100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 25 - 26 out of 43 pages.
aspects of societal functions were not actually changed atall, and although psychological effects were sometimestumultuous, they were often circumscribed and limited tobehaviors and aspects of psychosocial development thatwere influenced by social institutions. An example is theinfluence of schools or firms that underwent change duringthe political and economic transformation.The conceptual backdrop of challenge-response on themacro level reminded us psychologists of structurallyequivalent approaches under the general rubric of stressand coping. The notion was that the everyday manifesta-tions of societal challenges at the individual level (hence-forth called demands) represent the kind of experiences(ranging from sometimes crippling uncertainties, to oppor-tunities for new behaviors) that lead to coping behaviors,reminiscent of the societal responses mentioned by ourcolleagues from the other social sciences. For them, theattraction lay in the promise to investigate the individualbehaviors that not only represent reactions to the newchallenges, but that also set the starting point for ultimatechanges on the societal level, thus bridging aggregate levelchange across time by the behavior and development ofindividuals and groups. For us, the attraction was that wehad an elaborate system of societal contexts and theirdynamics at hand which, in theory (but until now rarely inpractice) are taken as important for a conceptualization ofthe contexts which developing individuals negotiate.As already mentioned, the collaboration within the SFB580 was no accident—actually, I and my colleagues at theCADS, and its predecessors at my former universities, hada long history of working on ‘development as action incontext’ with models that focus on demands rooted incontextual change and that focus on action related to thesedemands as the central change mechanism. Inspired byGlen Elders’s ‘control cycle’ model, we investigated howpeople dealt with economic hardship in Berlin and Warsawin the early 1980s, and later in the former East and WestGermany after unification; obviously this approach wasalso instrumental in our new line of research. As the rangeof topic-specific reactions to the multitude of transforma-tion-related demands seemed endless, we relied instead ona model of developmental regulation (by Jutta Heckhausenand colleagues) that linked situational reactions todemands with long-term developmental changes. Otherresearchers relevant for our translation of the challenge-response model to individual behavior and developmentwere Melvin Kohn and his series of studies on self-direction under conditions of societal change, from Polandand the Ukraine to China. And of course Stevan Hobfollwas relevant with his emphasis on resource loss as aconsequence of system transformation.