Describe a critical incident you have heard about in the news in the past year. ?The critical incident being mass deportation in the State of CA.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2006 ■ Volume 84 139

© 2006 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Earn 1 CE credit now for reading this article. Visit www.counseling.org/resources, click on Continuing Education Online, then JCD articles.

Most experts in crisis intervention (e.g., James & Gilliland, 2005; Kanel, 2003; Slaikeu, 1990) believe Lindemann ush- ered in the modern era of this field with his research on survi- vors of the 1942 Coconut Grove Fire in Boston, Massachu- setts. Since that time, crisis intervention has continued to grow, with a virtual explosion of literature addressing the topic beginning approximately two decades ago (James & Gilliland, 2005). It was at this time that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) first appeared in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1980). Examples of other issues contrib- uting to the development of the field of crisis intervention are the increase of violence (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000), recognition that crisis events can be the source of long-term mental health problems (Salzer & Bickman, 1999), belief that treatment can prevent psychological problems from develop- ing (Ursano, Grieger, & McCarroll, 1996), the growth of man- aged care organizations (Myer & James, 2005), and the lack of nearby family support (Myer, 2001). These issues are among the many that have resulted in the growth of crisis interven- tion as a subspecialty in the mental health field.

However, the primary focus of crisis literature has been on giving aid and support, which is understandable given that the first concern in the aftermath of a crisis is always to provide assistance (McFarlane, 2000), not to conduct sys- tematic research (Raphael, Wilson, Meldrum, & McFarlane, 1996). Experts in crisis intervention have focused on practi- cal issues such as developing intervention models that man- age postcrisis reactions (Paton, Violanti, & Dunning, 2000), with little attention being given to the development of theory (Slaikeu, 1990). Slaikeu stated that crisis theories are more like a cluster of assumptions, rather than principles based on research that explain or predict the effect of crises on indi- viduals. Ursano et al. (1996) agreed, stating that clinical observations and implications derived from mediators of traumatic stress have guided interventions, rather than theory. Although these efforts have increased the understand- ing of the nature of crises, a need exists to mold these as- sumptions and observations into theory.

In this article, we propose a theoretical model for under- standing the impact of a crisis. Specifically, we offer a for- mula that goes beyond the traditional individualistic fo- cus of crisis intervention to view the effects of a crisis within the framework of a contextual model. Crisis in con- text theory (CCT) does not diminish the importance of the individual but rather provides an ecological perspective that allows the appreciation of an individual in crisis. First, we outline background information that led us to construct this theory. Included in this section are personal observa- tions and a brief discussion of literature that describes con- cepts helpful in constructing an ecological crisis theory. Second, we introduce CCT using a formula based on three premises demarcating the impact of a crisis. A diagram is included in this section that illustrates the idea of crisis in context. Third, we conclude by suggesting areas requiring additional study. As with any fledgling theory, research is needed for revisions and enhancement.

Background The events of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001, served as a catalyst for our belief that the development of a crisis theory must move beyond examining effects on the indi- vidual. After working with survivors of this tragedy, we found that an individualistic focus limited our ability to understand survivors’ experiences and to offer them assistance. Research conducted with survivors of the September 11th attacks sup- ports our observation, indicating that the social context of in- tervention must be considered to implement interventions that are effective (McNally, Bryant, & Ehlers, 2003). Ecological factors also had an impact on these people and needed to be accounted for in the treatment process. Experts also recognize a growing need to include ecological factors in understanding the impact of crises (e.g., James & Gilliland, 2005; Stuhlmiller & Dunning, 2000). The concept of an ecological perspective is based on the idea that crises do not happen in a vacuum but are shaped by the cultural and social contexts in which they occur (Deiter & Pearlman, 1998; van der Kolk & McFarlane, 1996). Rec-

Rick A. Myer, Department of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education, Duquesne University; Holly B. Moore, Depart- ment of Counseling, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Rick A. Myer, Department of Counseling, Psychology, and Special Education, School of Education, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA 15282 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Crisis in Context Theory: An Ecological Model Rick A. Myer and Holly B. Moore

This article outlines a theory for understanding the impact of a crisis on individuals and organizations. Crisis in context theory (CCT) is grounded in an ecological model and based on literature in the field of crisis intervention and on personal experiences of the authors. A graphic representation denotes key components and premises of CCT, while a proposed formula summarizes the theory. Recommendations for future research are also included.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2006 ■ Volume 84140

Myer & Moore

ognizing that crises occur in a context that includes individuals and the systems in which the individuals reside is essential in ad- vancing the field of crisis intervention.

A critical issue in the development of this model involves maintaining focus on the individual while balancing this focus with a consideration of the system. This concept is different from systems theories in that systems theories gen- erally do not view an individual apart from the system (Gladding, 1998). In systems theory, the system is the point of intervention, not the individual (Kadis & McClendon, 1998). Difficulties experienced by the individual are a con- sequence of problems being experienced by the system. Whereas this belief can be true for CCT, the individual and the system must also be considered separately. A causal chain of individual and system influence cannot explain all prob- lems resulting from a crisis (Gladding, 1998). Stated differ- ently, not all difficulties are dependent on the system, but linear causality does account for a proportion of an individual’s experience of the crisis. For example, indi- viduals and organizations in the vicinity of the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001, encountered numerous independent as well dependent problems. The difficulties occurring internally for a person exposed to a disaster such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, cannot be wholly explained as a result of problems within a system. In addition, problems being experienced by organizations located in that area are not necessarily a result of any action on the part of the individual. CCT recognizes that problems resulting from a cri- sis can be independent and dependent at the same time.

Additional support for crisis in context is found in Bronfenbrenner’s (1995) theory of life span development and Lewin’s (1951) field theory. Through a review of re- search literature and his own research, Bronfenbrenner (1995) developed the hypothesis that human development is the product of an interaction among process, person, context, and time. Using these concepts to understand the impact of crises seems plausible. Just as Bronfenbrenner (1995) viewed human development as a complex interface of influences on individuals, a theory to explain reactions to crises must ac- count for and validate interactions taking place within an environmental context that includes individuals and systems. Although dated, Lewin’s ideas about behavior as a function of the total situation also validate the need for crisis theory to take into account more than the individual. Lewin’s sugges- tion that the individual and the world interact with and influ- ence each other is central to understanding the impact of cri- ses. These concepts provide a starting point from which to develop an ecological understanding of the impact of crises on individuals and organizations.

Crisis in Context A graphic representation of the key concepts in CCT is pro- vided in this section. First, we briefly describe each of the

components of the diagram. Next, the three premises of CCT are discussed, including the elements of each premise. Re- search and examples are provided to further explain these premises. Finally, these ideas are incorporated into an equa- tion for defining the impact of a crisis.

As seen in Figure 1, CCT consists of several components. Each component represents a person or a group affected by a crisis event. Note that the effect extends to several layers that are interrelated. The initial layer of the model is depicted in the figure as Individual and System

1 . The setting of the crisis

is used to identify the appropriate components in this layer. An example of this layer would be an individual and an orga- nization located in lower Manhattan during the terrorist at- tacks on September 11th, 2001. Another component is the Community in which the crisis occurs. The notion of commu- nity may be viewed as broadly or as narrowly as the situation warrants. Using the example of September 11th attacks, the Community could be viewed as broadly as the world, because that event had global implications, or as narrowly as lower Manhattan. Generally, the narrow perspective is more useful and realistic. System

2 in the diagram represents the system

that is most immediate to the individual. Using the same ex- ample, System

2 would be the family of an individual who was

in lower Manhattan that day. Stakeholders A

symbolize those systems that are further connected to the Individual. Examples include friends, organizations, places of worship, or schools (if a student). Subsystems represent groups within System

1 .

For the organization in the example, these might include de- partments such as marketing, public relations, bookkeeping, customer service, or satellite offices of the organization. Fi- nally, Stakeholders

B represent those systems that are also con-

nected to System 1 but are outside the system itself. Examples

for a business could include customers, stockholders, suppli- ers, or venders such as public utilities and telephone service providers. The potential for overlap or dual roles among the components in the diagram exists. Therefore, components can appear in more than one place on the model.

FIGURE 1

Layers and Interactions of Crises

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2006 ■ Volume 84 141

Crisis in Context Theory

Three key premises constitute CCT. Considered together, these premises provide a powerful tool for conceptualizing the impact of crises. The usefulness of these premises is not in the ability to predict, rather in the capacity to isolate factors that influence the overall impact of the crisis (Bronfenbrenner, 1995). These premises are based on research conducted by others as well as on our own personal experience.

Premise 1: Layers of a Crisis

Individuals and systems experience the impact of crises in layers. The layers are dependent on two elements: (a) physical proximity to the disaster with respect to physical distance and (b) reactions that are moderated by perception and the mean- ing attributed to the crisis event.

Support for the idea of layers in relation to the impact of a crisis occurs throughout crisis literature. From a family perspec- tive, van der Veer (1998) referenced the hierarchy of suffering, or differences in reactions to the crisis, that occur among family members in refugee situations. A hierarchy of suffering refers to van der Veer’s research results indicating that family members who have not been tortured or abused believe they do not have the right to feel as traumatized as a family member who was tortured or abused. The idea of layers in a crisis is also prevalent in literature related to organizational crises. Mitroff and Anagnos (2001) described organizational structure as in- volving layers to reflect a system’s perspective for viewing the interactions between organizational subsystems as part of a best practice model of crisis management. These authors stated that effective crisis management must take into ac- count the divergent effects of a crisis on various subsystems within the organization. In addition, Veal (2003) maintained that the reverberations of a crisis to all stakeholders of an organization must be considered. For example customers of a business should not be overlooked. Finally, Braverman (1993) believed the determination of the circle of impact to be the first duty of a crisis management team. Although not stated explicitly, there is implicit support for the belief that there is more than a surface layer of impact to every crisis.

In addition, Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) proposal of the vari- ous elements in his ecological system of human development supports the notion of components in layers of a crisis. In the ecological system, Bronfenbrenner accounted for both indi- viduals who are at the center of his theory and various systems that surround individuals. CCT adapts this idea, modifying it from concentric circles, with individuals being at the center, to layers, with individuals and systems being alongside, above, and below each other. Figure 1 depicts this concept.

The solid lines in Figure 1 represent Premise 1 of CCT. These lines depict the connection of the crisis event to the people or systems that have been affected. Although the experience is unique for each person and system, under- standing the impact of a crisis involves consideration of all layers. Failure to consider the various layers results in miss-

ing information that influences the people and systems af- fected by the crisis. Recognizing the unique nature of each stakeholder’s crisis is critical in order to identify and imple- ment appropriate interventions. Failure to recognize the uniqueness of reactions is the primary source of ineffective and potentially harmful interventions.

The layers of Figure 1 can be understood as tiers that are determined by the setting of the crisis. Either the individual or System

1 is the identified client. The setting of a crisis is

identified as the venue of the crisis event. For example, if the crisis event takes place in a hospital, the hospital is the setting and is denoted by System

1 . The Individual could be

any person affected by the crisis event. If a crisis occurs in a family, the family would be System

1 and the Individual would

be a family member. For example, in the case of child abuse, System

1 is the family and the child being abused is the Indi-

vidual. Making this distinction allows the differentiation of individual and system reactions. As we stated earlier, this discrimination is important because, to a degree, reactions of individuals are independent of the system. Likewise, the system’s reactions are in part independent from the indi- vidual. The other layers involve the remaining components identified in Figure 1. Each represents either individuals or systems affected by the crisis event.

Proximity is one of the elements integral to understanding the impact of a crisis within the context of layers. Generally speaking, the closer an individual or system is to an event, the more forceful the impact (e.g., Granot, 1995; Tucker, Pfefferbaum, Nixon, & Dickson, 2000). This idea is similar to Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) recognition that proximal as well as distal processes are influential on the manner in which people mature. In his theory, Bronfenbrenner proposed that intimate or close influences, such as a person’s immediate family, and secondary or remote influ- ences, such as religious training or mass media, have an impact on human development. The idea of proximal and distal influ- ences supports the notion that the impact of crisis events is partially dependent on distance.

Reactions to a crisis, either by individuals or systems, are another vital element to be considered in understanding the impact of a crisis within the context of layers. Reactions con- cern the perceptions of the event and meaning given to the event, both of which are shaped by previous experience. Sup- port for the idea that perception shapes the reaction to crisis events is found throughout the literature (e.g., Collins & Collins, 2005; Folkman et al., 1991; James & Gilliland, 2005; Myer, 2001; Rapoport, 1965). When reacting to a crisis, an individual or system has a perception of the crisis situation that not only affects the reactions to the crisis but also assigns meaning to the crisis. Assignment of meaning, which has also been referred to as appraisal (Folkman et al., 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), can be determined by assessing affective, behavioral, and cog- nitive reactions in a crisis situation (Myer, 2001). In the cogni- tive realm, several authors (Aguilera, 1998; Hoff, 1995; Myer, 2001) have also recommended determining the affected life

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2006 ■ Volume 84142

Myer & Moore

system of an individual or system in order to establish the mean- ing of the crisis for this individual or system. Myer (2001) called these systems life dimensions and lists four that may be affected in a crisis: physical, psychological, social relationships, and moral/ spiritual. For example, individuals who have been divorced sev- eral times may not experience the same reaction as someone who is divorcing for the first time. Likewise, families who have had several members who have divorced will likely perceive and assign meaning to another divorce in the family differently than will a family that has had no member who has divorced.

Premise 2: Reciprocal Effect

An understanding of the impact of crises takes into account that a reciprocal effect occurs among individuals and systems affected by the event. Understanding the reciprocal effect in- volves recognition of two elements: (a) the interactions among the primary and secondary relationships and (b) the degree of change triggered by an event.

The second premise critical to understanding the impact of a crisis is the recognition of primary and secondary relation- ships among individuals and systems affected by the event (Dyregrov, 2001). Primary and secondary relationships may be understood in respect to the directness or indirectness of the interaction. Direct interactions in which no intervening com- ponent (i.e., individual or system) mediates that connection are primary relationships. Relationships mediated by at least one component are secondary or indirect interactions. The setting of the crisis also helps in understanding the concept of primary and secondary relationships. For example, if an employee is critically injured at the workplace, the primary relationship is between other employees who witnessed the accident and the organization. Employees who witnessed the accident may be- come more cautious to avoid a similar accident, which affects productivity and could result in a loss in profits for the organiza- tion. On the other hand, the organization may introduce new safety procedures that limit employees in some manner, thereby causing an increase in morale. Another primary relationship in this example is between the employees who witnessed the acci- dent and their families. Some of the employees who witnessed the accident may decide to resign from the organization because they are afraid of a similar accident. There is a direct impact on the family because of the loss of income. However, a secondary relationship in this situation involves the families of the employ- ees who witnessed the accident and the organization. Those who witnessed the accident act as a go-between for the families and the organization. An example of the impact of the accident on the family would be if the organization would choose to close some part of its operation temporarily or permanently. The result might be that individuals would have new work schedules that could affect family life or that they might be laid off.

Bronfenbrenner’s (1986, 1995) and Lewin’s (1951) theo- ries provide a research basis for the inclusion of primary and secondary relationships in Premise 2. Bronfenbrenner’s

(1986) idea of proximal and distal interactions again is used to form a basis for different types of relationships. In devel- oping his theory of life span development, Bronfenbrenner (1995) described the interrelationship between a person and his or her systems. The systems in these interactions extend beyond the immediate to include the community and the culture in which a person lives (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Santrock, 1995). According to Bronfenbrenner (1986), the interactions are reciprocal, with the individual influencing the systems and each system having an effect on the indi- vidual. Lewin’s understanding that behavior occurs within the context of the total situation also supports the inclusion of this idea in CCT. According to Lewin, the stimuli within the context of the situation influences choices made by the individual. There is a dynamic connection between the situ- ation and individuals that is critical in understanding any given characteristic of behavior (deRivera, 1976). Together, aspects of Bronfenbrenner’s (1986, 1995) and Lewin’s theo- ries form a foundation for this premise.

Support for the premise of reciprocal effects is also found in business crisis management literature. Mitroff and Anagnos (2001) described five major factors characteristic of today’s world. One of the factors is called coupling, the idea that every- thing everywhere is almost instantaneously connected with and affected by everything anywhere else in the world. Myers (1999) has agreed with this, stating that crises are an organiza- tion-wide problem requiring systemic solutions. Braverman (1999) identified the profound effect that crises have on em- ployees beyond the immediate circle of victims. He describes the impact crises have on employees and how employee-related factors then affect the functioning of the business. Crisis man- agement plans that do not recognize the interrelatedness within organizations are potentially ineffective, at best, or may fail, at worst (Mitroff & Anagnos, 2001; Myers, 1999).

The dashed lines in Figure 1 represent the reciprocal interac- tions, both direct and indirect, in CCT. These relationships spe- cifically highlight the need to consider the context in which crises occur. Overlooking interactions among the components results in a failure to fully comprehend the impact of a crisis. All relationships, to varying degrees, influence the overall impact of a crisis on any component in the model. One possibility is that interactions can be supportive and help to lessen the impact of the crisis (Hoff, 1995). In these situations, support may involve more than emotional reassurance and may include providing employees with or guiding them to helpful resources and safe- guarding them from exploitation (Myer, 2001). However, an- other possibility is that these interactions may be obstructive and result in the impact of the crisis being intensified. These negative situations can result in additional crises and compli- cate the recovery process (Ren, 2000).

In Figure 1, System 1 and the Individual have a direct rela-

tionship. The connecting line shows that no other component mediates the interaction, making this a primary interaction. An example of a primary relationship with a direct interac-

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2006 ■ Volume 84 143

Crisis in Context Theory

tion would be our consulting interaction with the organiza- tion in New York after September 11, 2001. Each employee and organization in the vicinity of the World Trade Center experienced a crisis the day of the terrorist attacks. Some individuals watched in awe as the airliners crashed into the buildings. Some watched in horror as people trapped on the upper floors of the buildings jumped to their death. Others were caught in the streets as the buildings collapsed. Many organizations were forced to relocate to other parts of the city. Other organizations lost valuable information and records. The experience of the individual employees and the organizations did not take place in a vacuum. The reactions of the Individual directly affected System

1 , and System

1 ’s

actions immediately influenced the Individual. Organiza- tional crisis management literature (e.g., Braverman, 1999; Mitroff & Anagnos, 2001) offers numerous examples of the reciprocal effect of crises on individuals and organizations. If these relationships are supportive, the impact of the crisis can be reduced; if they are obstructive, the impact has the potential to be more severe.

In contrast, a secondary relationship occurs when the connection is mediated by at least one of the components. An example of this would be the Individual mediating Sys- tem

1 and System

2 interactions. For instance, many organiza-

tions (System 1 ) located in the vicinity of the World Trade

Center returned to the area once the buildings they occu- pied were habitable. Many of the people who worked for these businesses were ready to return to the area. In a sense, these people were refugees returning home (Myer, Moore, & Hughes, 2003). However, some families of these employees (i.e., System

2 in this situation) did not want their loved ones

returning to the area and pressured the persons to find an- other position. The interaction in this situation was indirect and obstructive because the Individual working for System

1

acted as a go-between with System 2 . Indirect interactions

can also be supportive. For example, some organizations provided support for families of their employees beyond what was obligatory (Duffy & Schaeffer, 2002; Rosoff, 2002).

The degree of change in the typical level of and ability of individuals and systems to function must also be consid- ered in order to understand the impact. Degree of change concerns the amount of disruption caused in both short- and long-term functioning (Brewin, 2001). Changes may be such things as alteration of daily routines or change in economic stability. All disruptions experienced by individuals or the system’s operation are considered in this component. For example, after the attacks of September 11th, 2001, when organizations located in lower Manhattan had to relocate temporarily, employees of these organizations had different commuting schedules and routes. Often these changes caused substantial alteration in the time it took to get to work; usually more time was needed. This change was felt by the organization because now employees arrived at work later and/or left earlier. Families of the employees also expe-

rienced disruption due to the modification of departure and return times of the employees. Whereas spouses had been able to leave for work at the same time prior to September 11th, one of them now had to leave earlier because of the longer commute. This could have a ripple effect, because less time would be avail- able to spend together as a family.

Premise 3: Time Factor

Time directly influences the impact of crises. Two elements of time are (a) the amount of time that has passed since the event and (b) special occasions such as anniversary dates and holi- days following the event.

The third premise for the CCT concerns time. Again, Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) work on understanding human devel- opment provides support for the inclusion of time in our model. According to Bronfenbrenner (1995), the impact of an event on human development is not singular; rather, the impact is ongo- ing and continues to exert influence on the development of that individual. Through an extensive review of the literature, Bronfenbrenner (1986, 1995) concluded that an event has vary- ing degrees of impact on an individual’s development, and this impact decreases with the passage of time. It is interesting that Bronfenbrenner (1986) even included in his theory of human development the influence of nonnormative events such as severe illness, divorce, and moving. Although he included this type of event, he did not describe the influence of the event beyond that of human development.

Research in crisis intervention also validates the need to in- clude the element of time in the CCT (e.g., Brewin, 2001). As early as 1961, Caplan wrote about time playing an important role in recovery from a crisis. Caplan stated that most people recover from a crisis in 6 to 8 weeks, but experts now believe the recovery process may extend beyond that length of time (Callahan, 1998). Callahan stated that 6 to 8 weeks were needed for individuals to reestablish a sense of equilibrium, not to fully recover from the impact of a crisis. The inclusion of PTSD in the DSM-III (APA, 1980) set the stage for the idea that more than 6 to 8 weeks are needed to recover from crisis events. Some experts recognize the impact of crises as lasting throughout the lifetime of an individual (van der Kolk & McFarlane, 1996). Other re- search on crises has shown similar results, finding that some people take much longer to recover (Salzer & Bickman, 1999). An issue often discussed with respect to recovery time is the difference between man-made and natural disasters (Lerbringer, 1997; Rubonis & Bickman, 1991). Although research has indi- cated mixed results, it is generally believed that recovery time for man-made disasters is longer than that needed for natural disas- ters (James & Gi