International Journal of Adolescence and Youth

ISSN: 0267-3843 (Print) 2164-4527 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rady20

The Minuchin Family Stress Model: A Guide for

Assessing and Treating the Impact of Marital
Disruption on Children and Families

John T. Pardeck

To cite this article: John T. Pardeck (1989) The Minuchin Family Stress Model: A Guide for
Assessing and Treating the Impact of Marital Disruption on Children and Families, International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 1:4, 367-377, DOI: 10.1080/02673843.1989.9747650

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.1989.9747650

Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

Published online: 27 Mar 2012.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 7604

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rady20
International journal of Adolescence and Youth, 1989, Vol. 1, pp. 367-377
0267-3843/89 $8
© 1989 A B Academic Publishers
Printed in Great Britain

The Minuchin Family Stress Model: A

Guide for Assessing and Treating the
Impact of Marital Disruption on
Children and Families*

John T. Pardeck

Professor of Social Work

South East Missouri Stale Uni11ersity
Cape Girardeau, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT

The Minuchin family stress model is presented. It is emphasized that the model is
built on an ecological perspective which focuses on a systems approach for
understanding the impact of stress on children and the family system. Ap-
proaches for assessing and treating the effects of marital disruption on children
and families through the Minuchin family stress model are covered.

It is essential to view the family from an ecological perspective in

order to understand and treat the problem of stress on the family
system. An ecological perspective helps one move from a tradi-
tional narrow psychological perspective, which essentially focuses
only on individual family members, to a systems level where
interaction and transaction are emphasized. By moving away from
purely psychological factors to a systems orientation, a dynamic
family stress model begins to emerge (Germain, 1979; Pardeck, in
press). In particular, interaction and transaction of family mem-
bers become important, as well as the interaction of the
family system within the larger social ecology.
Burr's (1970) definition for family stress clearly is aligned with
an ecological perspective. He feels stress is not inherent to an
event, but rather should be conceptualized as a function of the
response of the distressed family to the stressor and refers to the

*A version of this paper first appeared in Early Child DePelopmmland Care. Vol 28.4.
Permission is gratefully acknowledged.

367
368

residue of tensions generated by the stress which happens to

remain unchanged. Viewing this definition from an ecological
perspective, it means that certain families respond to stress in a
positive fashion; whereas other families react to stress negatively,
often leading to family breakdown (Hill, 1949).
This perspective is similar to Kaplan's (1962) view of crisis that
suggests the seeds of dysfunction are contained within the
situation and not, for example, in the family system. What is
critical is how the system responds and what resources are
available to help meet the crisis. In essence, family stress (e.g.,
crisis) depends on the way the family adapts, interacts, and
transacts with the stressful event. What is critical to recognize is
that stress is not inherent in an event, but rather in how the family
reacts to the event.

MINUCHIN'S FAMILY STRESS MODEL

Salvador Minuchin, a family therapist, has developed a dynamic

model of family functioning that helps to clarify the ecological
interpretation of family stress. What is extremely powerful about
the Minuchin model is the position that all families are systems in
transition, and stress is part of the process of the family adapting
and accommodating to new situations. Minuchin points out that
some family therapists view this process of change as pathological.
However, a more appropriate perspective would be to view this
process of change, often producing stress, as a way that the family
accommodates and adapts to new circumstances. Minuchin (1974)
argues that the label of pathology should be reserved for only
those families who in the face of stress increase the rigidity of their
transactional patterns and boundaries and avoid or resist any
exploration of alternatives.
Minuchin (197 4) sees stress as a phenomenon flowing from four
major sources. Stress from these four sources can originate
outside or inside the family system. He makes it very clear that the
transitional points in the family's evolution are important sources
of stress. Often this process is predictable and most families can
expect to have similar experiences as they meet each new
transition period in the family's life cycle.
The first source of stress flows from extrafamilial forces on one
family member. When one family member is under stress, that
member's interactions and transactions with other family mem-
bers may result in stress that permeates the entire family systems.
Minuchin (1974) gives the example of a husband under stress at
work who criticizes his wife when he gets home, she in turns
 369

criticizes him, and the result of this transaction is a fight. The fight
can be resolved by positive closure and mutual support or it might
generate more family stress that influences the entire family
system negatively. Naturally the personal resources of each family
member will greatly determine the interactions and transactions
with the individual family member under stress.
Pearlin and Schooler (1978) have identified three personal
psychological resources that may help family members deal with
extrafamilial stress affecting one family member (1) the self
esteem of each family member, (2) attitudes about the world by
family members (belief in mastery) and (3) interpersonal skills
(communication skills, competence, and ease in interpersonal
interaction). Morris and Engle (1981) also suggest that coping
styles and efforts are important factors for helping individual
family members deal with stress in the family systems. Coping
styles are the strategies individuals use for approaching problems:
coping efforts are specific action that the stressed family members
take to deal with a problem. The presence or absence of these
factors in the family system will have a tremendous influence on
how the family system deals with the stressed family member.
The second source of stress according to Minuchin is extra-
familial forces on the whole family. Family systems are at times
overloaded by external pressures that affect the entire family
system. An obvious example of this overload would be economic
depression generated by the unemployment of the breadwinner of
a family. Stress from external sources on the family may also be
caused by a family moving to a new neighbourhood or when a
poverty stricken family is confronted by numerous social service
agencies, resulting in an overload of the family's coping
mechanisms.
Minuchin suggests that stress at transitional points in the family
is a third pressure point for virtually all family systems. In a certain
sense this kind of stress is "normal" and is related to the evolution
of th,e family system. For example, Mederer and Hill (1983) point
out that the family must accommodate and adapt to a relatively
predictable life cycle that includes the following stages:
1) Establishment (childless, newly married)
2) First parenthood (infant to 3 years of age)
3) Family with preschool child (oldest 3-6 years)
4) Family with school aged child (oldest 6-12 years)
5) Family with adolescent (oldest 13-20 years)
6) Family as launching center (leave taking of children)
7) Family in middle years (empty nest)
8) Family in retirement (breadwinner 65 and over)
Naturally the transition through these stages is not stress free, if
370

anything, stress and conflict are inevitable. Another dimension of

family evolution is the changing composition of the family system.
Family composition may change due to the birth of a child, the
inclusion of a relative, or the addition of a foster child. If the family
does not change or modify its interactions and transactions to
include the new family member, stress resulting from this
situation may cause family dysfunction.
An excellent example of stress created by the family's move-
ment through the life cycle is when a child moves into adolescence.
If parent(s) and child are not able to accomodate and adapt to the
adolescence period, the family system may experience stress. All
families move through predictable developmental stages; the
ability of the family to respond appropriately to these transitional
periods will determine the degree of stress experienced by the
family system.
Minuchin also points out that transitional stress can be pro-
duced when there is a decrease in family membership caused by
death of a family member, separation or divorce, imprisonment,
institutionalization, or a child's leaving home to attend college.
Minuchin (1974) feels that conflict is inevitable as a result of these
kinds of family transformation. The conflict can result in family
dysfunction or, if provided nurturing support, the conflict can
promote growth for all family members. However, if the conflict is
not resolved, the transitional problems may give rise to additional
problems (Minuchin, 197 4).
The final source of family stress according to Minuchin is stress
around idiosyncratic problems. He feels that dysfunctional trans-
actional patterns may appear around idiosyncratic issues unique to
a given family such as the family with a handicapped child. When
the handicapped child is young, the family may be able to adapt to
the child with little problem. However, when the child begins
interacting with social systems outside the family, the child may
not be able to adapt, hence this stress on the child may overload the
family system (Post-Kammer and Nickolai, 1985).
Another example of idiosyncratic problems creating stress in
the family would be the seriously ill family member. If a family
member becomes seriously ill, that member's functions and power
must be allocated to other family members. This redistribution
requires adaptation and adjustments stressful to the entire family
system. When the family member recovers, the family must again
readapt to the member as he or she moves back into the position
once held in the family.
In summary, families are subject to pressures both internal and
external to the family system. The family's ability to adapt and
change will greatly determine how stress is managed by the family
 371

system. Minuchin feels that those family systems that respond to

this pressure by increasing the rigidity of their transactional
patterns and boundaries and avoiding alternatives for solving
problems are systems in need of treatment.

MARITAL DISRUPTION

Separation and divorce of parents is the most common form of

marital disruption in the United States. The phenomenon of
separation and divorce continues to increase and literally affects
millions of children each year. Currently, it is estimated that over
1 million children under the age of eighteen are living in one-
parent homes after the divorce of their parents (Bell, 1975;
Pardeck, 1984).
Divorce as a process normally involves an initial separation of
parents; this is often a stressful time period for both children and
parents. Typical reactions are anger, a sense of failure for parents,
and often conflicting loyalties, among other things, for the
children of divorce. What scientific evidence there is suggests that
divorce is often better (or at least less harmful) for children than
an unhappy, conflict-ridden marriage (Pardeck and Pardeck,
1986). However, this is a scant consolation for children who have
to navigate ~he emotional transition from a two-parent to a one-
parent family system. Many of these same children will in time
experience the remarriage of their parents resulting in another
major emotional transition into a blended family system (Bell,
1975).
Divorce as a process is best understood by viewing it in two
stages-the predivorce and the postdivorce stages. Divorce as a
process is much different from other kinds of family breakdown,
such as the death of one parent, in that both parents usually
continue to have contact with the child after the divorce. If a
family breaks down due to the death of a parent, the relationship
with that parent is clearly broken. However, in separation and
divorce, the child's relationship with the parent who leaves,
usually the father, is greatly altered but not ended. This con-
tinuing relationship is often difficult for the child as well as the
absent parent.

Predivorce

The problems associated with the pre- and post-divorce stages are
not necessarily mutually exclusive; however, some problems are
372

more likely to be pronounced in one stage than the other. During

the predivorce stage, it is not unusual for the child to experience
the emotional trauma of heated arguments and fighting between
parents. Parents also often separate for a trial period of time, thus
giving the child an introduction to living in a single-parent family
system. During the separation stage, children will often experi-
ence conflicting loyalties and these usually continue after the
divorce.
Other common reactions by children during the predivorce
stage that may carry over after the divorce are such reactions as
denial, depression and regression, and guilt (Pardeck and Pardeck,
1986). For example, a child may express denial by fantasizing that
the father is simply on a trip and will return within a matter of
days. Regression of a child may result in the child exhibiting
behaviors of a previous stage of development, such as bedwetting.
Children may also have feelings of guilt and blame themselves for
the breakdown of the family. Often reactions of children to
separation of parents depends on the child's age. For example, a
younger child may feel his father has left the family because the
child has been naughty. Older children naturally have more
insight into their social environment; however, they may also
have problems or may feel that they could have done more to keep
the parents together. Wallerstein and Kelly (1980) have done
extensive research on the child's age as related to common
reactions to separation and divorce of parents.

Postdivorce

One often predictable reaction of children after the divorce has

occurred is that the child may fear the parent who remains in the
family will also leave. This fear is more pronounced in younger
children. Other children, during the postdivorce stage, may
develop a fear that since their parents do not love each other
anymore, the parents may stop loving the child as well (Wallerstein
and Kelly, 1980).
After the divorce is final, children will be expected to take on
new roles in the household, which they may resent. The house the
child has been living in is often sold, thus resulting in a move to a
new neighbourhood. Even if the child remains in the same
neighborhood and attends the same school, the child may avoid
certain children because they may make the child feel guilty about
the divorce. Often these kinds of problems as short lived but are
obviously quite troublesome to children at the time they occur.
Wallerstein and Kelly (1976a; 1976b; 1980) have found that not
 373

only the age differences of children, but also their psychosocial

development, have a tremendous impact on the capacity of
children to integrate and understand the divorce process. They
conclude that the intensity and duration of a child's response to
separation and divorce is related to the child's age, the child's
developmental needs, and the child's personality structure. This
kind of information is critical to those who work with children of
divorce.

Marital Disruption and Parents

Separation and divorce can precipitate intense and complex

emotional reactions in parents. Hetherington, Cox and Cox (1977)
found that divorced parents feel more anxious, depressed, re-
jected, and angry than married parents. Women and men were
also found to undergo a change in their self-concepts. Fathers
often feel a lack of identity and rootlessness after a divorce.
However, familiar surroundings and the continued presence of
their children provide divorced mothers with a sense of security.
Weiss (1976) reported that even after the love has faded between
divorced parents, a strong attachment between them still remains.
Weiss concludes that after separation both adults and ·children
often have reactions of rage and anxiety, and in particular,
maintain a strong fantasy relationship with the lost person.
Efforts at reunion are not at all uncommon for both children and
parents.
Cline and Westman (1971) found that children may precipitate
stressful interactions between estranged parents. In particular,
they reported that postdivorce turbulence often includes hostile
interactions created by children playing the parents off against
each other, as well as strained interactions contributed to children
in the extended families of the parents. Clearly, the problems
associated with separation and divorce are extremely stressful
events for most children and parents.

ASSESSING AND TREATING THE EFFECTS OF MARITAL

DISRUPTION

Minuchin's family stress model suggests that pressure comes

from outside and inside the family system. Responding to this
stress demands a constant transformation of the position of family
members in relation to one another, so they can grow while the
family system maintains continuity (Minuchin, 197 4). Dysfunc-
374

tional family systems respond to stress with increased rigidity of

their transactional patterns and boundaries and avoid or resist
exploration of alternatives for solving problems.
Stress on the family system can originate from one family
member being under pressure due to conditions outside the family
or from external pressures which affect the entire family system.
Families that cannot adapt to stress coming from these two
sources may well break down resulting in separation and divorce
of parents.
For example, if a family member is under pressure due to a
situation outside the home, the family can survive this kind of
external stress if family members are able to deal effectively with
the conflict and support the stressed family member. Unresolved
stress may result in dysfunctional transactional patterns between
family members and can impact the entire family, in particular,
children. Typical reactions by children are conflicting loyalities,
anger, and guilt. At this stage, treatment is critical for the entire
family system. It is imperative that the therapist help the family
create functional transactional patterns and resolve internal
family stress. If not, the stress may lead to separation and divorce.
Unfortunately many problems still must be worked through by
family members, especially children, after marital disruption has
occurred.
A common external source of pressure that affects the entire
family system is unemployment. Rheinstein (1972) has noted that
the divorce rate in countries having family allowances and other
forms of family support are all lower than that of the United
States, even in countries that are highly industrialized. These
findings give some support to the need in the United States for
developing adequate income programs for families that have
experienced unemployment. It should be noted that the United
States is the only "developed" nation that does not have a national
family or children's allowance program (Kamerman and Kahn,
1978; Pardeck, 1979). Furthermore, Garbarino (1980) reports that
child abuse is significantly higher in families confronted with
inadequate income supports. Clearly, stress that affects the whole
family system due to inadequate family income would greatly be
reduced in the United States if income supports were provided to
families in need (Pardeck, 1982; Pardeck, 1986).
Minuchin (1974) suggests that therapists can be helpful in an
ombudsman role when a poverty stricken family is overloaded by
the demands of numerous social service agencies. This kind of
extrafamilial force can be greatly relieved if the therapist can help
in coordination of the services offered by agencies attempting to
support the family in need. The therapist can also be supportive by
 375

teaching the family how to effectively deal with these agencies.

This can lead to family autonomy and help prevent family
breakdown.
The Minuchin family stress model helps one to understand how
separation and divorce can be viewed as transactional processes in
the evolution of a family's life cycle. This kind of stress resulting
from family transition through the life cycle is grounded in
internal family pressure. Minuchin points out that after a
separation or divorce, new family rules, among other issues, must
be re-negotiated. Furthermore, new subsystems and lines of
differentiation must develop. The family system no longer in-
cludes two parents and children, but one parent and children.
Families often go into therapy after separation or divorce
because the negotiations leading to a successful transition have
been blocked. Minuchin (1974) suggests that problems related to
separation or divorce can be dealt with easier if the family gets help
early; dysfunctional family patternings are more difficult to
correct the longer the family waits to go into treatment.
The other source of internal family pressure is stress related to
idiosyncratic problems of a given family system. This source of
stress does not give a great deal of additional insight into the
problems of separation and divorce, but clearly helps one to better
understand the impact of death or illness of a parent on the family.
When marital disruption is due to these factors, the family system
may become overloaded. The roles and power of the absent family
member must be allocated to other family members. This can be an
extremely painful process and therapy may well be needed for the
entire family system.
Families that break down through the separation and divorce of
parents are families that often continue to need help and support.
The literature reports a number of problems often associated with
children and parents who have experienced separation or divorce.
The Minuchin family stress model gives insight into how family
breakdown leading to separation and divorce may be prevented
and treated through helping families adapt and accommodate to
extramarital forces. If family breakdown does occur, Minuchin's
model provides strategies for helping parents and children make a
successful transition through the reforming of new rules, roles,
structures within the family system. Families that do not accomp-
lish this successfully are likely to be those having long term
problems.
376

CONCLUSION
In this paper the Minuchin family stress model is presented. The
power of the model is that it includes an ecological interpretation
of stress and the family system. Such a view moves assessment
and treatment of family problems away from a narrow psycho-
logical perspective to a systems orientation. Emphasized in the
Minuchin approach are the factors of interaction and transaction
of family members with each other, and also the impact of the
social ecology on the whole family system.
The Minuchin approach also suggests that stress is not inherent
to an event, but rather in how the family responds to the event.
Some families adapt and accommodate to stress well, others
break down. Strategies for helping therapists work with families
responding poorly to stress were suggested.
Finally, the problems of separation and divorce were analyzed to
illustrate the impact of marital disruption on children and families.
A brief review of some of the common problems associated with
children and parents affected by marital disrupted were covered. It
is suggested that unresolved stress related to dysfunctional
transactional patterns provides some insight into why children
and parents are often negatively influenced by marital disruption.
Family therapists who use a systems approach can be extremely
effective in creating functional transactional patterns and re-
solving stress in families experiencing breakdown.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Dr. Jerome ]. Frazier, Associate
Professor of Social Work, St. louis University, School of Social
Service for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

REFERENCES
Bell, R. (1975). Marriage and family interaction. The Dorsey Press; Homewood,
Illinois.
Burr, W.R. (1970). Satisfaction with various aspects of marriage over the life
cycle: a random middle class sample. journal of Marriage and the Family, 32
(February), 29-37).
Cline, D.W. & Westman, J.C. (1971). The impact of divorce on the family. Child
Psychiatry and Human Development, 2, 78-83.
Garbarino, J. (1982). Children and families in the social environment. Aldine Publishing
Company; New York.
Germain, C. (1979). Social work practice: people and environments. Columbia University
Press; New York.
 377

Hetherington, E.B., Cox, M. & Cox, R. (1977). The aftermath of divorce. In

Mother-child, father-child relations. (J.H. Stevens, Jr. and M. Mathews, eds) National
Association for the Education of Young Children; Washington, D.C.
Hill, R. (1949). Families under stress. Harper and Row Publishers; New York.
Kamerman, S.B. & Kahn, A.J. (1978). Family policy. Columbia University Press;
New York.
Kaplan, G. (1962). A concept of acute situational disorders. Social Work. 7, 15-23.
Mederer, H. & Hill, R. (1983). Critical transactions over the family life span:
theory and research. In Social Stress and the Family. (H.I. McCubbin, M.B.
Sussman, and J.M. Patterson, eds.) The Haworth Press; New York.
Minuchin, S. (1974). Families and family therapy. Harvard University Press;
Massachusetts.
Morris, L.W. & Engle, W.B. Assessing various coping strategies and their effects
on test performance and anxiety. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 165-171.
Pardeck, J. (1984). Development of a family policy through social crisis. Family
Therapy, 13, 97-104.
Pardeck, J. (1982). Family policy: an ecological approach supporting family
therapy treatment. Family Therapy, 2, 163-165.
Pardeck, J. (1986). Family social policy: a case for understanding the role of values
and religion in policy development. Philosophy and Social Action, 12, 29-40.
Pardeck, J. (1979). Planning for a national social policy for the family. journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare, 6, 770-791.
Pardeck, J. (In press). Social treatment through an ecological approach. Clinical
Social Work journal.
Pardeck, J. & Pardeck, J. (1984). Young people with problems: A guide to bibliotherapy.
Greenwood Press; Westport, Connecticut. Pearlin, J. & Schooler, C. (1978).
The structure of coping. journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19,. 2-21.
Postkammer, P. & Nickolai, S. (1985). Counseling services for the siblings of the
handicapped. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 20(2), 115-120.
Rheinstein, M. (1972). Marriage stability, divorce and the law. University of Chicago
Press; Chicago.
Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1976a). The effects of parent divorce: Experiences in
later latency. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 256-269.
Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1976b). The effects of parental divorce: Experience of
the child in early latency. American journal of Orthopsychiatry, 46, 33-42.
Wallerstein, J. & Kelly, J. (1980). Surviving the breakup: How children, and parents cope
with divorce. Basic Books; New York.
Weiss, R. (1976). The emotional impact of marital separation. journal of Social Issues,
32, 135-145.