, 542–550.
Greenley, J. (1986). Social control and expressed emotion. Journal of Nervous and Mental Diseases,
174, 24–30.
Harrison, C.A., & Dadds, M.R. (1992). Attributions of symptomatology: An exploration of family
factors associated with expressed emotion. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry,
26, 408–416.
Hatfield, A.B. (1978). Psychological costs of schizophrenia to the family. Social Work, 23, 355–359.
Hewitt, K.E. (1983). The behaviour of schizophrenic day-patients at home: An assessment by
relatives. Psychological Medicine, 13, 885–889.
Hooley, J. M. (1987). The nature and origins of expressed emotion. In Hahwlweg, K. & M.J.
Goldstein (Eds.), Understanding major mental disorder: The contribution of family interaction
research (pp.176–194). New York: Family Process Press.
Hoult, J., Reynolds, I., Charbonneau-Powis, M., Coles, P., & Briggs, J. (1981). A controlled study
of psychiatric hospital versus community treatment—The effect on relatives. Australian and
New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 15, 323–328.
Jones, S.L. (1997). Caregiver burden: the experience of parents, children, siblings, and spouses of
people with mental illness. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 20, 84–87.
Kanter, J.S. (1984). Consulting with families of the chronic mentally ill. In J.S. Kanter (Ed.),
Clinical issues in treating the mentally ill (pp. 21–32) New directions for mental health research
(no. 27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lazarus, R.S. (1993). Coping theory and research: Past, present, and future. Psychomatic Medicine,
55, 234–247.
Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.
Lefley, H.P. (1987). Impact of mental illness in families of mental health professionals. Journal
of Nervous and Mental Disease, 175, 613–619.
Lefley, H.P. (1996). Family caregiving in mental illness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Levene, J.E., Lancee, W.J., & Seeman, M.V. (1996). The perceived family burden scale: Measure-
ment and validation. Schizophrenia Research, 22, 151–157.
Mannion, E. (1996). Resilience and burden in spouses of people with mental illness. Psychiatric
Rehabilitation Journal, 20, 13–23.
Marsh, D., Lefley, H.P., Evans-Rhodes, D., Ansell, V., Doerzbacher, B., LaBarbera, L., & Paluzzi,
J. (1996). The family experience of mental illness: Evidence for resilience. Psychiatric Rehabili-
tation Journal, 20, 3–12.
McCubbin, M.A., & McCubbin, H.I. (1996). Resiliency in families: A conceptual model of family
adjustment and adaptation in response to stress and crises. In H.I. McCubbin, A.I. Thompson &
M.A. McCubbin, (Eds.), Family Assessment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation: Inventories for
research and practice (pp. 1–64). Madison: University of Wisconsin System.
Mueser, K.T., Webb, C., Pfeiffer, M., Gladis, M., & Levinson, D.L. (1996). Family burden of
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder: Perceptions of relatives and professionals. Psychiatric
Services, 47, 507–511.
Pearlin, L.I., Mullan, J.T., Semple, S.J., & Skaff, M.M. (1991). Caregiving and the stress process:
An overview of conpets and their measures. The Gerontologist, 30, 583–594.
Platt, S.D., Weyman, A., & Hirsch, S. (1983). Social Behaviour Assessment Schedule (SBAS): The
schedule (3rd ed.). NFER-Nelson: Windsor, Berks.
Provencher, H.L., Perreault, M., Fournier, J.P., & Vezina, J. (2000). Instruments measuring behav-
ioral disturbance in relatives with schizophrenia. Community Mental Health Journal.
Reinhard, S.C. (1994). Living with mental illness: Effects of professional support and personal
control on caregiver burden. Research in Nursing and Health, 17, 79–88.
306 Community Mental Health Journal
Reinhard, S.C., & Horwitz, A.V. (1995). Caregiver burden: differentiating the content and conse-
quences of family caregiving. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 741–750.
Runions, J., & Prudo, R. (1983). Problem behaviors encountered by families living with a schizo-
phrenic member. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 28, 382–386.
Shaver, K.G. (1985). The attribution of blame: Causality, responsibility, and blameworthiness.
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Seltzer, M.M., Greenberg, J.S., Krauss, M.W., & Hong, J. (1997). Predictors and outcomes of the
end of co-resident caregiving in aging families of adults with mental retardation or mental
illness. Family Relations, 46, 13–22.
Stueve, A., Vine., P., & Struening, E.L. (1997). Perceived burden among caregivers of adults with
serious mental illness: Comparison of Black, Hispanic and White families. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 199–209.
Szmukler, G.I., Burgess, P., Herrman, H., Benson, A., Colusa, S., & Bloch, s. (1996). Caring
for relatives with serious mental illness: The development of the Experience of Caregiving
Experience. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 31,137–148.
Tessler, R.C. (1989). Continuity of Care Residence and Family Burden. NIMH Grant No. MH
44683. Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Weisman, A., Lopez, S.R., Karno, M., & Jenkins, J. (1993). An attributional analysis of expressed
emotion in Mexican-American families with schizophrenia. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
102, 601–606.
Wiedl , K.H., & Schöttner, B. (1991). Coping with symptoms related to schizophrenia. Schizophrenia
Bulletin, 17, 525–538
Wykes, T., & Sturt, E. (1986). The measurement of social behaviour in psychiatric patients: An
assessment of the reliability and validity of the SBS schedule. British Journal of Psychiatry,
148, 1–11.