Family Stress Models: The ABCX Formula and the Double ABCX Model

Origins and Significance of the ABCX Formula

Reuben Hill (1949, 1958) is credited with developing the ABCX Formula, also known as the ABCX Model. His work was built upon prior research conducted by himself and other scholars, specifically Angell (1936) and Cavan & Ranck (1938). Due to the foundational nature of this work, Hill has been called the "father of family stress theory" (Boss, 2002).

The central purpose of the ABCX Formula is to explain "the crisis-proneness and freedom from crisis among families" (Hill, 1958, p. 143). While Hill referred to the components of the formula in 1949, he did not formally label them as the variables A, B, C, and X until his 1958 publication. The formula focuses primarily on the precrisis variables of families and how they interact to result in a crisis state.

Components of the ABCX Formula

The ABCX Formula is structured as follows:

  • A: The Crisis-Precipitating Event/Stressor: Hill (1958) defined the stressor as "a situation for which the family has had little or no prior preparation and must therefore be viewed as problematic" (p. 139).
  • B: The Family’s Crisis-Meeting Resources: These are factors within family organization that determine a family's adequacy (crisis-proofness) or inadequacy (crisis-proneness). Their presence can keep a family from crisis, while their absence may urge a family into one. Hill drew heavily from Angell (1936) to categorize these resources, focusing on concepts like family integration and family adaptability.
  • C: The Definition the Family Makes of the Event: This represents the subjective meaning, interpretation, or meaning the family assigns to the event and its accompanying hardships.
  • X: The Crisis: This is the product of the interaction between the stressor (A), the resources (B), and the definition (C).

The Role of Hardships in the ABCX Formula

Hill (1958) contended that crisis-precipitating events affect families differently depending on the specific hardships that accompany them. Hardships are defined as complications of a stressor that demand competencies or resources from the family. The number and severity of hardships often determine whether a family defines a stressor positively or negatively.

In his 1949 study regarding the conscription of a husband or father into the armed forces, Hill identified several specific hardships:

  • Sharp changes in family income.
  • Inadequacies in housing.
  • Enforced living arrangements with in-laws or other relatives.
  • Illness impacting the wife or children.
  • The wife having to enter the workforce and assume the roles of both parents.
  • Child-discipline problems resulting from the father's absence.

The Crisis Variable (X)

According to Hill (1958), a family in a state of crisis experiences a flux in role patterns and a shift in expectations. This state results in "slowed up affectional and emotion-satisfying performances" (p. 146).

Direct manifestations of crisis can include sharp changes in the sexual area, such as fluctuations in the frequency and pattern of sexual relations. Hill noted that this specific manifestation is frequently observed when the stressor involves the loss of a child.

Critique and Summary of Hill’s ABCX Formula

The ABCX Formula has been subjected to several critiques:

  • Timeline and Scope: It describes only the precrisis variables and the immediate crisis, failing to account for the postcrisis period.
  • Terminology: Calling the B factor "crisis-meeting resources" is considered misleading. Since these resources appear in the formula after the stressor but prior to the crisis, a more accurate term would be "stressor-meeting resources."
  • Structure: It is characterized as a linear and deterministic model.

Despite these limitations, the formula remains the basis for most contemporary family stress models and survived the test of time as a critical conceptual framework.

The Double ABCX Model

Family scientists Hamilton McCubbin and Joan Patterson (1982, 1983a, 1983b) expanded Hill’s original formula into the Double ABCX Model. Their development was based on a longitudinal study of families where a husband or father was held captive or was missing in action during the Vietnam War.

The Double ABCX Model adds postcrisis variables to predict how families recover from crisis and why some adapt more effectively than others. The model is divided into three main parts: precrisis, crisis, and postcrisis.

Precrisis and Crisis in the Double ABCX Model

The precrisis phase uses lowercase letters to represent variables similar to Hill's model:

  • a (Stressor): The initial stressor (e.g., separation due to war).
  • b (Existing Resources): McCubbin and Patterson renamed this "existing resources," which is considered a more accurate label because these resources are used after the stressor but before the crisis occurs. They expanded this category to include psychological/individual, social/community, and intrafamilial resources.
  • c (Perception of a): This is the perception or definition of the initial stressor.
  • x (Crisis): Equivalent to Hill's X; it represents the state of crisis.

Postcrisis Variables in the Double ABCX Model

The postcrisis phase introduces new variables that occur after the initial crisis (x):

aA: Pileup This represents the accumulation of stressors on top of the initial event. Pileup results from five primary sources:

  1. The initial stressor.
  2. Hardships from the initial stressor that persist over time and become chronic strains (e.g., demands on money and time).
  3. Transitions that occur within the family despite the crisis.
  4. Consequences of family efforts to cope (e.g., a mother assuming a father's role might face disapproval from kin).
  5. Ambiguity within the family and society.
    • Boundary Ambiguity: Uncertainty regarding whether a missing member is still part of the family.
    • Social Ambiguity: Defined as "the absence of appropriate norms and procedures for managing stressful situations" (1983a, p. 93). Example: Wives unable to complete legal transactions after a husband's power of attorney expired.

bB: Existing and New Resources

  • b: Resources that existed in the precrisis stage.
  • B: New resources that are developed specifically to cope with the crisis. Examples include educational opportunities, increased self-sufficiency, reallocated roles, new communities, clubs, and church/counseling groups.

cC: Perception of x + aA + bB

  • c: The initial perception of the stressor.
  • C: The family's perception of the crisis, the pileup of stressors, and both existing and new resources. A positive cC factor (viewing the situation as a "challenge" or "the Lord's will") helps families cope better.

Coping and Adaptation (xX)

Coping Coping is considered the major contribution of the Double ABCX Model to stress theory. Wives in the Vietnam War study coped by assuming stronger leadership roles, encouraging emotional expression, and forming social networks. They also engaged in cognitive maneuvers, such as considering a spouse "outside" the family to justify dating while considering them "inside" to access military wages.

Adaptation (xX) Adaptation is the outcome resulting from changes in family roles, rules, and perceptions. It exists on a continuum:

  • Bonadaptation: The positive end; signifies balance at both the member-to-family level and the family-to-community level.
  • Maladaptation (xX): The negative end; signifies continued imbalance or balance achieved at the expense of a family member's integrity, development, or autonomy.

Critique of the Double ABCX Model

  • Positive: It successfully incorporates postcrisis variables and corrects the labeling of resources to "existing resources."
  • Negative: The term "perception" (c) instead of "definition" is seen as an arbitrary change from Hill’s original terminology. Furthermore, the model suggests coping only begins after a crisis and pileup have occurred. Critics like Burr (1989) argue that coping is constant and is already occurring whenever a family uses resources precrisis.

Exercise Case Study: Husband’s Death (ABCX Outline)

This example illustrates the application of Hill’s (1958) model to a practical scenario:

  • I. A (Stressor/Hardships): Husband's death. Hardships include time for funeral arrangements, energy to grieve, and accommodating funeral guests.
  • II. B (Resources - Evaluated as Medium):
    • Integration: High willingness to sacrifice personal interest; medium pride in family tree; low emotional interdependence; low participation in joint activities.
    • Adaptability: Medium previous success; high non-materialistic goals; low role flexibility; low acceptance of responsibility by all (due to illness).
    • Marital Adjustment: Fair to good.
  • III. C (Definition): Challenging (the belief that success is possible despite loss).
  • IV. X (The Crisis):
    • Behavioral: Excessive activity, isolation.
    • Cognitive: Distressing dreams, slowed thinking.
    • Emotional: Shock, guilt, numbness.
    • Physical: Insomnia.

Exercise Case Study: Husband’s Death (Double ABCX Outline)

  • I. Precrisis: Husband’s death (a); Existing resources (b) included coworkers, friends, and funeral homes; Perception (c) was challenging.
  • II. Crisis (x): Redefinition of the family unit; below-average performance of parental roles during initial shock.
  • III. Postcrisis:
    • Pileup (aA): Funeral demands and emotional energy.
    • New Resources (B): Knowledge, self-help groups, and government policies.
    • Coping (Positive): Accepting the situation, gaining facts, separating stress into manageable parts, maintaining family togetherness, and seeking spiritual help.
    • Adaptation: Bonadaptation (reaching balance where the needs of both the mother and son were met without community dependency).