Page 324 - alligood 8th edition_Neat

CHAPTER 17 Sister Callista Roy 305

In Introduction to Nursing: An Adaptation Model, person-environment systems of the earth are so exten-
Roy (1976a) discussed self-concept and group identity sive that a major epoch is ending (Davies, 1988;
mode. She and her collaborators cited the work of De Chardin, 1966). During the 67 million years of the
Coombs and Snygg regarding self-consistency and Cenozoic era, the Age of Mammals and an era of great
major influencing factors of self-concept (Roy, 1984). creativity, human life appeared on Earth. During this
Social interaction theories are cited to provide a theo- era, humankind has had little or no influence on the
retical basis. For example, Roy (1984) notes that Cooley universe (Roy, 1997). “As the era closes, humankind
(1902) theorizes that self-perception is influenced by has taken extensive control of the life systems of the
perceptions of others’ responses, termed the “looking earth. Roy claims that we are now in the position
glass self.” She points out that Mead expands the idea of deciding what kind of universe we will inhabit”
by hypothesizing that self-appraisal uses the general- (Roy, 1997, p. 42). Roy “has made the foci of assump-
ized other. Roy builds on Sullivan’s suggestion that self tions of the twenty-first century mutual complex
arises from social interaction (Roy, 1984). Gardner and person and environment self-organization and a mean-
Erickson support Roy’s developmental approaches ingful destiny of convergence of the universe, persons,
(Roy, 1984). The other modes—physiological-physical, and environment in what can be considered a supreme
role function, and interdependence—were drawn sim- being or God” (Roy & Andrews, 1999, p. 395). Accord-
ilarly from biological and behavioral sciences for an ing to Roy (1997), “persons are coextensive with their
understanding of the person. physical and social environments” (p. 43) and they
Additional development of the model occurred “share a destiny with the universe and are responsible
during the later 1900s and into the twenty-first century. for mutual transformations” (Roy & Andrews, 1999,
These developments included updated scientific and p. 395). Developments of the model that were related
philosophical assumptions; a redefinition of adaptation to the integral relationship between person and
and adaptation levels; extension of the adaptive modes environment have been influenced by Pierre Teilhard
to group-level knowledge development; and analysis, De Chardin’s law of progressive complexity and
critique, and synthesis of the first 25 years of research increasing consciousness (De Chardin, 1959, 1965,
based on the Roy Adaptation Model. Roy agrees 1966, 1969) and the work of Swimme and Berry
with other theorists who believe that changes in the (1992).

MAJOR CONCEPTS & DEFINITIONS

System can respond with ordinary adaptive responses”
A system is “a set of parts connected to function as a (Roy, 1984, pp. 27–28).
whole for some purpose and that does so by virtue of Adaptation Problems
the interdependence of its parts” (Roy & Andrews,
1999, p. 32). In addition to having wholeness and Adaptation problems are “broad areas of concern
related parts, “systems also have inputs, outputs, and related to adaptation. These describe the difficulties
control and feedback processes” (Andrews & Roy, related to the indicators of positive adaptation”
1991, p. 7). (Roy & Andrews, 1999, p. 65). Roy (1984) states the
following:
Adaptation Level It can be noted at this point that the distinction
“Adaptation level represents the condition of the being made between adaptation problems and
life processes described on three levels as integrated, nursing diagnoses is based on the developing
compensatory, and compromised” (Roy & Andrews, work in both of these fields. At this point, adapta-
1999, p. 30). A person’s adaptation level is “a con- tion problems are seen not as nursing diagnoses,
stantly changing point, made up of focal, contextual, but as areas of concern for the nurse related to
and residual stimuli, which represent the person’s adapting person or group (within each adaptive
own standard of the range of stimuli to which one mode) (pp. 89–90).
Continued