Review
T H E CONCEPT OF CRISIS*
K A T H E R I N E EASTHAM, M.A., 1
DONALD COATES,
Introduction
'Crisis' is one of those notoriously diffi­
cult concepts which abound in the social
sciences. Because of its wide usage the term
lacks precision and specificity; so that even
those who work in the area of crisis inter­
vention and research are reluctant to com­
mit themselves to a single definition. This
paper reviews the existing literature on crisis
in an attempt to clarify the term and to
investigate its heuristic value. As we are
primarily interested in making the concept
operational for use in the Yorklea Study,
the scope of this paper will not be as broad
as that of a recent review by Darbonne (9),
to which the reader is referred for its com­
prehensive bibliography. The reader is re­
ferred also to the bibliography by Rochman
and Hindley (42) and to a useful collection
of essays by Parad (35). Although the fol­
lowing discussion will be largely theoretical
and methodological, it is hoped that it will
also be useful to those engaged in crisis
intervention in the evaluation and planning
of their work.
The Relationship between Crisis and Stress
It may be illuminating to look at the
parallel development of another term which
is closely related to the concept of crisis —
stress. Since the work of Selye, research into
'physiological stress' has progressed con­
tinuously. Physiological stress involves auto­
matic homeostatic mechanisms activated by
noxious stimuli, and more is now known
about stressful agents in terms of time,
intensity and so on. However, the same pre­
cision has not been achieved in the area of
'psychological stress'. Even the distinction
between physiological and psychological
stress is confused since it can be argued that
responses to the former are mediated by the
* Yorklea Study. Manuscript received April, 1970.
i.s.sCommunity Studies Section, Clarke Institute of
Psychiatry, University of Toronto.
Canad. Psychiat Ass. J . Vol. 15 (1970)
463
M.D. 3
and FEDERICO ALLODI, M.D.*
latter, and both produce the same physical
reactions. Lazarus (30) distinguishes be­
tween two kinds of stress by using the term
'threat' to refer to psychological stress. This
implies that the individual appraises a sti­
mulus as potentially harmful, so that it is
an anticipatory response involving cogni­
tion; whereas physiological stress is a res­
ponse to present harm. The use of the term
is still imprecise since there is a continual
confusion between stimulus, non-specific
response and rather specific response states
under the general rubric of 'stress reaction'.
It must be considered whether or not it
is useful to distinguish between crisis and
stress. A review by Howard and Scott (26)
suggests that, as applied to the individual
organism, there is an exact parallel in usage.
However, these authors go on to make a
four-way classification of stressors based on
those which are seen as being in an external
or internal perceptual field from the point
of view of the observer, and those which
are symbolic or non-symbolic stresses. They
offer a problem-solving model for crisis,
assuming that a difficult problem-solving
situation is accompanied by a tension state
in the organism, which is the stress response.
Caplan (5) distinguishes between stress
and crisis temporally, since crisis is charac­
terized by a short-term period, while stress
need not be. L . Rapoport (39) suggests that
while stress has a pathogenic potential, crisis
can be characterized by a growth-promoting
potential.
In spite of these attempts to distinguish
between the two terms, crisis and stress tend
to be used interchangeably, although there
is some suggestion that crisis is a special
and acute kind of the more general class of
stress.
Current Uses of the Term 'Crisis'
The following summary identifies six over­
lapping uses of the concept of crisis.
 464 CANADIAN P S Y C H I A T R I C ASSOCIATION J O U R N A L
1) Organismic
This approach to crisis makes use of the
concept of physiological stress. Thus 'crisis'
is applied to situations in which homeostatic
limits are exceeded by continuing disruptive
stimulations, which usually result in prob­
lem-solving or adaptive behaviour but may
result in maladaptation and chronic stress
reactions. Examples of this kind of approach
can be seen in the studies of sensory bom­
bardment or understimulation, psychosoma­
tic illness (24, 38, 37), and in the stress
experiments reviewed by Howard and Scott.
Similarly, the Grinker and Speigal (20)
study of war neurosis emphasizes the im­
portance of physical health factors (e.g.
fatigue, malnutrition, etc.) and invulner­
ability to acute environmental disturbances.
The organismic approach tends to em­
phasize environmental and situational fac­
tors, so that stress is regarded as a response
to external forces. An example of this is
the systems approach to the study of disas­
ters (11).
2) Ego Integrative
The concept of equilibrium is also funda­
mental to the crisis theory originated by
Lindemann (31) and developed by Caplan
(3, 4, 7) and this has constituted the 'main
stream' in crisis research.
They propose that people usually deal
adequately with problem situations by using
habitual responses in order to maintain
equilibrium. Crisis occurs when there is an
imbalance between the difficulty and impor­
tance of a problem and the resources avail­
able to deal with it. A hazardous situation
(i.e. potentially crisis-producing) is one in
which there is a threat to basic need satis­
faction or a stimulus to basic need appetites.
Habitual problem-solving responses are
evoked but if these homeostatic mechanisms
are inadequate they are followed by an or­
ganismic rise in tension. The organism at­
tempts to reduce tension by trying new
problem-solving behaviour, but if this is
inappropriate the attempts to discharge ten­
sion may take precedence over the attempts
to solve the problem. Thus crises are seen
as critical turning points in the life cycle,
Vol. 15, No. 5
in which the individual either increases his
repertoire of reality-based adaptive problem-
solving techniques or else takes a step to­
wards non-reality-based maladaptive prob­
lem-solving techniques — i.e. mental dis­
order. In other words, crisis represents both
a danger to and an opportunity for ego
integration, and the main emphasis is placed
on the influence of intrapersonal dynamics
on crisis outcome.
3) Developmental
A developmental approach to crisis is
associated mainly with the work of Erikson
(14, 15, 16), R. Rapoport (40, 41) and more
recently Dabrowski (8) and Forer (17).
Erikson views personality development as
a succession of differentiated phases of be­
haviour or transitional periods characterized
by cognitive and affective changes. Here
crises are seen as an integral element of
personality growth since although they in­
volve periods of increased vulnerability they
also provide opportunities for the develop­
ment of healthy adaptive reactions. Similar­
ly, Rapoport distinguishes between normal
crises which practically all individuals meet
(e.g. getting married, going to school, etc.)
and pathological crises such as disasters or
wars, to which only some sections of the
population will be exposed. The major dif­
ference is that the former provide for pre­
paratory behaviour, while the latter cannot
usually be anticipated.
This more optimistic view of crisis is
similar to that outlined in the previous sec­
tions and is in opposition to the traditional
view of regarding stress or crisis as an
intrinsically harmful etiological factor in
mental disorder. Successful coping in a
crisis situation is seen as increasing the in­
dividual's capacity to cope with future crises;
only unresolved crises are seen as increasing
the propensity to mental disorder.
4) Major Change in 'Life Space'
This is a term proposed by Parkes
(37) as an alternative to either stress or
crisis since it avoids the circularity of de­
fining either in terms of its outcome. An­
other advantage of this term is that it lacks
 October 1970 THE CONCEPT
the negative connotations of both crisis and
stress.
Parkes (37), in an unpublished working
paper, maintained the clinical perspective
but drew on Lewinian field theory to make
all aspects of the crisis experience part of
the subject's experiental field. He blurred
the usual distinctions between past, present
and future (outcome) and internal and ex­
ternal (as distinguished by Howard and
Scott). This formulation approaches systems
theory in that all aspects of experience can
be interrelated without prior assumptions as
to causal sequences in the phenomena
studied. Parkes himself, as an investigator,
has assembled study groups on the basis of
experienced events, such as bereavement;
he has drawn upon a wide range of reported
experiental aspects, such as subjective stress,
visits to physicians and prior personality;
and has examined the contribution of a
parsimonious selection of variables to the
total patterning of the experience.
He states that changes in life space tend
to be resisted and so explains the disruption
of thought, perception and behaviour when
major changes in the life space occur.
Parkes' approach is similar to that of Erik-
son and R. Rapoport in its emphasis on
critical role transitions in the life cycle.
5) Communications Model
Since most models of crisis involve refer­
ence to problem-solving activities, recent
theories have stressed the role of informa­
tion in crisis resolution. For example, Wil­
liams (48) suggests that "The general func­
tion of communication in crisis is to pro­
vide the actor with information which will
enable him to make choices to avoid, mini­
mize or remedy the consequences of the
crisis." He illustrates this point by descri­
bing the reactions to mass disasters in cy­
bernetic terms. Similarly, Hamburg et al.
(21) also study the seeking and use of in­
formation during stress. Ruesch (43) cate­
gorizes crises into four kinds: input, antici­
pation and recollection, decision and output
crises. Ruesch's model is more applicable at
the intrapersonal and small group level,
O F CRISIS 465
while Williams' model is suited to larger
groups and societies.
6) Interpersonal and Sociocultural
Most of the above approaches to crisis
are psychological in that they stress intra­
personal, individual adjustment to crisis
situations. Recently, however, there has
been more emphasis on the importance of
the individual's relational milieu, his refer­
ence groups, social networks and commu­
nity as some of the supports which influence
crisis outcome. This kind of approach also
places greater emphasis on the individual's
present situation rather than on his past ex­
periences and personality. The sociological
approach to crisis is exemplified in Hill's
study of family crisis and his excellent re­
view of related research (22, 23) in which
he demonstrates that when an individual
family member is involved in a crisis the
whole family must readjust.
The sociological approach also em­
phasizes the importance of cultural values
in the definition of and reaction to crisis.
For example, the difference in the Western
and Japanese attitudes towards death; the
institutionalization of rites de passage, which
help individuals cope with major transitions
in role relationships; the toleration of grief
reactions and so on.
Is There A Crisis Syndrome?
What are the characteristics of crisis and
how do we recognize that an individual is
in a state of crisis? Parad and Caplan (34)
suggest that the five essential features of
crisis are as follows:-
a) The stressful event poses a problem
which is, by definition, seen as insoluble
in the immediate future.
b) The problem taxes the resources of the
individual or family since it is beyond
their traditional problem-solving meth­
ods.
c) The situation is seen as a threat to the
life goals of the individual or family.
d) There is a generalized physical tension
which is symptomatic of anxiety, and
this tension mounts to a peak and then
falls.
 466 CANADIAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION JOURNAL
e) The crisis situation awakens unresolved
key problems from the near and distant
past.
From a more clinical perspective, crisis
can be recognized by the following symp­
toms (32):
a) Crisis is acute rather than chronic and
extends from one to six weeks.
b) It produces marked changes in behav­
iour, which is commonly less efficient
than usual.
c) There are subjective feelings of helpless­
ness, ineffectiveness, anxiety, fear, guilt
and defensiveness.
d) Although there are common crisis situa­
tions the individual's own perceptions of
threat are unique, so that crisis is rela-
tivistic.
In order to assess the appropriateness of
crisis therapy it is obviously essential that a
crisis situation can be reliably identified. A
clear description of a crisis syndrome is also
a prerequisite of further research because
of the need to match non-crisis control
groups. Sifneos (45) attempts to do this
when he discusses the generic features of
one hundred and eight cases. He places
great emphasis on an external, hazardous
situation and a precipitating event. Bloom
(1) found this to be the consensus among
experienced clinicians. A recent paper by
Golan (19) abstracts four components from
Sifneos' study — a hazardous event, a vul­
nerable state, a precipitating factor and a
state of active crisis (disequilibrium) as the
major diagnostic features of crisis. He pro­
poses a model intake interview, intended to
elicit these features and to assist clinicians
in the recognition of crisis. Yet even Golan
admits that his model represents an ideal
type.
A recurring theme in the empirical des­
criptions of the crisis syndrome is the idea
that crises go through characteristic stages
of development. Three writers discuss stages
in the crisis syndrome — Caplan (5), Ty-
hurst (47) and Hill (23).
Caplan states that crisis results in physi­
cal tension which is characterized by four
phases:
Vol. 15, No. 5
a) An initial rise in tension, which calls
forth habitual problem-solving responses
of homeostasis.
b) Lack of success leads to a further rise
in tension, marked by feelings of help­
lessness, ineffectuality and emotional up­
set.
c) A further rise in tension stimulates the
mobilization of emergency problem-
solving mechanisms. The individual tries
novel methods (e.g. redefinition, trial and
error, or need resignation) which may
solve the problem.
d) If the problem continues, tension mounts
beyond a further threshold and major
disorganization occurs.
Caplan writes in very general terms, but
Tyhurst describes in some detail the typical
reactions to three specific crises •— disaster,
immigration and retirement. For example,
following disaster there is a typical reaction
of regression and dependency which is rare­
ly found in other types of crisis. So Tyhurst
raises the question as to whether we should
speak of one overall crisis syndrome or
whether such a general term loses sight of
important differences. Tyhurst feels that in
spite of the differences all post-crisis reac­
tions can be usefully described in three
common stages — impact, recoil and post­
traumatic. Each of these stages can be fur­
ther described in terms of stress, time (dura­
tion and perspective) and psychological
phenomena. Thus for all crises the subject's
time perspective during the period of im­
pact is on the present; during recoil it is on
the past; while the final period is character­
ized by a return to a usual time perspective.
Hill likens the progress of family crisis
to a 'roller coaster' — crisis — disorganiza­
tion — recovery and reorganization; which
is very similar to Tyhurst's classification.
Hill makes an explicit distinction between
the short and long term effects of crisis,
which is usually implicit in other models.
However, he provides no empirical evidence
to demonstrate the usefulness of his typol­
ogy.
The apparent differences between the
crisis syndromes described above are due
mainly to differences in emphasis. Thus
 October 1970 THE C O N C E P T O F CRISIS
Caplan stresses the organismic, physiologi­
cal reactions to crisis; while Tyhurst's inter­
est lies in psychological reactions, such as
changes in perception and emotional behav­
iour. Hill, on the other hand, is concerned
with group reactions to crisis and therefore
emphasizes changes in family solidarity and
role relationships.
Other writers have included the pre-crisis
period among the stages of crisis (see Davis,
[10] — prelude/warning/impact/inventory/
recovery), especially for those crises which
can be anticipated: for example, Janis' (27)
study of the relationship between pre-opera-
tive preparation and anxiety and post­
operative adjustment.
However, the general impression is that
the various sequential schemes which are
offered are merely descriptive conveniences
rather than being intrinsic to the concept
of crisis; so that reliable categorization of
crisis, as opposed to non-crisis situations, is
still problematical.
Problems in Usage
1) Subjectivity
Many writers would argue that crisis is
an essentially subjective concept because any
trivial incident can provoke a crisis if an
individual defines it as threatening.
However, a study by Bloom (1) casts
doubt on this viewpoint. He attempted to
clarify the definition of crisis by studying
the nature of agreement between experi­
enced clinicians. Eight experts judged
whether fourteen hypothetical case histories
constituted crisis situations or riot. Two ele­
ments were found to be significantly related
to a judgement of crisis: a) a known preci­
pitating event, and b) a slow (one to two
months) rather than a rapid (one week) re­
solution. This study implies that behavioural
disturbance and a subjective awareness of
tension are not fundamental characteristics
of crisis. However, Bloom cautions against
an oversimplified definition of crisis purely
in terms of specific events since there are
individual differences in vulnerability to the
same event. His study is significant in that
it constitutes the only attempt to derive a
467
definition of crisis from an experimental
study of its empirical usage.
Darbonne points out that certain external
events or hazardous situations tend to pro­
duce crisis in the majority of cases so that
the individual, subjective nature of crisis is
not an insoluble problem when studying
these types of events. Waldfogel and Gard­
ner's idea (3) of a continuum from external­
ly precipitated to internally precipitated
crises could be useful here since the former
tend to be universally stressful. Holmes and
Rahe (25) find a high degree of consensus
amongst both Americans and Japanese as
to those events which involve major life
changes. If such a consensus exists it should
be possible to select empirically some situa­
tions which are nearly always crisis-produc­
ing, such as the death of a spouse or serious
illness.
2) Circularity
Closely related to the above problem is
the danger of defining crisis tautologically,
in terms of either its outcome or degree of
disturbance; although, as already noted, a
definition which relies completely on pre­
cipitating events is equally unsatisfactory.
To assess the diffuseness or otherwise of
the crisis outcome it is necessary to under­
take longitudinal studies which consider
both healthy and pathological reactions to
crisis, plus accidental and developmental
crises. This would also help to resolve the
stress versus selection debate (12). Thus vali­
dation requires the study of cohorts of large
numbers of people experiencing the same
situation or event. This type of data has not
yet been forthcoming and those long-term
studies which do exist tend to be rather
descriptive (10). Some evidence suggests
that only a small percentage of people ex­
periencing a given crisis are left with resi­
dual impairments. It is possible that the
consequences follow a normal distribution,
so that a small number emerge permanently
damaged while an equal number emerge
strengthened, leaving the majority only tem­
porarily disturbed.
An example of some good longitudinal
studies is the series on premature birth by
 468 CANADIAN P S Y C H I A T R I C ASSOCIATION
Caplan, Mason, and Kaplan (6). The moth­
er's immediate reaction and style of coping
was classified as 'good' or 'bad', and the
eventual mother-child relationship was suc­
cessfully predicted on this basis. These are
the only studies which attempt to test the
crisis model by predicting crisis outcome
from crisis behaviour, and to abstract mean­
ingful classifications of different types of
coping syndromes. But even the authors
admit that one cannot tell if the outcome
is caused by the coping style or if both are
caused by another factor.
3) Personality and past experience versus
current life situation and interpersonal
relations.
Under the influence of psychoanalytic
theory earlier writers attempted to isolate
characteristics of the 'crisis prone' individual
analogously to studies of accident prone-
ness and susceptibility to psychosomatic
disorders. This view assumes that the in­
dividual personality is more important for
predicting both the occurrence and outcome
of crisis than the current relational milieu.
The only relevant studies were of individual
cases, until Grinker and Spiegal (20), start­
ing from this vantage point, found that pre­
vious experience and personality were poor
predictors of coping style. Similarly, Glass
and Atriss (18) concluded that crisis behav­
iour is more influenced by practical circum­
stances and group support than by indivi­
dual personality characteristics. Kaplan (28)
also emphasizes the importance of current
life situation and relationships; and Brown
(2) found that the prognosis for schizo­
phrenic patients was more dependent on the
social environment of the discharged pa­
tient than either the clinical diagnosis or
the patient's symptomatic state at discharge.
Two recent sociological studies further
demonstrate the importance of situational
factors. The first (46) found that team
nursing provides a more supportive milieu
than functional nursing; so that individual
adjustment to the same stressful situation is
strongly influenced by the social structure
and organizational setting. The second study
(29) found significant associations between
JOURNAL Vol. 15, No. 5
personal crisis reactions and changes in the
social structure of interpersonal relation­
ships. Krause found that the time of greatest
anomie and relative deprivation, and hence
of crisis proneness, was different for the
full-time residents and day clients at a re­
habilitation centre.
Yet both these studies assume (rather
than test) the idea that situational factors
override individual personality differences.
There are no systematic studies which at­
tempt to assess the relative importance or
weight of individual and situational factors
for crisis behaviour. The question which
should be posed is 'how much', rather than
'which?' In other words an interactional
approach is needed.
Endler and Hunt (13) early concluded
that the debate over the relative importance
of individual personality versus situations
versus mode of response was a pseudo issue.
In a series of studies (limited only by a struc­
tured questionnaire approach) they examined
the contribution of each of these aspects to
experienced anxiety and hostility and de­
monstrated that although each of the three
aspects taken singly accounted for only a
small portion of the variance, the three
taken in pairs and altogether accounted for
much of the variance in the subjective state.
These studies suggest a manner for handling
the mass of data produced by studies
such as Parkes advocates. They also sug­
gest a future bridge between the probability
model, in which weightings for frequency
and implied hazard (based on a general
population) might be applied to specific
events, situations and modes of response.
That is, they suggest a calculus which would
at once allow for both the individual ex­
perience of the reporting person as well as
the weighting factors of hazard and risk
probability — the personal idiosyncratic
state and the public partially-predictable
one.
Responses to the Dilemmas
The foregoing discussion of problems in
research usage defines a dilemma limiting
both theoretical statements and empirical
studies. Our discussion of subjectivity, for
 October 1970 THE CONCEPT O F CRISIS
example, should have made clear that in­
vestigators were holding to a clinical model
of crisis which, though it did justice to the
patient's (or client's) world, did so at the
expense of excluding the field of social and
environmental interaction. However, a meth­
odological innovation by Schulberg and
Sheldon (44) (investigators associated with
Caplan and the Laboratory of Community
Psychiatry) offers a suggestion which will
overcome the impasse.
A methodological approach consistent
with a public health or preventive orienta­
tion is advocated by Schulberg and Sheldon
(44), who suggest that the major omission
in previous crisis theories was the failure
to specify associations between risk event
and personal reactions, that is the probability
that the crisis would arise from the com­
bination of hazardous events and personal
vulnerability. They further divided the pro­
bability of a crisis event occurring into those
which might be anticipated (for the indivi­
dual or for a population at large), and those
for which anticipation was impossible; for
the former, high risk groups could be de­
fined and primary preventive programs
attempted, whereas the latter might be
approached through emergency helping
programs and non-specific methods of
strengthening coping style (ego strength).
They adequately stress the distinction be­
tween: 1) the probability of hazardous events
occurring, and 2) the probability that the
event will be hazardous to the individual.
This reformulation of the problem results
in a hypothetical equation P = k F x H x
V, in which P is the probability of a crisis
response, F is the frequency in the popula­
tion at risk, H is the hazard implied in the
event and V is the individual's vulnerability.
The research task becomes the working-
out of indices for each of the three variables
so that crisis-proneness may be predicted
for subgroups or comparisons made between
different population segments. This redefin­
ing of variables in terms of public and ex­
periential frequency vastly extends an
earlier formulation of Hill that crisis =
events x resources x labelling.
469
Several empirical investigations allow an
approach to the Schulberg and Sheldon pro­
bability model. Holmes and Rahe (27) exam­
ined a standard list of life events (forty-five
events) in terms of the amount of social
readjustment which each implies. They
showed that a wide range of respondents
agree on the amount of social readjustment
implied by the specific event which they
study. Further, they have shown that the
life events, both weighted (by degree of
social readjustment) and unweighted, pre­
dict physical illness episodes in selected
populations but they have not reported fre­
quencies for life events. Myers et al. (33),
in a community survey employed an event
list offifty-fouritems (many of them derived
from Holmes and Rahe) to examine the in­
ter-relationship between events, symptomatic
disturbance, social role adjustment and dis­
location. Similarly, the Yorklea Study is
analyzing data on twenty-six to thirty events,
interpersonal ties and reliance, the use of
informal and formal helping resources and
a broader range of respondent mental health
parameters than other studies. The two
studies have in common a present orienta­
tion and an attention to the possibility of
identifying high risk groups in terms of
events. We have made allowance for sub­
jectivity by allowing respondents to define
specific events as 'for better' or 'for worse',
so that for each event, for example
bereavement, the frequency both for the
individual and the household and 'the
hazard', retrospectively appraised, can be
estimated.
Conclusion
The concept of crisis has been reviewed
with emphasis on its evolution and empiri­
cal attempts to anchor it in both psycho­
logical and social situation models. Because
of an interest in putting the concept into
operation and testing its usefulness for re­
search, particularly for predicting outcome
and the vulnerability of individuals and
groups, the review has done less than justice
to the unifying function of the concept in
bringing together several applied disciplines
— psychiatry, social work, psychology and
 470 CANADIAN P S Y C H I A T R I C ASSOCIATION J O U R N A L
nursing — as well as to its central role in
the emergent theory of community psychir
atry. This diffusion stems from the dominant
role played by Caplan and the Laboratory
of Community Psychiatry at Harvard in
the development of community psychiatry
and the mental health centres.
With regard to the usefulness of the con­
cept in treatment we must conclude, with
Parad (36), that the effectiveness of short-
term crisis therapy, though generally opti­
mistic, remains uncertain since: 1) crisis
intervention still has not been applied ex­
tensively enough to crisis situations (i.e.
those defined by external precipitation and
short duration), and 2) no adequate com­
parison between short-term crisis therapy
and traditional open-ended therapy has been
made. Studies of the effectiveness of crisis
intervention contain all the hazards of psy­
chotherapy research generally but because
the conditions treated are by definition re­
latively minor and rapidly changing, the
need to control for spontaneous remission
is multiplied. This suggests the further need
for extensive studies of crises, defined in a
variety of ways, in normal populations.
Finally, it should be considered whether the
concept of 'crisis' has heuristic value either
for the understanding of mental disorder
or for the design of productive research.
A great deal of epidemiological and socio­
logical evidence which has accumulated
over the last twenty years (though not
necessarily under the rubric 'crisis') can be
seen; all of which attests to increasing em­
phasis on the rapidly changing nature of
mental disorder and short-term distress
states. From the earlier study of Grinker
which showed that the majority of stress
reactions were of brief duration when ex­
tensive support was provided, to Dohren-
Wend who reformulated the findings of the
Stirling County and Midtown studies in
terms of transient symptomatic states, to
several present studies which examine short-
term responses to dramatic life events, there
is a shift in research which parallels the
shift in clinical emphasis.
However, to the question of the use of
crisis in productive research we have con­
Vol. 15, No. 5
cluded that the concept adds nothing to
earlier usages, such as stress, coping, res­
ponse, distress; and our own research prac­
tice is to employ these rather than the term
'crisis'. It would seem that the present am­
biguity of the term should be preserved, and
that its current usage by clinicians to refer
to the whole sequence of occurrences has
advantages in emphasizing the uniformity in
the total process, but that for research pur­
poses crisis cannot be put into operation
except by breaking it into components
selected and interrelated to do justice to the
global concept.
References
1. Bloom, Bernard L . : Definitional aspects
of the crisis concept. Journal of Consulting
Psychology vol. 27, no. 6, 1963.
2. Brown, G. W.: Experiences of discharged
chronic schizophrenic patients in various
types of living groups. Milbank Memorial
Fund Quarterly, vol. 37, 1959, pp. 105-131.
3. Caplan, Gerald: (Ed.) Prevention of Men­
tal Disorders in Children. New York,
Basic Books, Inc. 1961.
4. Caplan, Gerald: "Emotional Crises" in
Deutsch, A. and Fishbein, H. (Eds.) The
Encyclopedia of Mental Health. New York,
Franklin Watts, Inc. vol. 2, pp. 521-532,
1963.
5. Caplan, Gerald: Principles of Preventive
Psychiatry. New York. Basic Books, Inc.
1964.
6. Caplan, Gerald, Mason, E. A. and Kaplan,
D. M.: Four studies of crisis in parents
of prematures. Community Mental Health
Journal, vol. 1, 1965, pp. 149-161.
7. Caplan, Gerald and Grunebaum, H.: Per­
spectives on primary prevention. Archives
of General Psychiatry, vol. 17, Sept. 1967,
pp. 331-346.
8. Dabrowski, Dazimierz: Positive Disinte­
gration (Ed. J. Aronson) Boston, Little
Brown & Co. 1964.
9. Darbonne, A.: Crisis: a review of theory,
practice and research. Int. J. Psychiat. 6:
•5, Nov. 1968, pp. 371-379.
10. Davis, Fred: A Passage Through Crisis:
Polio Victims and Their Families. Indiana­
polis and New York, Bobbs-Merill Co.
Inc., 1963.
11. Demerath, N. J. and Wallace, A. F. C :
Human Organization — special issue on
disasters, vol. 16, no. 2, Summer, 1957.
 October 1970 THE CONCEPT O F CRISIS
12. Dohrenwend, B. P.: Social status and psy­
chological disorder: An issue of substance
and an issue of method. American Socio­
logical Review, vol. 31, 1966, pp. 14-34.
13. Endler, N. S. and Hunt, J. McV.: Sources
of behavioural variance as measured by
the S-R inventory of Anxiousness. Psycho­
logical Bulletin, vol. 65, no. 6, June, 1966,
pp. 336-346.
14. Erikson, Erik: Identity and the Life Cycle.
New York, International American Press,
Inc. 1959.
15. Erikson, Erik: Childhood and Society.
New York, W. W. Norton and Co. 1963,
Ch. 7.
16. Erikson, Erik: Identity: Youth and Crisis.
New York, W. W. Norton and Co., 1968,
esp. Ch. 3.
17. Forer, R.: The therapeutic value of crisis.
Psychological Reports, vol. 13, 1963, pp.
275-281.
18. Glass, A. G. and Atriss, J. J.: The current
status of army psychiatry. American Jour­
nal of Psychiatry, vol. 117, pp. 673-683,
1961.
19. Golan, N.: When is a client in crisis? vol.
50, no. 7, July, 1969, Social Case Work
50: 1, July, 1969, pp. 389-394.
20. Grinker, R. R. and Spiegal, J. P.: Men
Under Stress. New York, McGraw Hill
Book Co., Inc. 1945.
21. Hamburg, D. A. and Adams, J. E . : A
perspective on coping behaviour — Seek­
ing and utilizing information in major
transitions. Archives of General Psychi­
atry, vol. 17, Sept., 1967, pp. 277-284.
22. Hill, Reuben: Families Under Stress. New
York, Harper and Bros., 1949.
23. Hill, Reuben: Social stresses on the family:
Generic features of families under stress.
Social Casework, vol. 39, 1958, pp. 139-
150.
24. Holmes, T. H.: Psychosocial and psycho­
physiological studies of tuberculosis.
Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 19, pp. 134-
143, 1957.
25. Holmes, T. H. and Rahe, R. H.: The
social readjustment rating scale. Journal
of Psychosomatic Research, vol. 11, Aug.,
1967, pp. 213-218.
26. Howard, A. and Scott, R. A.: A proposed
framework for the analysis of stress in
the human organism. Behavioural Science,
vol. 10, no. 2, April, 1965.
27. Janis, Irving L . : Psychological Stress.
New York, Wiley and Sons, 1958.
471
28. Kaplan, D. M.: Observations on crisis
theory and practice. Social Casework,
March, 1968, Vol. XL1X, no. 3, pp. 151-
155.
29. Krause, E. A.: On time and place of crisis.
Human Organization, vol. 27, no. 2, Sum­
mer, 1968, pp. 110-116.
30. Lazarus, Richard S.: Psychological Stress
and the Coping Process. McGraw Hill
Book Co. 1966.
31. Lindemann, E.: Symptomatology and man­
agement of acute grief. American Journal
of Psychiatry, vol. 101, pp. 141-148, 1944.
32. Miller, K. S. and Iscoe, I . : The concept
of crisis. Human Organization, Fall, 1963,
vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 195-201.
33. Myers, J. K. and Pepper, M. P.: Assessing
Mental Health Needs of a Community,
New Haven, NIMH Project. 1968.
34. Parad, H. J. and Caplan, G.: A frame­
work for studying families in crisis. Social
Work, vol. 5, pp. 3-15, 1960.
35. Parad, Howard J.: Crisis Intervention:
Selected Readings. Family Service Asso­
ciation of America, New York, 1965.
36. Parad, Howard J. and Parad, L . G.: A
study of crisis-oriented planned short-term
treatment. Social Casework, vol. XL1X.
Part 1 — June, 1968, pp. 346-355
Part 2 — July, 1968, pp. 418-426
37. Parkes, C. Murray: Effects of bereave­
ment on physical and mental health — a
study of the medical records of widows.
British Journal of Medical Psychiatry,
vol. 38, March, pp. 1-12, and 13-26.
38. Rahe, R. H. and Holmes, T. H.: Predic­
ting illness — 'Life Crisis'. Psychological
Spectator, vol. 3, no. 12, 1966 (5).
39. Rapoport, L . : The state of crisis: Some
theoretical considerations. Social Service
Review, vol. 36, no. 2, 1962.
40. Rapoport, R.: Normal crisis, family struc­
ture and mental health. Family Process,
vol. 2, no. 1, March, 1963, pp. 68-80.
41. Rapoport, Rhona and Rapoport, Robert:
New light on the honeymoon. Human Re­
lations, vol. 17, no. 1, 1964, pp. 33-54.
42. Rochman, Joan and Hindley, Marlene:
"A Bibliography Relating to Crisis Theory,
Including Material on Life Stress Situa­
tions" mimeographed. Laboratory of Com­
munity Psychiatry, Harvard Medical
School, Boston, Mass. 1968.
43. Ruesch, J.: Therapeutic Communication.
New York, Norton, 1961.
44. Schulberg, H. C. and Sheldon, A.: The
probability of crisis and strategies for pre-
472 CANADIAN P S Y C H I A T R I C ASSOCIATION J O U R N A L Vol. 15, No. 5

ventive intervention. Archives of General
Psychiatry, vol. 18, no. 5, May, 1968.
45. Sifneos, P. E . : A concept of emotional
crisis. Mental Hygiene, vol. 44, April, 1960,
pp. 169-179.
46. Turner, R. J.: Social structure and crisis:
A study of nursing organization and pa­
tient adjustment. Community Mental
Health Journal, vol. 2, no. 14, Winter,
1966, pp. 285-292.
47. Tyhurst, J. S.: "The Role of Transition
States — Including Disasters — in Men­
tal Illness." Walter Reed Symposium on
Preventive and Social Psychiatry. 1957.
Superintendent of Documents, Govern­
ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
48. Williams, H. B.: Some functions of com­
munication in crisis behaviour. Human
Organization, vol. 16, no. 2, Summer,
1957, pp. 15-22.

BACK ISSUES

The Journal Management Committee has authorized the reproduction of

past issues of the Canadian Psychiatric Association Journal by University Micro­
film, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103. Back volumes may be
ordered and will be delivered as they are reproduced by the microfilm company.

As old issues are donated to the association, attempts will be made to fill
the specific requests of persons who are looking for an occasional issue to com­
plete their bound copies. Any member who is willing to donate back issues of the
Journal, please send to:

MRS. V. E. APPLETON

Managing Editor
C.P.A. Journal Editorial Office,
Suite 103, 225 Lisgar St.
Ottawa 4, Ont.