Engaging Theories in Family Communication: Multiple Perspectives 2nd Edition [2 ed.] 9781138700932, 9781138700949, 9781315204321

Citation preview

Engaging Theories in Family Communication

Engaging Theories in Family Communication, Second Edition delves deeply into the key theories in family communication, focusing on theories originating both within the communication discipline and in allied disciplines. Contributors write in their specific areas of expertise, resulting in an exceptional resource for scholars and students alike, who seek to understand theories spanning myriad topics, perspectives, and approaches. Designed for advanced undergraduate and graduate students studying family communication, this text is also relevant for scholars and students of personal relationships, interpersonal communication, and family studies. This second edition includes 16 new theories and an updated study of the state of family communication. Each chapter follows a common pattern for easy comparison between theories. Dawn O. Braithwaite is a Willa Cather Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She studies communication in discourse dependent (postmodern) families, dialectics of relating, and rituals in step- and voluntary families. She has published five books and 125 manuscripts. Braithwaite received the National Communication Association’s Brommel Award for Family Communication, was named Distinguished Scholar of Western States Communication Association, and is a Past President of the National Communication Association. Elizabeth A. Suter is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Denver specializing in critical interpersonal and family communication. Her research lies at the intersection of relationships and culture, addressing issues of power, struggle, and social change. She co-edited the special issue of the Journal of Family Communication on critical approaches to family communication research, and is an officer of the Family Communication Division of the National Communication Association. Kory Floyd is a Professor of Communication at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on the communication of affection in close relationships and on the intersection between interpersonal behavior and health. He has authored or edited 15 books and nearly 100 journal articles and chapters on interpersonal and family communication, nonverbal behavior, and psychophysiology. He is a past editor of the Journal of Family Communication and Communication Monographs.

Engaging Theories in Family Communication Multiple Perspectives Second Edition

Edited by Dawn O. Braithwaite, Elizabeth A. Suter, and Kory Floyd

Second Edition published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Dawn O. Braithwaite, Elizabeth A. Suter, and Kory Floyd to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. First edition published by SAGE Publications 2005 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Names: Braithwaite, Dawn O., editor. | Suter, Elizabeth, editor. | Floyd, Kory, editor. Title: Engaging theories in family communication : multiple perspectives / edited by Dawn O. Braithwaite, Elizabeth Suter, and Kory Floyd. Description: Second edition. | New York, NY : Routledge, 2017. Identifiers: LCCN 2017013105| ISBN 9781138700932 (hardback) | ISBN 9781138700949 (pbk.) Subjects: LCSH: Communication in families. Classification: LCC HQ734 .E646 2017 | DDC 306.87—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017013105 ISBN: 978-1-138-70093-2 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-138-70094-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-20432-1 (ebk) Typeset in Goudy by Florence Production Ltd, Stoodleigh, Devon, UK

Contents

Contributor Biographies Preface

ix xix

DAWN O. BRAITHWAITE, ELIZABETH A. SUTER, AND KORY FLOYD

1

Introduction: The Landscape of Meta-Theory and Theory in Family Communication Research

1

DAWN O. BRAITHWAITE, ELIZABETH A. SUTER, AND KORY FLOYD

2

Affection Exchange Theory: A Bio-Evolutionary Look at Affectionate Communication

17

KORY FLOYD, COLIN HESSE, AND MARK ALAN GENEROUS

3

Appraisal Theories of Emotion: How Families Understand and Communicate Their Feelings

27

SANDRA METTS

4

Attachment Theory in Families: The Role of Communication

38

LAURA K. GUERRERO

5

Attribution Theory: Who’s at Fault in Families?

51

VALERIE MANUSOV

6

Communicated Narrative Sense-Making Theory: Linking Storytelling and Well-Being

62

JODY KOENIG KELLAS

7

Communication Accommodation Theory and Communication Theory of Identity: Theories of Communication and Identity JORDAN SOLIZ AND COLLEEN WARNER COLANER

75

vi

Contents

8 Communication Privacy Management Theory: Understanding Families

87

SANDRA PETRONIO

9 Communication Theory of Resilience: Enacting AdaptiveTransformative Processes When Families Experience Loss and Disruption

98

P.M. BUZZANELL

10 Critical Feminist Family Communication Theory: Gender, Power, and Praxis

110

PATRICIA J. SOTIRIN AND LAURA L. ELLINGSON

11 Dyadic Power Theory: Dominance and Power in Family Communication

122

NORAH E. DUNBAR AND AUBRIE ADAMS

12 Facework Theory: Performing Familial Roles in Everyday Interactions

132

M. CHAD MCBRIDE

13 Family Communication Patterns Theory: A Grand Theory of Family Communication

142

ASCAN F. KOERNER, PAUL SCHRODT, AND MARY ANNE FITZPATRICK

14 Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: A Framework for Understanding Family Conflict

154

LOREEN N. OLSON AND ANNALISA DONAHEY

15 General Systems Theory: A Compelling View of Family Life

164

CHRISTINA G. YOSHIMURA AND KATHLEEN M. GALVIN

16 Intersectionality: (Re)Considering Family Communication from Within the Margins

175

APRIL L. FEW-DEMO, JULIA MOORE, AND SHADEE ABDI

17 Language Convergence/Meaning Divergence Theory: Creating Conflict Through Misunderstandings DEBBIE S. DOUGHERTY

187

Contents vii 18 Multiple Goals Theories: Motivations for Family Interactions and Relationships

199

STEVEN R. WILSON AND JOHN P. CAUGHLIN

19 Narrative Performance Theory: Making Stories, Doing Family

210

KRISTIN M. LANGELLIER AND ERIC E. PETERSON

20 Necessary Convergence Communication Theory: Submission and Power in Family Communication

221

MICHELLE MILLER-DAY

21 Negotiated Morality Theory: How Family Communication Shapes Our Values

233

VINCENT R. WALDRON AND DOUGLAS L. KELLEY

22 Relational Dialectics Theory: Realizing the Dialogic Potential of Family Communication

244

ELIZABETH A. SUTER AND LEAH M. SEURER

23 Relational Turbulence Theory: Understanding Family Communication During Times of Change

255

LEANNE K. KNOBLOCH, DENISE HAUNANI SOLOMON, JENNIFER A. THEISS, AND RACHEL M. MCLAREN

24 Social Construction Theory: Communication Co-Creating Families

267

DAWN O. BRAITHWAITE, ELISSA FOSTER, AND KARLA M. BERGEN

25 Social Exchange Theory: A Cost-Benefit Approach to Relationships

279

LAURA STAFFORD

26 Social Learning Theory: An Emphasis on Modeling in Parent-Child Relationships

290

ALESIA WOSZIDLO AND ADRIANNE KUNKEL

27 Structuration Theory: Applications for Family Communication KRISTEN NORWOOD AND PAAIGE K. TURNER

300

viii

Contents

28 The Theory of Natural Selection: An Evolutionary Approach to Family Communication

312

KORY FLOYD, DANA R. DINSMORE, AND COREY A. PAVLICH

29 Theory of Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL): Understanding Families as Systems of Stress and Calibration

324

TAMARA D. AFIFI AND KATHRYN HARRISON

30 Uses and Gratifications Theory: Considering Media Use in the Context of Family Communication

337

JEFFREY T. CHILD AND PAUL HARIDAKIS

Index

349

Contributor Biographies

Aubrie Adams (Ph.D. University of California, Santa Barbara) is an Assistant Professor of Communication Studies at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. Her research focuses on the intersection of interpersonal communication and new media. More specifically, she studies computer mediated communication, text interaction, video game research, and social media. She has published nine manuscripts ranging from book articles to journals and she has presented her research at a variety of communication-oriented conferences. Shadee Abdi (Ph.D. University of Denver) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication and Journalism at the University of New Mexico. Her research is situated at the crux of critical cultural and family communication and aims to challenge assumptions about Middle Eastern and North African communities. Specifically, her work considers how IranianAmerican women utilize narratives of resistance to make sense of their discordant sexual and cultural identities within their families. Tamara D. Afifi (Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is a Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She studies family and interpersonal communication, with particular emphasis on information regulation, communication patterns that foster stress and resilience, and biosocial markers. She is the editor of Communication Monographs and has received several research awards, including the Young Scholar Award from the International Communication Association, the Brommel Award from the National Communication Association, and four distinguished article awards. Karla M. Bergen (Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is an Associate Professor at the College of Saint Mary, Omaha, Nebraska, where she is Program Director of Communication. Her scholarly agenda investigates questions related to women’s communicative construction of identity. Her scholarly work on the communicative dynamics of commuter marriage has been published in edited volumes and outlets including Journal of Applied Communication Research, Journal of Family Communication and Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

x

Contributor Biographies

P. M. Buzzanell (Ph.D. Purdue University) is Professor and Chair of Communication at the University of South Florida. She studies career, gender, and resilience in different contexts and on multiple levels. She has published four books and over 200 articles, chapters, and engineering education proceedings. She is Past President and Fellow of the International Communication Association and Distinguished Scholar of the National Communication Association. John P. Caughlin (Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin) is a professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois. He studies communication in families and other close relationships. He has co-authored or co-edited two books and more than 65 articles/chapters. He is a fellow of the International Association for Relationship Research and has received the Bernard Brommel Award for Outstanding Scholarship or Distinguished Service in Family Communication from the National Communication Association. Jeffrey T. Child (Ph.D. North Dakota State University) is an Associate Professor in the School of Communication Studies at Kent State University. His primary research explores communication technology and human interaction, focusing on how people manage privacy when interacting on social media. His research has been published in Journal of Family Communication, Computers in Human Behavior, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Communication Quarterly, and Communication Studies, among others. Colleen Warner Colaner (Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri. She studies communication and diverse families, focusing on how communication creates and sustains personal, relational, and social identities in complex family structures and experiences. Her most recent work focuses on adoptive parents’ communication with and about birth parents in open adoptions. She is the founder/co-director of the Institute of Family Diversity and Communication. Dana R. Dinsmore (M.A., Texas State University) is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona. Her research focuses on how communication in family and romantic relationships affects our physical and mental health. She is particularly interested in topics such as diet, exercise, alcohol/substance use, and medication adherence. Annalisa Donahey (M.A., University of North Carolina at Greensboro) has completed conference presentations on interpersonal relationships and identity. She is very interested in the use of health communication as it intersects with both interpersonal and communal relationships. Debbie S. Dougherty (Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is a Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Missouri. She studies organizational power with an emphasis on social class, gender, and the

Contributor Biographies

xi

production of meaning. She has won a number of awards for her research and is the incoming editor for Journal of Applied Communication Research. Norah E. Dunbar (Ph.D. University of Arizona) is Professor and Chair of Communication at University of California, Santa Barbara. Her expertise is nonverbal and interpersonal communication, with special emphasis on dominance and power relationships, interpersonal synchrony, and deception detection. She has published over 50 journal articles and book chapters on credibility and power in a variety of contexts. Her current work explores the use of new technologies in training communication skills. Laura L. Ellingson (Ph.D. University of South Florida) is a Professor of Communication and Women’s & Gender Studies at Santa Clara University. Her research focuses on qualitative and feminist methodologies; embodiment; gender within extended/chosen family networks, especially aunts and nieces/ nephews; and communication in healthcare organizations, including long-term cancer survivorship, interdisciplinary communication, and teamwork. She is coauthor (with Patty Sotirin) of Aunting: Cultural Practices that Sustain Family and Community Life. April L. Few-Demo (Ph.D. University of Georgia) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Human Development at Virginia Tech. Her research interests include sexual scripts, qualitative methodologies, and women’s health decisionmaking processes. Her scholarship on intersectionality, Black feminism, critical race feminism, and queer theory has resulted in plenary invitations at national conferences and invited book chapters in family studies, family communication, and higher education. She is co-editor of The Handbook of Feminist Family Studies (2009). Mary Anne Fitzpatrick (Ph.D., Temple University) is a Carolina Educational Foundation Distinguished Professor of Psychology and the Vice President of the University of South Carolina System. Prior to her appointment as Vice President, Mary Anne served as the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina for 10 years. An internationally recognized authority on interpersonal communication, Fitzpatrick is the author of over 100 articles, chapters, and books. Elissa Foster (Ph.D. University of South Florida) is an Associate Professor in the College of Communication at DePaul University. She has held academic appointments at a number of universities and in the Department of Family Medicine at Lehigh Valley Health Network in Pennsylvania. Her principal research focus is health communication and interpersonal relationships, especially communication at the beginning and the end of life. She has published numerous academic articles, chapters, and the book, Communicating at the End of Life. Kathleen M. Galvin (Ph.D. Northwestern University) is a Professor of Communication Studies at Northwestern University. Her scholarly interests include

xii

Contributor Biographies

how members of families formed beyond biology and law construct and maintain their identities through communication practices and how families talk about death and illness. She has co-authored or edited nine books, as well as multiple chapters and articles. She is an author of Family Communication: Cohesion and Change, the first textbook in family communication. Mark Alan Generous (Ph.D. Arizona State University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at Saint Mary’s College of California. His research focuses on the intersection of family and relational communication, with a specific focus on the intergenerational transmission of communicative norms between the family of origin and close relationships outside of the family. He has authored articles and book chapters that focus primarily on interpersonal communication processes within various relationship types and contexts. Laura K. Guerrero (Ph.D. University of Arizona) is a Professor in the Hugh Downs School of Human Communication at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on relational, nonverbal, and emotional communication, and includes topics such as attachment, jealousy, hurtful events, conflict, and nonverbal intimacy. She has published several books and over 100 articles and chapters on these topics. Dr. Guerrero is on the review boards of several journals in the areas of communication and relationships. Paul Haridakis (Ph.D. Kent State University) is a Professor of Communication Studies at Kent State University. His predominant research interests are freedom of speech, media uses and effects, political communication, and intergroup communication. He is co-author/editor of four books and more than 50 articles and book chapters. He is a recipient of the 2011 Distinguished Teaching Award from the Ohio Communication Association. Kathryn Harrison (M.A. San Diego State University) is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She completed her thesis work on the role childhood displacement plays on attachment styles. Kathryn’s areas of interests include communication topics related to stress and resilience, such as intergenerational relationships, childhood development, and chronic illness. She is also interested in how technology interacts with family and health communication. Colin Hesse (Ph.D. Arizona State University) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Speech Communication at Oregon State University. His research focuses on the links between both interpersonal and family communication and psychological and physiological health. Specific communication processes of interest include affection, alexithymia, and family communication patterns. His work has appeared in Human Communication Research, Communication Monographs, Journal of Communication, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, and Personality and Individual Differences, among others. Jody Koenig Kellas (Ph.D., University of Washington) is a Professor of Communication at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She studies how people

Contributor Biographies

xiii

communicate to make sense of identity, difficulty, health, and relationships. She is founder of Narrative Nebraska, dedicated to understanding the ways in which communicated sense-making, narratives, storytelling content, process, and functions can be translated to enhance individuals’ and families’ well-being. She has published over 40 articles and chapters and received national awards for her scholarship. Douglas L. Kelley (Ph. D. University of Arizona) is a Professor of Communication Studies and Lincoln Professor of Applied Ethics at Arizona State University. He is author of four scholarly books and co-editor (with Vince Waldron) of Moral Talk Across the Lifespan: Creating Good Relationships (2015, Peter Lang). Kelley studies interpersonal communication within long-term relationships and, in particular, forgiveness and reconciliation processes. His most recent work focuses on social justice aspects of personal relationships. Leanne K. Knobloch (Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Illinois. Her research addresses how people communicate during times of transitions. Her scholarship has been honored by the Article Award from the International Association for Relationship Research, the Golden Anniversary Monograph Award from the National Communication Association, and the University Scholar Award from the University of Illinois. Ascan F. Koerner (Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Madison) is Professor of Communication Studies and Affiliate Faculty member of the Family Social Science Department and the Interpersonal Relationships Research Minor at the University of Minnesota. His research focuses on the cognitive bases of relationships and their influence on interpersonal communication, as well as marital and family communication, interpersonal influence, and persuasion. Adrianne Kunkel (Ph.D. Purdue University) is a Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. Her research and teaching interests include interpersonal communication, emotional support/coping processes in personal relationships and support group settings, romantic relationship (re)definition processes, sex/gender similarities and differences, sexual harassment, and domestic violence intervention. Kristin M. Langellier (Ph.D. Southern Illinois University) is Professor Emerita of Communication and Journalism at the University of Maine. She has taught performance studies and communication theory, including courses in narrative, feminist communication studies, and intercultural communication. Her research, using phenomenological and critical methodologies, focuses on narrative performance, family storytelling, and cultural identity. She has numerous articlelength publications, two co-authored books, and is former editor of Text and Performance Quarterly. Valerie Manusov (Ph.D. University of Southern California) is a Professor of Communication at the University of Washington. She studies interpersonal

xiv

Contributor Biographies

and nonverbal communication, especially how people give meaning to nonverbal cues. She is the editor or co-editor of three books and has published in Human Communication Research, Communication Monographs, and Journal of Family Communication, among others. She helped start the National Communication Association’s Nonverbal Communication Division. Dr. Manusov helps run the Communication honors program at UW. M. Chad McBride (Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is a Professor and Chair of Communication Studies at Creighton University. In his research, he is interested in how individuals communicatively co-construct situated identities in both social networks and larger culture. His work has been published in outlets such as Communication Education, Journal of Family Communication, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Communication Studies, Southern Communication Journal, Communication Reports, Electronic Communication Journal, and Handbook of Conflict Communication. Rachel M. McLaren (Ph.D. The Pennsylvania State University) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Iowa. Her research seeks to clarify the interplay of communication, cognition, and emotion in response to significant experiences in personal relationships. She examines both the experience of hurt and its aftermath in an effort to improve the quality of people’s communication and their overall well-being. Sandra Metts (Ph.D. University of Iowa) is a Professor Emeritus in the School of Communication at Illinois State University. Her research interests include face theory, sexual communication, and emotions in close relationships and families. She has published 95 articles and book chapters. She is a Past President of the Central States Communication Association, recipient of the International Association for Relationship Research’s Distinguished Fellowship Award, and an inductee into the Central States Communication Association Hall of Fame. Michelle Miller-Day (Ph.D. Arizona State University) is a Professor of Communication Studies at Chapman University. Her research is funded by the National Institutes of Health and focuses on developing and evaluating health programs for individuals and families. She has more than 100 published works and she is also a playwright. She is the 2016 recipient of the National Communication Association’s Bernard J. Brommel Award for Outstanding Scholarship and Distinguished Service in Family Communication. Julia Moore (Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Utah. Her research focuses on the construction and negotiation of non-normative identities, relationships, and family forms. Currently, her scholarly agenda focuses on critically theorizing and analyzing everyday interpersonal and family communication practices that reify and resist social inequalities. Kristen Norwood (Ph.D. University of Iowa) is an Assistant Professor and Director of Communication in the Department of English and Communication

Contributor Biographies

xv

at Fontbonne University. Her research interests include connections between relational communication and cultural discourse surrounding issues of gender, identity, and family. Her work has been published in journals such as Communication Monographs, Journal of Family Communication, and Management Communication Quarterly. Loreen N. Olson (Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is a Professor of Communication Studies at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. In addition to two books, Olson has published journal articles, chapters, case studies, and encyclopedia entries examining the dark side of family/relational communication, intimate partner violence, and the communicative management of stigmatized and deviant identities. She is a past editor of the Journal of Family Communication. Corey A. Pavlich (M.A. University of Arizona) is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona. His research focuses on nonverbal behavior and communication in the areas of deception and intelligence gathering. He has authored three book chapters and four journal articles on the topics of interpersonal and family communication, nonverbal behavior, and deception. Eric E. Peterson (Ph.D. Southern Illinois University) is Professor Emeritus of Communication and Journalism at the University of Maine. He has taught media consumption, critical and cultural communication studies, and qualitative research methods. His scholarship draws upon traditions in the human sciences, particularly phenomenology and semiotics, to examine communication phenomena ranging from popular culture and identity politics to pedagogy and classroom communication. His recent research focuses on embodiment in weblog storytelling and computer mediated communication. Sandra Petronio (Ph.D. University of Michigan), is the Director of the Communication Privacy Management Center at Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, a Professor in the IU School of Liberal Arts, Department of Communication Studies, and a core faculty in the Fairbanks Center for Medical Ethics, IU Health. Her research interests center on disclosure, confidentiality, and communication privacy management across contexts. Paul Schrodt (Ph.D. University of Nebraska-Lincoln) is the Philip J. and Cheryl C. Burguières Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Texas Christian University. He studies the communicative cognitions and behaviors that facilitate family relationships, with a particular interest in stepfamily functioning. He has authored more than 90 journal articles and book chapters, and is the recipient of the National Communication Association’s Bernard J. Brommel Award for Family Communication and the Early Career Award in Interpersonal Communication. Leah M. Seurer (Ph.D. University of Denver) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at The University of South Dakota.

xvi

Contributor Biographies

Her work takes a critical approach to the intersection of family and health communication by examining how relational and cultural discourses circulating outside the family construct meanings for familial relationships and illness within the family. Her work has been published in journals such as Communication Monographs and Journal of Family Communication. Jordan Soliz (Ph.D. University of Kansas) is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, where he also the Director of Graduate Studies. His research focuses on communication, identity, and intergroup processes primarily in personal and family relationships. Dr. Soliz is has been the editor of the Journal of Family Communication and has served as the Chair for the Intergroup Communication Interest Group of the International Communication Association. Denise Haunani Solomon (Ph.D. Northwestern University) is a Liberal Arts Research Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences at Pennsylvania State University. Her research focuses on the causes and consequences of turbulence in romantic associations, as well as how communication participates in those experiences. More specifically, she examines communication experiences in personal relationships, such as support and conflict, that enhance or erode wellbeing. Patricia J. Sotirin (Ph.D. Purdue University) is a Professor of Communication at Michigan Technological University. Her research program focuses on gendered power dynamics in organizational and kinship communication, including: dual career relationships; extended/chosen family networks, specifically aunts and nieces/nephews; mothering discourses; and qualitative and feminist methodologies. She is co-author (with Laura Ellingson) of Where the Aunts Are: Family, Feminism, and Kinship in Popular Culture. Laura Stafford (Ph.D. University of Texas at Austin) is Professor and Director of the School of the Media and Communication, Bowling Green State University. She studies interpersonal communication, relational maintenance, and long-distance relationships. She is the 2016 recipient of the National Communication Association Bernard J. Brommel Award for Outstanding Scholarship or Distinguished Service in Family Communication. She served as Chair of the Interpersonal Communication Division of the National Communication Association and the International Communication Association. Jennifer A. Theiss (Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Madison) is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication at Rutgers University. Her research examines how interpersonal communication shapes and reflects relationship characteristics during times of transition in close relationships. She is a Rutgers University Chancellor’s Scholar and has been honored with the Early Career Award from the Interpersonal Communication Division of the National Communication Association and the Article Award from the International Association for Relationship Research.

Contributor Biographies

xvii

Paaige K. Turner (Ph.D. Purdue University) is Executive Director of the National Communication Association and a Professor at Webster University. She has published over 30 chapters and articles in the general area of organizational communication, specifically on topics of organizational socialization, customer satisfaction, midwifery and birth, breastfeeding and the body. She is an associate editor for The International Encyclopedia of Organizational Communication and Past Chair of the Organizational Communication Division of the National Communication Association. Vincent R. Waldron (Ph.D. Ohio State University) is a Professor of Communication Studies and Lincoln Professor of Applied Ethics at Arizona State University. He is an author of five books and co-editor (with Douglas Kelley) of Moral Talk Across the Lifespan: Creating Good Relationships. Waldron studies personal and work relationships, focusing on practices that make them resilient and good, in the moral sense of that word. His recent work is funded by the National Institutes of Health. Steven R. Wilson (Ph.D. Purdue University) is a Professor of Communication at the University of South Florida. His research explores processes of influence and identity management within families. He has published two books, as well as 90 articles/chapters. He is a fellow of the International Communication Association and recipient of the National Communication Association’s Bernard J. Brommel Award for Outstanding Scholarship in Family Communication. Alesia Woszidlo (Ph.D. University of Arizona) is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. Her research examines the intersection of family of origin experiences, mental health, communication processes, and relationship quality among young-adult and adult family relationships (i.e., marital dyads, parent-child dyads and triads). Christina G. Yoshimura (Ph.D. Arizona State University) is an Associate Professor of Communication Studies at the University of Montana. She focuses her research on how various subsystems of the family communicate as they engage external systems, including other relationships, workplaces, schools, and media. Dr. Yoshimura also maintains a focus on applied communication skills and mental health, using her backgrounds in communication studies and clinical mental health to provide individual and group counseling on interpersonal communication patterns.

Preface

We began the second edition of Engaging Theories in Family Communication: Multiple Perspectives as the first edition of the book was reaching its ten-year mark. Dawn O. Braithwaite and Leslie A. Baxter began the first edition as family communication was starting to come into its own and they wanted a book that centered on scholarship from the field of family communication. Braithwaite and Baxter desired to contribute to the identity and development of the field, to grow theory, and expand the number of studies firmly grounded in theory. They compiled a collection of 20 theories, half coming from allied disciplines. They sought to extend the reach of family communication with a broader representation of theories to guide scholarship and make the case for taking a critical lens to family communication research, including some chapters they hoped would encourage that direction. Scholars found the book to be very useful and the first edition was awarded the National Communication Association Family Communication Division Book Award in 2011. Jumping ahead ten years, Leslie Baxter was retiring and Elizabeth Suter and Kory Floyd joined the editorial team. Each of us brought our research experience to the table and our diverse vantage points encouraged us to take into account a breadth of perspectives and theories. Even with our differences, our level of agreement about the important issues in the field of family communication was remarkably similar. We were delighted that Routledge was eager to make this volume a part of their collection of excellent books dedicated to family communication. We started this second edition project by updating the study of all family communication scholarship 2004–2015. We are very grateful to University of Denver graduate students Jeni Hunniecutt, Kelsea Kohler, and Stephanie Webb for undertaking this challenging task. We used their findings as a starting point to make decisions about theories to include in this second edition. Following the increase in research and theorizing we saw in these data, it quickly became evident that we would have to make some hard choices about which theories to include. We also changed the structure for each theory chapter, asking authors to organize their chapter around a common set of issues to make it easier to compare across theories. In these pages, we hope you will find a valuable collection of theories to deepen your understanding of family

xx

Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd

communication and guide your own research as the field continues to move forward. We express our deep appreciation to the 54 authors who wrote chapters. There is no book without your work. The senior authors include those who began the field of family communication and are distinguished scholars and theorists who have moved the field ahead exponentially. The junior scholars who co-authored chapters will take family communication into the future. We cannot wait to see what comes next. We thank Nicole Solano, publisher at Routledge, and Kristina Ryan, editorial assistant, for their contributions to the project. Dawn thanks graduate student Heather Voorhees of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for her assistance with the manuscript. All three of us thank Leslie A. Baxter for her contributions to the first edition of this volume and her support as we took this next step. Finally, this book project also reflects and contributes to our own understanding of family communication. Between us, we represent many types of family experiences at different points in our lives: adoptive, stepfamily, multi-ethnic, LGBTQ, childless by choice, and voluntary kin—all created, enacted, and changed in interaction. We gained insights into our own family experiences as we read these chapters and we trust you will as well. Dawn dedicates this book to Professors Leslie Baxter, Kathleen Galvin, Sandra Metts, Sandra Petronio, and Edna Rogers, four women who have been instrumental to the field of family communication and dear friends of the heart. Elizabeth dedicates this book to her two daughters. Kory dedicates this book to his family—both immediate and extended—who continually remind him of the importance of belonging. —Dawn O. Braithwaite, Elizabeth A. Suter, and Kory Floyd

1

Introduction The Landscape of Meta-Theory and Theory in Family Communication Research Dawn O. Braithwaite, Elizabeth A. Suter, and Kory Floyd

We cannot look at the news, read social media, or talk with people in our lives for very long without the topic of family popping up fairly quickly. When the topic of family does emerge, it does not take long to realize that what families are, what we expect from families, and how we believe people should communicate in families are complex, ever-changing, and often contested (Floyd, Mikkelson, & Judd, 2006). Our goal for this second edition of Engaging Theories in Family Communication: Multiple Perspectives is to provide a resource for researchers, students, and those working with families who want to understand the central role of communication in the lives of family members. Rather than offer readers a summary of research findings by context or topic, as one would find in a handbook (e.g., Vangelisti, 2013), we provide an overview and concise discussion of important theories that can guide the study of family communication. We understand that theories can seem abstract, yet we see them as very practical and useful tools for understanding and addressing the challenges contemporary families face. Regarding theories as tools, we designed this book as a toolbox to help you understand and study family communication from a variety of perspectives and approaches. In this chapter, we provide a map of the landscape of family communication research and theory by presenting an overview of family communication research from 2004–2015 and offering implications for the future of family communication research.

Roots of Family Communication Although families have been a central part of human history and investigated across many disciplines, the study of family in the communication discipline is relatively young. In fact, most of the senior authors in this book have been instrumental in getting the field of family communication started and moving ahead over the last 30 years. To gain an understanding and appreciation for the state of family communication theory, we: (a) describe the roots of the family communication field, (b) explain how we are defining family communication, (c) present the results of a study that outlines the theoretical and meta-theoretical

2

Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd

commitments of family communication research, and (d) describe our process of choosing the theories included in the book. One thing we can say about the study of communication is that it has always been based on practical goals and concerns. With roots in ancient Greece and Rome, and likely starting earlier in Africa and China, the study of communication started by helping people design effective arguments and speeches (Ehninger, 1968). As the twentieth century began, college courses in rhetoric, public speaking, and performance of literature were found most often in English or theater departments under the title of “speech.” In 1914, a group of speech professors broke off from English and formed their own professional association, which grew into the present-day National Communication Association (Cohen, 1994). Over the first half of the twentieth century, as speech departments were created in universities, they included faculty members who took two very different approaches to the study of communication. Those favoring the Cornell School studied communication from a humanities (rhetoric) perspective. Coming along later, those favoring the Midwestern School studied communication as a science (Pearce & Foss, 1990). One can see evidence of the practical goal of understanding and improving the human condition throughout the study of communication. After World War II, scholars were focusing on a variety of topics to address challenges and atrocities coming out of that time, including small group discussion as a way of promoting democracy, media and transmission of information, debate, and persuasion. What these early scholars had in common was that they focused largely on message transmission and the clarity and effectiveness of messages. In the 1950s and 1960s, some scholars who took a social scientific approach to their research began to move into speech departments from psychology, sociology, and political science, bringing with them quantitative and experimental research methods (to explore the development of the communication discipline, see Cohen, 1994; Gehrke & Keith, 2015; Pearce & Foss, 1990). Important cultural developments in the 1960s and 1970s influenced U.S. universities, brought on by social changes such as civil rights, the women’s movement, and growth of the counterculture, along with important transformations in personal and family relationships. Research and classes in interpersonal communication boomed at this time, and these social scientists joined the rhetoricians in departments of speech that later changed their names to “communication” to reflect the breadth of the discipline and what we studied and taught (to explore the development of the interpersonal communication field, see Braithwaite, 2014; Knapp & Daly, 2011). Studying families has long been a part of a number of disciplines, including psychology, sociology, education, political science, counseling, gerontology, and human sciences/family studies. Similarly, social science scholars in the communication discipline showed interest in families; for example, some interpersonal communication scholars studied marital couples or parents and children, some media scholars studied the effects of television on children, and some organizational communication scholars studied work-life barriers for

Introduction 3 women. In their essay, Galvin and Braithwaite (2014) traced the study of family communication as an offshoot of interpersonal communication and interest in therapy and well-being in family systems (e.g., Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967; for a fuller discussion of the development of family communication, see Galvin & Braithwaite, 2014). Kathleen Galvin and Bernard Brommel published the first family communication textbook, Family Communication: Cohesion and Change, in 1982, drawing on literature from psychology, sociology, and counseling. Around the same time, interpersonal communication scholars were starting to develop research and theory centered on family interaction patterns (e.g., Rogers & Farce, 1975), marital types (e.g., Fitzpatrick, 1987), and conflict and decisionmaking (e.g., Sillars & Kalbfleisch, 1988). Starting in the mid-1980s, family communication classes started cropping up on college campuses and research programs were growing. Family communication became a full division in the National Communication Association in 1989. One of the most significant developments to move the new field forward was the launch of the Journal of Family Communication by inaugural editor Thomas Socha in 2001. By the time Dawn O. Braithwaite and Leslie Baxter published the first edition of the present book in 2006, they were able to identify 20 theories to include in the book, about half of them originating in the communication discipline and the other half in allied disciplines. Also at the beginning of the twenty-first century, family communication scholars began to branch out and study diverse family forms, such as inter-ethnic, LGBTQ, single-parent, adoptive, and stepfamilies (see Braithwaite & Schrodt, 2013; Floyd & Morman, 2014; Soliz, Thorson, & Rittenour, 2009; Suter, 2014a, 2014b). Since the first edition of this book was published, we have seen an increase in the breadth of theories, studies using qualitative/interpretive methods, and in engaging a critical lens on family interaction. As a touchstone, the original family communication text is now in its ninth edition (Galvin, Braithwaite, & Bylund, 2015), joined by other texts over the years (e.g., Segrin & Flora, 2011; Turner & West, 2006). There have been many significant advances in family communication, and in many ways, we believe the field is just hitting its stride.

Defining Family Communication Before we delve further into family communication theory, we should clarify how we are defining our terms. Family communication scholars focus largely on communication as a symbolic process humans use to create meaning. Stewart (1999) so eloquently described this view of communication: Communication is the way humans build our reality. Human worlds are not made up of objects but of people’s responses to objects, or their meanings. And these meanings are negotiated in communication. Try not to think of communication as simply a way to share ideas, because it’s much more than that. It’s the process humans use to define reality itself. (p. 25)

4

Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd

Thinking about family communication in this way, communication is much more than transmitting a message from one to others. Family communication focuses on the way we co-create and negotiate meanings, identity, and relationships in social interaction; that is, how we constitute ourselves and our family relationships (Baxter, 2014). From a family communication perspective, we view communication not just as one aspect of a family, but as the central process by which families are literally talked into being, that is, how families are co-constructed, negotiated, and legitimated in discourse. Galvin (2006) coined the phrase “discourse dependence” to help us understand how families define and legitimate themselves within the family and outside the family in the extended family network, with friends, neighbors, and in public discourse. Galvin (2006) thought about discourse dependence as most relevant to non-normative families because they are challenged to negotiate roles and expectations that other families might take for granted. For example, members of a new stepfamily will need to interact and figure out the expectations for relationships in their new household, how to (and how not to) behave, even what to call one another, discovering much of this through trial and error. In this way, members of the stepfamily become especially aware of discourse dependence as they interact to negotiate what it means to be a member of and live in this new family. However, as we think about it, all families are discourse dependent. You have likely been most aware of this fact at times of family transition. For example, when college students come home after their first year at school, all members of the family likely find themselves needing to interact and negotiate relationship changes from curfews, to independence and privacy, to who is responsible for household tasks. At these transition points, especially, our awareness of communication as constituted in communication practices is probably the most evident to us, but we are always negotiating family in interaction. Although all families are dependent on discourse to some extent, the extent to which families rely on discourse varies. Envision the concept of family as a stool upheld by three legs: biology, law, and discourse (Galvin, 2014). Family forms missing both the biology and law stool legs (e.g., voluntary kin; Braithwaite & DiVerniero, 2014) find themselves perched on the one remaining stool leg and are, thus, the most dependent upon discourse to define relations between members and to present the unit as a legitimate family to outsiders. For family communication scholars, practitioners, and for family members themselves, conceptualizing families as co-constructed in communication focuses our attention on what it means to be a family and who is family to us. Whereas families may be formed by biological and/or legal ties, they can also be formed by communicatively negotiated bonds of affection, interdependence, history, and long-term commitment. From this perspective, we share Galvin, Braithwaite, and Bylund’s (2015) definition of family as “Networks of people who share their lives over long periods of time bound by marriage, blood, or commitment, legal or otherwise, who consider themselves as family and who share a significant history and anticipated future functioning as a family” (p. 8).

Introduction 5 This definition highlights the central role of communication in forming and maintaining families.

Meta-Theoretical Discourses of Family Communication As this is a book dedicated to family communication theory, we should start by asking, what is the work theories do? At its most general level, a communication theory is a set of statements that renders intelligible some communication phenomenon or process (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). What is important to understand is that what counts as a theory, what a theory is supposed to do, and how to evaluate a theory are embedded in broader philosophical systems of inquiry, or meta-theoretical discourses, about reality and how one produces knowledge claims. In order to understand the concept of theory, then, we believe it is important to provide, however briefly, a backdrop of the primary philosophical perspectives that circulate in the family communication literature. These meta-theoretical backdrops are not unique to the family communication domain and they give us a way to organize and think about the ways scholars have approached research and theory. For our purposes, a discourse is a linguistic system of distinctions and the values enacted in those distinctions (Deetz, 2001). These discourses are points of view that help us to understand and appreciate the different approaches to asking questions about family communication, to choose research methods to answer our questions, and to provide the criteria by which to evaluate research findings and conclusions (Baxter & Babbie, 2004). Each discourse (paradigm) or perspective brings with it a different set of assumptions about the nature of truth and reality, the relationship between the researcher and the phenomenon under investigation, the role of values in theory and research, and how best to write up and communicate the findings of research. It is not helpful to argue about which discourse is correct or superior; rather, the issue is to understand and appreciate the intellectual resources embedded in a given meta-theoretical discourse—the stock arguments if you will, often implicit, that provide warrants for certain research question and research methods to guide a given study. There are a number of excellent frameworks of different meta-theoretical discourses, many providing a greater degree of nuance (see Deetz, 2001; Droser, 2017). However, for our purposes in this volume, we will continue to use three basic meta-theoretical discourses to organize our thinking about family communication research and theory first identified by Bochner (1985): post-positivist, interpretive, and critical, as this provides the most widespread understanding of the broad paradigmatic categories. Researchers adopting a post-positivist perspective take a scientific approach to research, sometimes called the “logical-empirical tradition.” The goal of scholars in this research tradition is to produce generalizable, cause-effect explanations about how variables are interdependent in an objective world. Researchers seek causal explanations of the social world via webs of variables, some of which function as independent variables in causing outcomes or effects on other

6

Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd

variables known as dependent variables. Researchers committed to the discourse of post-positivism will identify a theory and testable hypotheses relevant to the phenomenon they wish to explain and predict. Theories in this paradigm consist of law-like statements that apply across situations, concerning how variables relate, causally or functionally. In its idealized form, the researcher’s task is to deduce testable hypotheses from the theory. Researchers situating their work in the post-positivist paradigm might be interested in studying how the communication norms of one’s family of origin affect the development of communication norms in one’s own family in adult life. In this tradition, research begins with a theory, such as a theory of intergenerational family transmission, in which predictable patterns among key variables are posited. From this theory, the researcher would derive testable hypotheses relevant to the transmission of communication norms. The researcher would determine whether the hypotheses were supported by the observations, and thus whether the theory of intergenerational family transmission gained support. For the post-positivist, a good theory is one that is accurate (in agreement with observations), testable (capable of being both verified and falsified), logically consistent, parsimonious (appropriately simple), appropriate in scope, and useful for generating predictions and explanations about family communication. Researchers adopting an interpretive perspective are committed to a rich and detailed understanding of how particular social practices are negotiated and maintained in family communication. Interpretive researchers value the “actor’s point of view”—the perspectives and language choices of the persons being studied. Theories valued by interpretive researchers are focused on meanings and meaning-making, and look for common patterns of meaning among members of a particular group or context being studied. These researchers seek to understand how realities are produced and maintained through the everyday practices of people and families. Interpretive theories are sensitizing devices or guides to getting started, and are put into conversation with locally emergent meanings. The goal is not to test the theory in a specific situation, but rather to engage the theory in conversation with the researcher’s emergent observations and interpretations that flow from the participants’ experiences. From this perspective, a theory is a heuristic device, useful in sensitizing a researcher; it is a conversational partner, if you will, open to transformation when put into play with the point of view of the perspectives of the participants and the interpretations of the researcher. Returning to our example of the intergenerational transmission of communication norms, the interpretive researcher would likely adopt an inductive approach, asking family members to describe, in their own terms, what communication norms characterized their family of origin and their immediate family. The interpretive researcher would probably be interested in family members’ perceptions of how communication in the family of origin is related to how they currently communicate in their own family. The interpretive researcher would not test hypotheses, but would instead start with a theory

Introduction 7 explaining how social realities are reproduced and then use this theory as a sensitizing device to develop preliminary interview questions or make findings intelligible at the analysis stage of the study. In the end, the researcher would conclude that the theory was more or less useful in illuminating family members’ experiences. Alternatively, an interpretive researcher might prefer to operate entirely inductively, developing a theory from the “bottom up” from observations, which is referred to as “grounded-theory construction.” Whether the theory exists before the study or is developed in the course of the research, a good interpretive theory is heuristic and enlightens the meanings and meaning-making process of the persons or groups being studied. This is more than describing what is there; it also involves an interpretation that renders that description intelligible or understandable. This is different from the goals of prediction and explanation of post-positivist theories; however, like post-positivist theory, interpretive theory should be logically consistent and parsimonious. Researchers adopting a critical perspective view the family as a social/historical creation in which various power struggles take place and serve some interests more fully than others. A critical researcher would rely on a theory of institutional or ideological power as an analytic guide to understand and explain how some voices become marginalized or silenced and other voices become dominant. Critical scholars focus on the role of various societal structures and ideologies—such as the ideology of individualism or the ideology of patriarchy— in personal identity and often focus on groups such as women, people of color, and non-elite social groups, such as LGBTQ families. A goal of emancipation or enlightenment and an activist agenda of social change drive the work of the critical scholar. The critical scholar’s research methods may look much like those of the interpretive scholar, such as using interviews or observations via ethnography. Their goals are different, however. Whereas the interpretive scholar seeks to identify patterns or consensus, the critical scholar rejects that goal and focuses on contradictions, dissension, or inequities, finding meaning in differences. Returning to the intergenerational transmission example, the critical researcher would be interested in determining whose norms were legitimated and whose norms for communicating were silenced or de-legitimated. The researcher’s goal would be the recovery of perspectives and norms that were silenced in the power-filled dynamics of family life. A good critical theory is evaluated by its capacity to uncover marginalized voices and foster social justice, thereby emancipating disempowered groups from oppressive social structures or ideologies. What should be clear from our discussion of these meta-theoretical discourses is that, if we are going to understand and evaluate the value of research, we need to understand the foundation on which it is built. However, researchers rarely articulate their meta-theoretical commitments explicitly; these philosophical alignments often float at a latent level, between the lines of a researcher’s writing. The sophisticated reader needs to know how to locate and hear a researcher’s choices in order to infer the meta-theoretical commitments in

8

Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd

a given study. Why is this important? Because it tells the reader what the researcher values about theory and how theory should be employed and evaluated. As you read the chapters in this book, you will see that we asked the authors to make their meta-theoretical choices explicit. We encourage you to pay attention to how they developed or extended the distinctions between different meta-theoretical discourses, how they used their theories, and what insights they pull from these different theories to shed light on real and important family communication issues and challenges. Let’s bring down the level of abstraction a bit, and turn our attention to the family communication research that the theories guide and enlighten. In doing so, we will note some insightful patterns and trends with respect to both theories and the meta-theoretical discourses in which they are embedded to help us get the lay of the land to date.

Family Communication Research, 2004–2015 In order to understand the landscape of family communication and to choose which theories to include in our book, we began with an empirical study of published family communication research conducted by researchers who professionally identify with the communication studies discipline.1 Our goal was to update the study done for first edition (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006), which included research from 1990–2003. Baxter and Braithwaite (2006) chose to begin that initial study in 1990, a year after family communication was formally recognized as a division within the National Communication Association. Although the domains of interpersonal communication and family communication share many issues in common, we needed to draw the line somewhere to try to understand what makes family communication distinct. Unlike others (e.g., Stephen, 2001), we did not include research in interpersonal communication on non-marital couple relationships as part of the family communication domain unless the scholars compared family dyads such as marital couples to non-familial relationship types (e.g., dating couples). Our focus on research from scholars in the family communication field is intentional, and we recognize that it is more focused than some may prefer. Because researchers in other disciplines publish work on family communication, critics might question our rules of inclusion and exclusion. Although we certainly do value the communication work by scholars outside the communication discipline, we wanted to access the work done by the community of scholars whose primary intellectual affiliation is communication. We examined 21 journals most likely to contain the published research of family communication scholars. We excluded conceptual essays from our sample, because our goal was to assess the role of meta-theory and theory in empirical research. We included in our search 12 communication journals connected to the International Communication Association (ICA), the National Communication Association (NCA), and the four regional NCA-affiliated professional communication associations: Communication Monographs, Communication

Introduction 9 Quarterly, Communication Reports, Communication Research Reports, Communication Studies, Human Communication Research, Communication Theory, Journal of Applied Communication Research, Quarterly Journal of Speech, Southern Communication Journal, Text and Performance Quarterly, and Western Journal of Communication. In addition, we included five journals that often publish family communication research: Communication Research, Journal of Family Communication, Journal of Language and Social Psychology, Research on Language and Social Interaction, and Women’s Studies in Communication. We also included family communication research articles authored by communication scholars that appeared in the two main interdisciplinary journals on social and personal relationships: Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, and Personal Relationships. Last, we included family communication research articles authored by communication scholars that were published in two leading interdisciplinary family journals published by the National Council on Family Relations (NCFR): Family Relations and the Journal of Marriage and Family. In the end, a total of 486 family communication studies were identified for the current 12-year period (2004–2015), with an average of 40.5 studies published per year. From these data, we noted an uptick in the number of research articles published as compared to Baxter and Braithwaite’s (2006) study that covered a longer 14-year period (1990–2003); a total of 471 studies, with an average of 33.6 studies published per year. We found the greatest number of articles in the Journal of Family Communication, followed by the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships.

Meta-Theoretical Commitments of Family Communication Research We first analyzed the 486 research articles to determine the meta-theoretical commitments (post-positivist, interpretive, critical) of family communication researchers 2004–2015. As was the case in the Baxter and Braithwaite (2006) analysis, it was easy to identify studies that were grounded in the post-positivist perspective. In the current study, a total of 291 studies (59.8 percent) were coded as post-positivist. A total of 132 (27.2 percent) were coded as interpretive, and 63 (12.9 percent) were coded as critical. As a comparison, the earlier study of 1990–2003 revealed 76.1 percent as post-positivist, 20.4 percent interpretive, and 3.5 percent critical. Thus, we note an important change in family communication research over the past 12 years, representing much greater metatheoretical breadth than in the past. In general, our findings are somewhat similar to those reported by Stamp and Shue’s (2013) survey of family research published in eight communication discipline journals 2005–2009. Although we, like Stamp and Shue, found post-positivist research dominant, such work occupied a smaller percentage of the family communication research in our study. Stamp and Shue (2013) identified 68.6 percent as post-positivist, 23.6 percent as interpretive, and 8.14 percent as critical. We account for the differences in two ways. First, the Stamp

10 Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd and Shue analysis covered only eight communication journals and our analysis covered 21 journals, including communication scholarship in interdisciplinary journals, such as the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships and the Journal of Marriage and Family. Second, and more important, their analysis did not include the Journal of Family Communication, which houses the largest number of family communication studies by far. Third, our analysis is based on a broader representation of journals more likely to feature interpretive and especially critical research, such as Women’s Studies in Communication.

Theoretical Commitments of Family Communication Research Although all research is embedded in meta-theoretical discourse, not all research uses a theory to guide and enlighten the research design, data analysis, and results. Our threshold for evaluating theoretical presence in the 486 studies included in our analysis was very generous; we included articles in which the author mentioned at least one theory in the introductory warrant for the study, employed at least one theory as a framework to analyze data, and/or discussed at least one theory in the article’s conclusion as a way to make post hoc sense of findings or to address the implications of the findings. As one of the co-editors put it, if the authors “waved their hot dog over the fire of theory” we counted it. Overall, we did not count models and typologies that have not been organized or articulated theoretically (e.g., relational maintenance behaviors) and did not count a “bottom up” grounded theory approach that produced typologies that enlightened the findings in a single study. Similarly, we did not count data collection methods, such as turning points, as theories themselves. Overall, 397 (or 81.7 percent) of the studies from 2004–2015 displayed some theoretical presence, as compared to 42.9 percent of published research in family communication in the Baxter and Braithwaite (2006) analysis. This is a substantial rise in theory-based scholarship that we attribute to the marked increase in family communication theories available to guide research and the increase in interpretive and critical studies that tended toward theoretical presence. As a point of comparison, the Braithwaite, Schrodt, and Carr (2015) study of interpersonal communication scholarship reflected a 75 percent theoretical presence and 85 percent of the total research was postpositivist, which seems to support this conclusion. The most frequently identified theories were, in descending order of frequency (we include theories with four or more appearances): communication privacy management theory (34), family communication patterns theory (20), relational dialectics theory (29), narrative theories (21) (reporting several different narrative theories here), systems theory (14), attachment theory (11), affection exchange theory (8), communication accommodation theory (6), feminist theories (5), relational turbulence (5), social construction theory (5), attribution theory (4), equity theory (4), face theory (4), multiple goals theory (4), social cognitive theory (4), structuration theory (4), uncertainly management theory (4), and the theory of motivated information management (4).

Introduction 11

Theories Included in the Book The growth in family communication created a very positive development of needing to make hard choices among theories being used and developed. The editors used the 2006 edition of the book as a starting point and engaged the results of the study to identify which theories to include. As a result, we ended up dropping a few classic theories that have decreased in use in recent years, even though they were created by scholars we admire greatly. However, as their work is the foundation of the work being done in family communication, the influence of these giants is evident. When Baxter and Braithwaite (2006) chose theories for their first volume, they found themselves including more theories from outside of the discipline. They also included some theories they predicted might become more prominent; in some cases, they were correct and in other cases the theories did not catch on. At the time, the editors needed to make a concerted effort to identify theories and authors representing post-positivist, interpretive, and critical theories, especially the latter. For this new edition, the editors did not have to go searching but rather had to make difficult choices among theories, settling on 29 theories. Included in the book is a set of diverse theories that have been guiding research quite fruitfully. In addition, the editors identified theories that they predict are the up-and-coming next generation of family communication research. There are 15 new theories appearing in the present volume, eight of which were developed in the last several years. We charged all of the authors with writing very concise chapters and specified a common set of themes to help readers compare across theories more easily. The theories are presented in alphabetical order.

Implications for Family Communication Research You would not be surprised to learn that, as editors of a book devoted to theories of family communication, we are biased toward theoretically grounded research. We appreciate that not all scholars share our opinion; some believe it is sufficient to embed a given study in the conversation of accumulated findings from others’ studies, and we do recognize that this practice may form the basis of theory building at a later time. Some scholars, especially in the interpretive and critical paradigms, are concerned that a theoretical lens, especially if applied a priori, encourages scholars to see what they expect to see. Nonetheless, we favor theoretically centered research for two reasons. First, theory provides us with a way to bring coherence and intelligibility to a set of findings (Baxter & Babbie, 2004; Miller, 2005). Several atheoretical studies can produce a common finding, but it is theory that makes that finding intelligible, helping scholars to think deeply and argue effectively. Theory provides us with a lens—for the post-positivist, to provide a causal or functional explanation of why that finding emerged; for the interpretivist, to provide an understanding of meanings a given situated group; for the critical scholar, to move toward

12 Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd emancipatory social change. Modifying the theoretical lens alters our view and gives us a heightened awareness that we are indeed seeing the world through a particular lens. Using theory requires the researcher to manage the choice to focus on certain things and not engage others. Second, theory helps us launch new research in informed ways, either by providing the basis of testable hypotheses (post-positivist) or by providing us with a heuristic sensitizing device (interpretive and critical) to guide new research questions. We do believe that, in addition to the specific research findings in a given study, each study should explicitly question and/or advance the theory. In light of our pro-theory bias, we are heartened to see the percentage of theory-based research in family communication having grown to almost 82 percent. In the first edition of this book, Baxter and Braithwaite (2006) were concerned that only 42.9 percent of family communication research at that time displayed theoretical presence. Thus, this growth in theoretical guidance is a very positive development. We see at least three implications from our current study of theory in the field of family communication. First, we believe that the increase in theoretical presence in family communication represents an important maturity for the field, represented by the larger number of theories available to guide research and the maturity of many of the theories that were newer in 2006. In addition, we are confident the first volume of this book, and other volumes and journals, encouraged theory development and use. We urge family communication scholars to continue to pursue theory-based research, and our desire is to see the percentage of theory-based research grow even higher. It is important to stress that we do not believe there needs to be a proliferation of new family communication theories. Rather, we hope to see scholars continue to deepen existing theories, especially the younger theories we have included in this second edition. A second implication of our survey of family communication research is to continue to call for breadth of meta-theoretical commitments. Family communication research has a better balance among post-positivist, interpretive, and critical discourses than in the broader marriage and family domain and in interpersonal communication in our own discipline, but it is still dominated by post-positivist research. Post-positivist research is very important, of course, and we are not here to critique its presence. Rather, we favor representation across paradigms in the journals, more conversations across scholars using different paradigms, and more research teams of scholars working within the different perspectives. A third implication of our survey of family communication research from 2004–2015 is that we are confident family communication has come into its own as a distinct and important field study. More than half (52 percent) of the theories in this book now originate in the communication discipline. In our home-grown theories and in the cases of theories that have been imported from other disciplines, family communication scholars have contributed more depth to the theories than was present earlier.

Introduction 13 Although family communication has grown in recent years, we encourage continued evolution of the breadth of scholars and research contexts represented in the field. As evidenced by our study of paradigms, family communication has been a harbor for scholars pursuing post-positivist, interpretive, and critical work. This has been important for interpretive scholars, and even more so for critical scholars who continue to face opposition from some scholars in traditionally social scientific parts of the discipline, particularly in interpersonal communication (Baxter & Asbury, 2015; Braithwaite, 2014; Braithwaite, Moore, & Stephenson Abetz, 2014; Moore, 2017). Moore (2017) argued that critical research has been slow to take hold in interpersonal and family communication, due in part to the lack of examples that demonstrate how to integrate critical theory into empirical research. She argues that critical theories are important because they identify, critique, and transform power, injustice, and inequality, which are perpetuated at the relational and familial level (see Chapters 10 and 16 in this volume). We also continue to advocate for open doors to interpretive and critical scholars, as this is where more scholars from underrepresented groups in the discipline reside and their presence and perspective are important to family communication research and instruction. We again stress that opening doors to perspectives and scholars should not be read as a critique of the excellent research coming out of the post-positivist paradigm. In fact, one of the editors of this volume comes from this tradition and we intentionally built the editorial team to represent the breadth of paradigmatic perspectives, which has served the project well. In the end, what we want to see is openness to the different perspectives at all stages of the research enterprise—from methodological education in graduate programs to reviewing research reports for presentation to selection of publication journal editors. We also encourage family communication scholars to reach beyond the boundaries of the communication discipline and increasingly place our scholarship in interdisciplinary relationship and family journals (especially the latter), to increase the audience for the research. Finally, we encourage a continued effort to expand the family contexts and topics addressed by scholars in the field. The breadth of scope family communication changes and challenges should motivate us to work even harder to bring our scholarship, theorizing, teaching, and translational efforts into our communities. Some of these challenges include communication in nonnormative and multiethnic families that face challenges to family identity and legitimizing their family (Baxter, 2014; Floyd & Morman, 2014). Among other topics we want to see more fully addressed are families in crisis (e.g., Dickson & Webb, 2012) and how families interact with and are influenced by social media (e.g., Bruess, 2015). Our contributions as a field to enlighten the challenges families face rest in our ability to fully embrace and apply multiple perspectives. We need powerful and flexible family communication theories that can be used by scholars and applied by students in their everyday lives. We hope this volume will foster

14 Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd strong programs of research that capture the complexity of contemporary family communication.

Notes 1. The editors express our deep appreciation to Jeni Hunniecutt, Kelsea Kohler, and Stephanie Webb of the University of Denver for their assistance in the substantial and complicated undertaking of compiling and updating the data for this analysis. Any interpretations or errors are those of the editors.

References Baxter, L. A. (2014). Theorizing the communicative construction of “family”: The three R’s. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 33–50). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Baxter, L. A., & Asbury, B. (2015). Critical approaches to interpersonal communication: Charting a future. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 189–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baxter, L. A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006). Introduction: Meta-theory and theory in family communication research. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bochner, A. P. (1985). Perspectives on inquiry: Representation, conversation, and reflection. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 27–58). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Braithwaite, D. O. (2014). “Opening the door”: The history and future of qualitative scholarship in interpersonal communication. Communication Studies, 65, 441–445. Braithwaite, D. O., & DiVerniero, R. (2014). “He became like my other son”: Discursively constructing voluntary kin. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 175–194). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Braithwaite, D. O., Moore, J., & Stephenson Abetz, J. (2014). “I need numbers before I will buy it”: Reading and writing qualitative scholarship on personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 490–496. Braithwaite, D. O., & Schrodt, P. (2013). Communication in stepfamilies. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (2nd ed., pp. 161–175). New York, NY: Routledge. Braithwaite, D. O., Schrodt, P., & Carr, K. (2015). Introduction: Meta-theory and theory in interpersonal communication research. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 1–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bruess, C. J. (Ed.). (2015). Family communication in the age of digital and social media. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Cohen, H. (1994). The history of speech communication: The emergence of a discipline, 1914–1945. Washington, D.C.: National Communication Association.

Introduction 15 Deetz, S. (2001). Conceptual foundations. In F. M. Jablin & L. L. Putnam (Eds.), The new handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and methods (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dickson, F. C., & Webb, L. M. (Eds.). (2012). Communication for families in crisis: Theories, research, strategies. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Droser, V. A. (2017). (Re)conceptualizing family communication: Applying Deetz’s conceptual frameworks within the field of family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 17, 1–16. Ehninger, D. (1968). On systems of rhetoric. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, 131–144. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1987). Marital interaction. In C. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 564–618). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Judd, J. (2006). Defining the family through relationships. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 21–42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (Eds.). (2014). Widening the family circle: New research on family communication (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galvin, K. M. (2014). Blood, law, and discourse: Constructing and managing family identity. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 17–32). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Galvin, K. M., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2014). Family communication theory and research from the field of family communication: Discourses that constitute and reflect families. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 97–111. Galvin, K. M., Braithwaite, D. O., & Bylund, C. L. (2015). Family communication: Cohesion and change (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (1982). Family communication: Cohesion and change. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman. Gehrke, P. J., & Keith, W. M. (2015). Introduction: A brief history of the National Communication Association. In P. J. Gehrke & W. M. Keith (Eds.), A century of communication studies: The unfinished conversation (pp. 1–25). New York, NY: Routledge. Knapp, M. L., & Daly, J. A. (2011). Background and current trends in the study of interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 3–22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, K. (2005). Communication theories: Perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Moore, J. (2017). Where is the critical empirical interpersonal communication research? A roadmap for future inquiry into discourse and power. Communication Theory, 27, 1–20. Pearce, W. B., & Foss, K. A. (1990). The historical context of communication as a science. In G. L. Dahnke & G. W. Clatterbuck (Eds.), Human communication: Theory and research (pp. 1–19). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Rogers, E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Human Communication Research, 1(3), 222–239. Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2011). Family communication (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Sillars, S., & Kalbfleisch, P. (1988). Implicit and explicit decision-making styles in couples. In D. Brinberg & J. Jaccard (Eds.), Dyadic decision-making (pp. 179–211). New York, NY: Springer Verlag.

16 Braithwaite, Suter, & Floyd Soliz, J., Thorson, A. R., & Rittenour, C. E. (2009). Communicative correlates of satisfaction, family identity, and group salience in multiracial/ethnic families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 819–832. Stamp, G. H., & Shue, C. H. (2013). Twenty years of communication research published in communication journals: A review of the perspectives, theories, concepts, and contexts. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (2nd ed., pp. 11–29). New York, NY: Routledge. Stephen, T. (2001). Concept analysis of the communication literature on marriage and family. Journal of Family Communication, 2, 91–110. Stewart, J. (1999). Interpersonal communication: Contact between persons. In J. Stewart (Ed.), Bridges not walls (7th ed., pp. 13–43). New York, NY: Random House. Suter, E. A. (2014a). Communication in lesbian and gay families. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The Sage handbook of family communication (pp. 235–247). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Suter, E. A. (2014b). The adopted family. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 137–155). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Turner, L. H., & West, R. (Eds.). (2006). The family communication sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.). (2013). The Routledge handbook of family communication (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Watzlawick, P. A., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York, NY: Norton.

2

Affection Exchange Theory A Bio-Evolutionary Look at Affectionate Communication Kory Floyd, Colin Hesse, and Mark Alan Generous

Many family relationships are initiated and maintained through the exchange of affectionate behaviors such as hugging, kissing, hand holding, or saying “I love you.” Indeed, expressions of affection often serve as turning points that advance relational development for marital, parental, sibling, and other family relationships. Affectionate communication contributes not only to the health of relationships, but also to the physical health of the people in them. Why humans engage in affectionate behavior, and why it is associated with these benefits, are among the questions addressed by affection exchange theory (AET). This chapter will describe the purpose and assumptions of AET and delineate its basic principles. It will also identify how AET conceptually defines communication, and it will review some of the research that has used AET to increase understanding of family relationships. Finally, it will address the theory’s strengths and limitations, and offer suggestions for future research and applications.

Intellectual Tradition of Affection Exchange Theory AET is a scientific communication theory that most closely aligns with the paradigmatic assumptions of the post-positivist tradition. Its principal purpose is to explain why human beings communicate affection to each other, and with what consequences. AET’s fundamental assumptions are grounded in neoDarwinian thought, particularly insofar as they suppose that (a) procreation and survival are superordinate human goals; (b) communicative behaviors can serve one or both of these superordinate goals, even in non-evident ways; and (c) individuals need not be consciously aware of the evolutionary goals their behaviors serve. Undergirding these are two even more fundamental assumptions. The first is that humans, like other living organisms, are subject to the principles of natural selection and sexual selection. As articulated by Darwin, these include the notion that heritable characteristics or tendencies that advantage an organism with respect to procreation or survival will be selected for, ensuring their greater representation in succeeding generations. The second fundamental assumption is that human communicative behavior is only partially subject to

18 Floyd, Hesse, & Generous the willful control of the communicator. Evolved adaptive tendencies, as well as physiological influences (such as those of hormones), affect communicative behavior in ways that are not necessarily evident to the conscious self. As such, AET assumes that communication is affected not only by socially constructed influences (such as gender roles or cultural norms), but also by influences that are grounded in biology and evolutionary adaptation.

Main Goals and Features of Affection Exchange Theory AET begins with the proposition that the need and capacity for affection are inborn (Proposition 1). That is, humans are born both with the ability and with the need to feel affection, which is defined as an internal state of fondness and intense positive feeling for a living target. This proposition has two important implications, the first of which is that humans need not learn to feel affection, but that both the ability and the need to experience affection are innate. The second implication is that the need for affection is fundamental in the human species, which implies benefits when it is met and negative consequences when it is unfulfilled. The second proposition of AET is that affectionate feelings and affectionate expressions are distinct experiences that often, but need not, covary (Proposition 2). Here, the theory differentiates between the emotional experience of affection and the behaviors through which affection is made clear. This distinction is consequential for two reasons. First, humans have the ability to experience affection without expressing it. One may have affectionate feelings for another, for instance, but fail to express them out of fear of rejection or out of deference to the social constraints of the context. For instance, a father might feel less comfortable showing affection to his adult son than to his adult daughter. Second, humans can express affection without feeling it, which is often done in the service of politeness norms but can also serve ulterior motives, such as keeping the peace in high-conflict family relationships, such as between in-laws. The third, and perhaps most important, proposition is that affectionate communication is adaptive with respect to human viability and fertility (Proposition 3). This is the heart of AET, the proposal that receiving and conveying affectionate expressions contributes to survival and procreation success. More specific sub-propositions identify two principal causal pathways through which affectionate communication serves these superordinate goals. One is that affectionate behavior promotes the establishment and maintenance of significant pair-bonds, increasing access to material resources (such as food or shelter) and emotional resources (such as attention or social support) that help sustain life. The other is that engaging in affectionate communication portrays oneself to potential mating partners as a viable partner and a fit potential parent. The idea here is that conveying affection to a romantic partner can denote the emotional capacity and commitment necessary to be a loving mate and a responsible parent.

Affection Exchange Theory 19 AET further provides that, because the motivations of survival and procreation are so fundamental, the experiences of feeling and exchanging affection covary with physiological characteristics governing immune system strength, stress, and reward. This sub-proposition addresses the question of why giving and receiving affection within a positive familial relationship (such as with a sibling or spouse) is so physically rewarding (and likewise, why failing to receive it is so physically aversive). Because these behaviors contribute to survival and procreation, it is adaptive that they would be physically pleasurable (much like eating, sleeping, or having sex are usually physically pleasurable experiences). Not all affectionate behavior enhances survival and procreation, however; within the wrong relationships or in the wrong contexts, affectionate communication can inhibit these motivations. AET thus proposes that humans vary in their optimal tolerances for affection and affectionate behavior (Proposition 4), and that affectionate behaviors that violate the range of optimal tolerance are physiologically aversive (Proposition 5). Floyd (1997; Floyd & Burgoon, 1999) was among the first to speculate that, although affectionate behavior is normatively positive, it can in fact produce quite negative outcomes under certain circumstances. Receiving an affectionate touch from a relative one barely knows, for instance, may not only violate norms for appropriate social behavior but can also initiate a negative emotional and physiological response (i.e., a stress response). This is in contrast to the positivity typically associated with the exchange of affection, but is expected (according to AET) in situations in which the affectionate behavior may inhibit one’s survival or procreation motivation.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Affection Exchange Theory AET conceptually defines only affectionate communication, rather than communication in general, although some broader concepts about communication can be derived from its approach. In the theory, affectionate communication is defined as encompassing those behaviors that encode feelings of fondness and intense positive regard and are generally decoded as such by their intended receivers. Although forms of affection display are largely shaped by cultural norms and constrained by contextual demands, it is the presentation (whether accurate or not) of an affectionate emotion that qualifies a behavioral expression as affectionate. Floyd and Morman’s (1998) tripartite model of affectionate behavior adds conceptual clarity by distinguishing between three forms of affection display: verbal communication of affection consists of spoken or written affectionate expressions such as “I love you,” or “You mean so much to me”; direct nonverbal, which includes non-linguistic or paralinguistic behaviors that denote affection within the relationship or speech community in which they are used (e.g., in North America, these include behaviors such as hugging, kissing, or holding hands); and, indirect nonverbal, which is composed of behaviors that connote affection through the provision of social or material support (e.g., helping with

20 Floyd, Hesse, & Generous homework or offering to babysit). Unlike with verbal and direct nonverbal expressions, the affectionate message in indirect nonverbal expressions is ancillary to the behavior itself, and is consequently less overt. As noted above, AET conceives of affectionate communication as a behavior that is affected by both socially constructed and evolutionarily derived influences, and that is only partially under the conscious control of the communicator. These assumptions are not necessarily limited to affectionate communication, per se, so although AET does not conceptualize other forms of communication, the theory would apply these conceptual principles to communicative behavior in general.

Research and Practical Applications of Affection Exchange Theory Since AET was originally proposed in 2001 (Floyd, 2001), nearly 30 different tests of the theory have been conducted to help understand processes of interpersonal communication better. Many of these tests belong to one of two general categories: those that have focused on which relationships are more affectionate than others (as well as the relational consequences of that affection), and those that have focused on the mental and physical health benefits of being affectionate. Findings from both groups of studies are reviewed in this section. Affectionate Communication and Relationships AET proposes that affectionate communication serves as a resource that can contribute both to survival and reproductive success through the enhancement of relational bonds within various relationship types. As Hamilton (1964) originally proposed, reproductive success involves contributing one’s genetic materials to future generations. Thus, individuals can achieve reproductive success not only by having children of their own but also by ensuring the survival of others who carry their genes, such as nieces, nephews, grandchildren, and cousins. Importantly, family relationships vary in terms of their level of genetic relatedness; humans share more genes in common with parents than grandparents, for instance, and more with siblings than with cousins. Consequently, some family relationships are more important than others to genetic reproduction. If this notion is true, and if affection is a resource that contributes to survival (as AET proposes), then certain family relationships should be more affectionate than others. This hypothesis has been tested in several family relationships that vary systematically in their levels of genetic relatedness. For instance, Floyd and Morman (2002) found that men were more affectionate with biological sons than with stepsons, Floyd and Morr (2003) reported that adults were more affectionate with siblings than with siblings-in-law, and Mansson and BoothButterfield (2011) discovered that grandchildren received more nonverbal and supportive affection from biological grandparents than from non-biological

Affection Exchange Theory 21 grandparents. These findings potentially support alternative, non-evolutionary explanations. For example, most fathers, siblings, and grandparents likely feel emotionally closer to and have known their biological family members longer than their non-biological family members. As a result, variables such as closeness or relationship duration could account for the difference in affectionate behavior observed between these relationship types. The studies of father/son and sibling/sibling-in-law relationships ruled out numerous competing explanations, however. Specifically, the differences in affectionate behavior between biological sons and stepsons, and between siblings and siblings-in-law, could not be accounted for by differences in closeness, duration of the relationship, how far apart participants lived, how often they saw each other, or other plausible explanations. Even when all of these variables were controlled, the family relationships still differed systematically in their levels of affectionate behavior in the ways that AET predicted. In addition to genetic relatedness, reproductive viability can also influence how one gives affection within familial relationships. Although most parents would likely report being equally affectionate with all of their children, AET hypothesizes instead that parents give more affection to the children who are the most likely to produce offspring themselves (although the theory does not suggest that parents do this consciously). The explanation is that parents have greater reproductive success when their children reproduce than when they do not, making it evolutionarily adaptive to invest the greatest resources in children with the greatest reproductive potential. Several factors may inhibit reproductive probability, including sterility or the inability to attract a mate. Homosexuality also inhibits reproductive probability, and two studies have shown that fathers give more affection to their heterosexual sons than to their homosexual sons (Floyd, 2001; Floyd, Sargent, & Di Corcia, 2004). Affectionate communication varies not only in general familial relationships with respect to genetic relatedness and reproductive likelihood, but more specifically in marital relationships. Humans communicate affection in marital relationships to demonstrate that they are invested in the relationship, as well as to enhance relational bonds with marital partners. Enhancing relational bonds can benefit survival—via increased access to material and emotional resources—and reproductive probability—via availability of reproductive opportunity. In general, marital relationships vary in affection as a result of relational satisfaction and commitment—that is, amount of received affection can predict how satisfied one is in a romantic relationship, whereas expressed affection can predict how committed one feels in a romantic relationship (Horan & BoothButterfield, 2010). Several studies have examined more specific roles that affectionate communication plays in marital relationships. First, Coyne, Thompson, and Palmer (2002) looked at differences between marital couples in which the wife was or was not diagnosed with depression. They found that the non-depression sample was significantly more likely to communicate affection and to exhibit other positive marital outcomes, such as fewer instances

22 Floyd, Hesse, & Generous of sexual dissatisfaction, marital boredom, and lack of respect. Frye-Cox and Hesse (2013) discovered a positive relationship between affectionate communication within a marriage and perceived marital quality. In addition, Pauley, Hesse, and Mikkelson (2014) found that trait affection for married individuals predicted relational maintenance behaviors performed in their marriage, such as positivity and assurances. The study found several partner effects as well, including that husbands’ trait affection positively predicted wives’ enactment of positivity and network sharing. This meant that affection affected both the behavior of the individual themselves as well as the behavior of their marital partner. Schramm, Marshall, Harris, and Lee (2005) looked at issues involving dissatisfaction and low marital adjustment for newlyweds. They discovered that mutual affection between marital partners was one of the main protective factors in the marriage, strongly predicting both satisfaction and adjustment. Collectively, these studies indicate that humans engage in affectionate behaviors within marital relationships in order to increase marital adjustment, closeness, and satisfaction. These outcomes together can increase survival and reproductive viability for humans in marital relationships, as well as improve their physiological health. Affectionate Communication and Health A large body of research already shows that receiving affectionate behavior (especially affectionate touch) is beneficial to physical and mental health (for an extensive review, see Floyd, 2006a). One of the innovative aspects of AET, however, is its proposition that individuals can also reap health benefits by giving affection to others. Specifically, AET provides that expressing affection reduces the body’s susceptibility to stress and activates its hormonal reward systems, which have sedative and analgesic effects. Testing these ideas has involved two specific types of studies. The purpose of the first type has been to identify the health parameters that are reliably associated with affectionate behavior. These efforts began with Floyd’s (2002) demonstration that highly affectionate people report higher self-esteem, general mental health, social engagement, and life satisfaction, as well as lower susceptibility to depression and stress, than less-affectionate people (see also Floyd et al., 2005). Later investigations have reported that trait affection level (i.e., how affectionate an individual typically is with others) is positively related to natural killer cell toxicity (Floyd, Pauley et al., 2014) and 24-hour variation in the stress hormone cortisol (Floyd, 2006b; see also Floyd & Riforgiate, 2008), and is negatively related to resting heart rate (Floyd, Mikkelson, Tafoya et al., 2007b), resting blood pressure, and blood glucose (Floyd, Hesse, & Haynes, 2007). Whereas these studies have identified health benefits associated with affection, a recent investigation also illuminated that trait affection predicts greater antibody activity among those seropositive for the Epstein-Barr virus, an indication of immune system suppression (Floyd, Hesse, Boren, & Veksler, 2014).

Affection Exchange Theory 23 Working from these associations, the second type of study has sought to ascertain causal relationships between affectionate behavior and health outcomes. Floyd, Mikkelson, Tafoya et al. (2007a) demonstrated that affectionate communication accelerates physical recovery from elevated stress, and Floyd, Pauley, and Hesse (2010) showed that the pituitary hormone oxytocin plays a buffering role in that effect. In three experiments, Floyd, Mikkelson, Hesse, and Pauley (2007) and Floyd et al. (2009) demonstrated that increasing affectionate behavior can reduce blood lipid levels.

Evaluation of Affection Exchange Theory Like all theories, AET enjoys certain strengths and endures certain liabilities. Among the most important strengths of AET is simply that it is the first comprehensive theory about affectionate communication. As a consequence, it is able to explain a wide range of findings identified by studies conducted within different theoretic traditions (see Floyd, 2006a). An additional strength is that AET answers higher-order questions about affectionate communication, such as why human beings are affectionate in the first place. Although other theories have been able to answer lower-order questions, such as when people are likely to reciprocate affectionate expressions, AET provides a conceptually broader and grander view of how affectionate communication contributes to important, enduring human motivations related to survival and procreation. A third strength, implied in the previous section, is that AET’s hypotheses have enjoyed substantial empirical support, not only in the areas of family relationships and health, but also in nonverbal communication (Floyd & Ray, 2003) and persuasion (Floyd, Erbert, Davis, & Haynes, 2005). The most consequential limitation of the theory is the lack of detail it presently offers regarding the pathways through which affectionate communication contributes to physical health. Generalized pathways are delineated, including the body’s systems for reward and stress response, but these provide only broad bases for hypothesizing specific physiological effects. Research continues to discover, for instance, the particular hormones, chemical messengers, or immune system attributes that are most directly responsible for the benefits that affectionate behavior can bring, so the theory provides only general guidance on these questions. As research in this area continues to mature, it will facilitate greater precision in the theory’s predictive ability. Some may regard AET’s relative lack of attention to social learning as an additional limitation, insofar as the theory fails to specify the cultural, political, economic, or environmental variables that account for the most variance in affectionate behavior. These omissions were intentional, not because AET conceives of these sources of variance as inconsequential but because it adopts a bio-evolutionary approach that privileges the explication of evolutionary and physiological causes over socially constructed ones. This necessarily limits AET’s predictive ability, however, just as exclusively social learning theories are similarly limited.

24 Floyd, Hesse, & Generous

Continuing the Conversation The exchange of affection is such a fundamental relational activity that its study offers much promise for understanding and improving the human condition. As noted above, one of the most important directions for future research and application relates to the improvement of mental and physical health. As experiments identify how affectionate communication is associated with immunocompetence, stress management, mental and emotional regulation, and other aspects of well-being, these findings may aid in the development of behavioral (nonpharmacological) interventions that could serve as ancillary treatments for physical and mental disorders. A newly emerging line of empirical work addresses the genetic and neurological substrates of affectionate communication. Are highly affectionate and unaffectionate people “wired differently”? Using electroencephalography to examine neurological activity, Lewis, Heisel, Reinhart, and Tian (2011) predicted and found that high-affection communicators displayed greater relative electrical activity in the left anterior cortex versus the right anterior cortex, whereas the same asymmetry was not evident among low-affection communicators. This is noteworthy insofar as the left and right prefrontal cortices mediate tendencies for approach and avoidance. More recently, Floyd and Denes (2015) discovered that trait affection is higher for carriers of the GG allele on the oxytocin receptor polymorphism rs53576 than for carriers of the AG or AA alleles, and that the genotype is more influential for those low in attachment security than for those high in attachment security. This was the first study to document a genetic association with the propensity for affectionate communication. As studies similar to these are conducted, they will begin to shed light on the question of innateness—how acquired or inborn is an individual’s level of affectionate behavior? To what extent can we justifiably call it a trait? These are two arenas in which AET provides testable predictions and useful guidance. Future research in these and other areas will further illuminate the many aspects of human life touched by the communication of affection.

References Coyne, J. C., Thompson, R., & Palmer, S. C. (2002). Marital quality, coping with conflict, marital complaints, and affection in couples with a depressed wife. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 26–37. Floyd, K. (1997). Communicating affection in dyadic relationships: An assessment of behavior and expectancies. Communication Quarterly, 45, 68–80. Floyd, K. (2001). Human affection exchange: I. Reproductive probability as a predictor of men’s affection with their sons. Journal of Men’s Studies, 10, 39–50. Floyd, K. (2002). Human affection exchange: V. Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50, 135–152. Floyd, K. (2006a). Communicating affection: Interpersonal behavior and social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Affection Exchange Theory 25 Floyd, K. (2006b). Human affection exchange: XII. Affectionate communication is associated with diurnal variation in salivary free cortisol. Western Journal of Communication, 70, 47–63. Floyd, K., Boren, J. P., Hannawa, A. F., Hesse, C., McEwan, B., & Veksler, A. E. (2009). Kissing in marital and cohabiting relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and relationship satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 113–133. Floyd, K., & Burgoon, J. K. (1999). Reacting to nonverbal expressions of liking: A test of interaction adaptation theory. Communication Monographs, 66, 219–239. Floyd, K., & Denes, A. (2015). Attachment security and oxytocin receptor gene polymorphism interact to influence affectionate communication. Communication Quarterly, 63, 272–285. Floyd, K., Erbert, L. A., Davis, K. L., & Haynes, M. T. (2005). Human affection exchange: XVI. An exploratory study of affectionate expressions as manipulation attempts. Unpublished manuscript, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ. Floyd, K., Hess, J. A., Miczo, L. A., Halone, K. K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Tusing, K. J. (2005). Human affection exchange: VIII. Further evidence of the benefits of expressed affection. Communication Quarterly, 53, 285–303. Floyd, K., Hesse, C., Boren, J. P., & Veksler, A. E. (2014). Affectionate communication can suppress immunity: Trait affection predicts antibody titers to latent Epstein-Barr virus. Southern Communication Journal, 79, 2–13. Floyd, K., Hesse, C., & Haynes, M. T. (2007). Human affection exchange: XV. Metabolic and cardiovascular correlates of trait expressed affection. Communication Quarterly, 55, 79–94. Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., Hesse, C., & Pauley, P. M. (2007). Affectionate writing reduces total cholesterol: Two randomized, controlled trials. Human Communication Research, 33, 119–142. Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., Tafoya, M. A., Farinelli, L., La Valley, A. G., Judd, J., Haynes, M. T., Davis, K. L., & Wilson, J. (2007a). Human affection exchange: XIII. Affectionate communication accelerates neuroendocrine stress recovery. Health Communication, 22, 123–132. Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., Tafoya, M. A., Farinelli, L., La Valley, A. G., Judd, J., Davis, K. L., Haynes, M. T., & Wilson, J. (2007b). Human affection exchange: XIV. Relational affection predicts resting heart rate and free cortisol secretion during acute stress. Behavioral Medicine, 32, 151–156. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (1998). The measurement of affectionate communication. Communication Quarterly, 46, 144–162. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2002). Human affection exchange: III. Discriminative parental solicitude in men’s affection with their biological and non-biological sons. Communication Quarterly, 49, 310–327. Floyd, K., & Morr, M. C. (2003). Human affection exchange: VII. Affectionate communication in the sibling/spouse/sibling-in-law triad. Communication Quarterly, 51, 247–261. Floyd, K., Pauley, P. M., & Hesse, C. (2010). State and trait affectionate communication buffer adults’ stress reactions. Communication Monographs, 77, 618–636. Floyd, K., Pauley, P. M., Hesse, C., Veksler, A. E., Eden, J., & Mikkelson, A. C. (2014). Affectionate communication is associated with immunologic and cardiologic health markers. In J. M. Honeycutt, C. Sawyer, & S. Keaton (Eds.), The influence of communication on physiology and health status (pp. 115–130). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

26 Floyd, Hesse, & Generous Floyd, K., & Ray, G. B. (2003). Human affection exchange: IV. Vocalic predictors of perceived affection in initial interactions. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 56–73. Floyd, K., & Riforgiate, S. (2008). Affectionate communication received from spouses predicts stress hormone levels in healthy adults. Communication Monographs, 75, 351–368. Floyd, K., Sargent, J. E., & Di Corcia, M. (2004). Human affection exchange: VI. Further tests of reproductive probability as a predictor of men’s affection with their sons. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 191–206. Frye-Cox, N. E., & Hesse, C. R. (2013). Alexithymia and marital quality: The mediating roles of loneliness and intimate communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 203–211. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. I & II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52. Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2010). Investing in affection: An investigation of affection exchange theory and relational qualities. Communication Quarterly, 58, 394–413. Lewis, R. J., Heisel, A. D., Reinhard, A. M., & Tian, Y. (2011). Trait affection and asymmetry in the anterior brain. Communication Research Reports, 28, 347–355. Mansson, D. H., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2011). Grandparents’ expressions of affection for their grandchildren: Examining grandchildren’s relational attitudes and behaviors, Southern Communication Journal, 76, 424–442. Pauley, P. M., Hesse, C., & Mikkelson, A. C. (2014). Trait affection predicts married couples’ use of relational maintenance behaviors. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 167–187. Schramm, D. G., Marshall, J. P., Harris, V. W., & Lee, T. R. (2005). After “I do”: The newlywed transition. Marriage & Family Review, 38, 45–67.

3

Appraisal Theories of Emotion How Families Understand and Communicate Their Feelings Sandra Metts

For most people, the family is a source of positive emotions that encourage growth and enrichment for all members. Unfortunately, however, it can also be the source of guilt, resentment, and unhappy memories that weaken family ties and linger in the minds of children into adulthood. Appraisal theories of emotion provide useful insights into the origin and consequences of the range of emotions experienced within the family.

Intellectual Tradition of Appraisal Theories Appraisal theories originated in the 1950s when psychologists began to formulate theoretical accounts of what constitutes emotions and their experience. They questioned the assumption that emotions are simply automatic physiological responses to the environment. This may be true when a car pulls out in front of us and we put on the brakes automatically. However, the question that intrigued theorists was how we know we felt fear in that instance, instead of sadness or jealousy. They questioned why, if emotions were automatic responses to the environment, some people would not feel anger or happiness in a situation when other people do, or would feel these emotions when no one else does. They also wanted to explain the source of complex emotions, such as hurt, envy, jealousy, and pride, which are not necessary for physical survival but are definitely an essential element in the dynamics of our social and personal lives. The first coherent theory to address these questions was generated by Magda Arnold in what she named cognitive appraisal theory (Arnold, 1960). The basic premises that Arnold presented were elaborated and refined by Richard Lazarus, beginning in the 1960s when he developed cognitive-mediational theory (Lazarus, 1991). Psychologists have continued to examine the fundamental assumptions of the appraisal process, establishing appraisal theories of emotion as a leading area of research in psychology. The dominant meta-theoretical underpinning for appraisal models is a postpositive framework within which self-report methods tend to be the typical method for gathering data and testing hypotheses. Respondents are sometimes asked to recall a recent emotional experience (or read a hypothetical situation) and then report the extent to which certain appraisal dimensions were (or would

28

Metts

be) present in their mind. In other studies, various appraisal dimensions are configured into certain patterns and respondents are asked which emotion they would feel in a situation when they had those thoughts. More recently, psychologists who treat clients with psychological problems such as recurrent depression have conducted studies that compared psychotherapy patients to nonclinical controls to see how they differ on appraisal processes in response to the same hypothetical situations (David, Ghinea, Macavei, & Kallay, 2005).

Main Goals and Features of Emotion Appraisal Theories The primary goal of appraisal theories is to explain how and why people experience emotions. This is a more challenging goal than it appears to be. We typically take our emotions for granted, but they are, in fact, the result of a systematic interaction between our cognitions and our physiological or bodily responses. The fundamental premise of appraisal theories is that emotions are evoked and differentiated according to patterns of subjective evaluation, interpretation, or perception of some situation, event, or the stimulus in the environment that is somehow relevant to a person’s goals, needs, security, selfworth, or well-being. For example, anger occurs when an individual perceives (i.e., appraises) another person’s behavior as an obstacle to reaching a goal or satisfying a need. This interpretation may occur very quickly and subconsciously or may require reflection and consideration of other appraisal features such as whether the person acted intentionally or unintentionally. Once activated, the interpretation triggers emotion-regulating areas of the brain and corresponding physiological response patterns. Thus, in the case of anger, once the actions of another person are perceived as intentionally obstructing our goals, the physiological response is negative arousal manifested in characteristic facial displays, body tension, and the urge to act aggressively toward that person. We might also consider other options for response, such as a verbal message to correct the other person’s behavior. Of course, if we perceive the goal as unimportant and the other person’s action as unintentional, we might experience annoyance rather than anger. Although appraisal scholars are uniform in their assumption that subjective evaluation is a core element in emotional experience, they differ on several issues. Positions on these issues underlie the perspectives reflected in two broad appraisal models: the components or dimensional models and the sequential or process models. Components or dimensional models are focused on identifying the appraisal dimensions that distinguish the types of emotions we experience and their intensity (Roseman, Spindel, & Jose, 1990). The emerging patterns of relevant appraisals initiate the type of emotion we experience, and the placement along the continuum of those appraisal dimensions generates the intensity of those emotions. Appraisal dimensions have acquired somewhat different labels and features within an appraisal category over the decades of research focused on identifying

Appraisal Theories of Emotion

29

and classifying them. However, an integration of terms used across studies yields a list of dimensions that have emerged as predictive of emotional states across many different samples. These include: • • • • • • • •

valence (positive or negative; pleasant or unpleasant; threatening or nonthreatening) predictability (certainty or uncertainty about what is happening and/or outcomes) responsibility/accountability (self or other agency) motive consistency (consistent or inconsistent with motives to achieve rewards or avoid punishment) goal conduciveness (obstructing or facilitating a goal) potency/agency (self as weak or strong force in the situation or event) novelty (suddenness of onset or familiarity with event) normative evaluation (consistency with moral or ethical standards).

Each emotion has a characteristic appraisal pattern, but necessarily shares some appraisal dimensions in common with other emotions. Speaking metaphorically, each dimension and the location along that dimension are like a puzzle piece, and when we assemble them during the appraisal process, they form a “picture” that we experience as an emotion. For example, happiness (or pride) is typically experienced when we achieve a desired goal, but that positive emotion might become negative and be experienced as embarrassment or shame if we had made no effort to achieve that goal and other people were the causal agents responsible for our good fortune. Patterns of appraisal not only characterize certain emotions and their intensity, but also create subtle differences in the experience of the same emotion. For example, when another person receives something that we desire (e.g., recognition, an award, or a desirable dating partner), we feel envy. More specifically, however, if we appraise the benefit as something the other person deserved and the outcome was controllable (i.e., we did not do all we could have to gain that benefit), we experience “benign” envy and are motivated to work harder next time. In contrast, if we appraise the benefit as undeserved by the other person and the outcome as not under our control, we feel “malicious” envy and tend to react by finding ways to “pull down” the other person (Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2012). Sequential or process models also recognize appraisal dimensions, but move beyond their categorization to their positioning within the sequencing of appraisals and the interaction of these appraisals with response patterns. These perspectives are influenced by the goal to formulate steps in the appraisal process by distinguishing the relatively automatic appraisals such as valence from the increasingly sophisticated appraisals of moral significance (Smith & Kirby, 2000). For example, Scherer’s (2009) component process model is based on stimulus evaluation checks (SECs). The SECs include a first step of innate or automatic appraisal (i.e., novelty, pleasantness, relevance to goals), a second

30 Metts step of assessing implications (i.e., causal attributions, goal conduciveness, and urgency), a third step of assessing coping potential (i.e., ability to control or adjust), and finally the check for normative significance (i.e., compatibility with personal or external moral/ethical standards). This sequence moves from the most intuitive (automatic and/or physiological) to the most consciously reflective level. Thus, in some situations, emotions are experienced without much conscious thought, especially when they stem from memories of past experiences—a schema or prototype for similar situations. Appraisals therefore follow the recollected order automatically. In other situations, reflection and more conscious appraisal must be employed. A second example of the process approach to appraisal is derived from Lazarus’s transactional model of stress and coping. It is consistent with Scherer’s notion that appraisals are sequential, but extends the appraisal process across three temporal phases: primary appraisal, secondary appraisal, and reappraisal (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). During primary appraisal, the arousal stimulated by events or situations motivates an appraisal focused primarily on relevance (to needs or goals) and valence as potential threat, as well as other immediately relevant dimensions. Secondary appraisal provides a direction for how to respond to the event (action tendencies and/or coping techniques) and also activates other appraisals that help direct the response choice (e.g., whether the action was intentional). The third phase, reappraisal, distinguishes Lazurus’s model from other process models. During reappraisal, the initial emotion is reevaluated and alternative response options are considered. Sometimes reappraisal occurs during the emotioneliciting event when we realize we “over-reacted” or misunderstood or misinterpreted some feature in the other person’s actions or message. At other times, reappraisal occurs at a later point in time. For example, a person feeling intense anger, hurt, or grief may benefit from discussing the appraisals and exploring alternative coping strategies at a later time with a friend. Inclusion of the reappraisal phase in emotion experience has been an important contribution to psychologists and counselors who study the debilitating effects of emotional rumination over stressful or sorrowful experiences. Reappraisal is a constructive alternative to rumination in that reconfiguring appraisal patterns and evaluating alternative coping strategies can generate new emotional experiences that are less intense, less negative, and less constraining (Ray, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2008).

How Communication is Conceptualized in Appraisal Theories As evident in the principles summarized above, communication is implicit, but rarely addressed directly by appraisal theorists. However, if we step back and consider the appraisal process, it is obvious that communication plays a critical role in three phases: (1) messages from other people often function as the stimulus event that activates the appraisal process and influences the emotions that emerge; (2) the action tendencies displayed during the experience of

Appraisal Theories of Emotion

31

emotion typically include nonverbal and verbal messages that evoke emotions in others; and (3) communication is often the vehicle through which reappraisal is accomplished. First, although emotion could be evoked by finding a dent in one’s car while it was parked on the street or hearing a song that brings back memories, it usually arises during interactions with other people. This is particularly true for the self-conscious emotions that reflect our sense of self-worth and social validation, such as hurt, guilt, embarrassment, shame, and pride (Parrott, 2004). We might notice a frown or a smile, or a harsh tone in someone’s voice. Or during conversation, a friend says something that was unexpected (appraised on dimensions of predictability and novelty), so we attempt to understand it—not just the content but the “subjective meaning.” We move to secondary appraisal to evaluate its implications, and in this process, an emotion is aroused. The second role of communication follows from the first: when an emotion is experienced, we typically respond in some way. Among the action tendencies, a nonverbal response often precedes a verbal response because the physiological signals are activated by the initial appraisal (e.g., a frown, a smile, raised eyebrows, blushing, tears). We may even feel our bodies get tense or relax, or our voices deepen or become higher, and we feel an impulse to move closer to or farther from the other person. Whether we express our emotions nonverbally or in words, we activate the other person’s appraisal process. For example, we might directly address our own embarrassment, by saying “I apologize for spilling my coffee on your table; please let me clean it up,” and the other person will verbally confirm his or her appraisal of our action as unintentional: “No problem, accidents happen.” Likewise, we may admit our own guilt or shame (e.g., “Yes, I did lie to you about where I was last night but I was ashamed to tell you I was out drinking”), hoping our partner will use our honesty to appraise our previous lie as unethical but not immoral. In sum, emotion expression carries appraisal information that is likely to affect the appraisals of others and thereby influence their emotions. Thus, “emotional communication” is a process of information exchange that is framed by cognitive appraisals (Bartsch & Hübner, 2005). Third, communicative interaction with others is a predictor of successful reappraisal outcomes. When self-reflection does not effectively alter lingering negative arousal, conversationally guided reappraisals can serve that purpose. Research on emotional support indicates that when a person seeks support for distressing or complicated emotional states, messages that validate, or at least accept without judgment, the emotions being experienced are a first step toward better adjustment (Burleson & Goldsmith, 1998). However, an even more important step is to help the person explore alternative appraisals. That is, although people feel comforted by supportive messages, these messages do not lower levels of emotional distress as effectively as messages that guide the person through cognitive reappraisal (Batenburg & Das, 2014).

32 Metts

Research and Practical Applications of Emotion Appraisal Theories Research focused on the role of appraisal theories in family dynamics is relatively new. Psychologists have explored children’s appraisal patterns and emotions when bullied or competing in sports, but few have moved beyond individuals or married couples to a focus on the larger family system. Such a perspective is important because family members are necessarily interdependent. As a result, family members experience two types of situations that evoke their emotions: having interactions with other family members and observing interactions between other family members. An example of the first appraisal situation is a study of hurtful messages exchanged between mothers and their children. In a study of episodes when mothers were hurt by their children (7–10 years old) and children were hurt by their mothers, Mills, Nazar, and Farrell (2002) found that both mothers and their children appraised their hurt as feeling disregarded and rejected, contributing to negative self-perceptions. In addition, however, children who received a hurtful message from their mother often referred to the perception that they were less important to her than a sibling was (i.e., inconsistent with their motive to be valued). Consequently, along with hurt, they felt pain and upset, suggesting perhaps that envy and even anger were experienced along with hurt. These children expressed the action tendency of retaliation, or as they described it, “getting back at” Mom and/or the more valued sibling, a response similar to malicious envy. Also, the more children blamed themselves for the hurtful message (i.e., seeing the self as agent or cause), the more they felt rejected and the more often they distanced themselves from their mother in much the same way that friends and dating partners distance themselves after receiving a hurtful message (McLaren & Solomon, 2008). An example of the second situation that evokes emotions in families is children observing conflict between their parents. In a study of adolescents and young adults (14–19 years old), Kim, Jackson, Conrad, and Hunter (2008) found that their reactions to parental conflict elicited two appraisal dimensions: “threatening” (feeling fear and helplessness), and “self-blame” (feeling responsible for the conflict). When the emotions evoked by these appraisals (e.g., fear and guilt) were internalized (e.g., I cry a lot), they became the link between parental conflict and the children’s maladjustment. In a similar study using children 9–12 years old, Siffert and Schwarz (2011) found the same pattern of appraisal (threat and self-blame) and the same tendency to internalize the negative emotions. In addition, they found that this tendency was intensified when parents used negative conflict resolution styles (e.g., verbal hostility, aggression, withdrawal). Some children even showed aggressive tendencies in their own interactions because they modeled their parents’ negative communication style. Finally, a study that moves beyond parental conflict episodes to the broader background of family emotional climate was conducted by Fosco and Grych (2007). These researchers studied families with children 8–12 years

Appraisal Theories of Emotion

33

old and measured the same variables used in most family conflict studies, but also asked parents to fill out an emotional expressiveness scale measuring the extent to which they expressed negative emotions (e.g., voicing anger, showing contempt for a family member) or positive emotions (e.g., voicing happiness, praising someone for good work, expressing affection and love). They found that children were more likely to blame themselves for interparental conflict when the family emotional climate was characterized by high levels of negative affect and low levels of positive affect. However, when the positive affect was high and equal to the negative affect, children did not blame themselves for the conflict and perceived their parents to argue for good reasons, such as feeling passionate about an issue. Many possible applications of appraisal theories to the family are available. One area in particular would benefit from the insights that appraisal theories could provide; this is the emotionally complicated challenge associated with dissolution of the family of origin following a divorce and the transition into a new stepfamily following a parent’s remarriage. As might be expected, children experience many negative emotions during their parents’ divorce, but perhaps unexpected is the array of positive emotions that are also experienced (Metts, Schrodt, & Braithwaite, 2017). We can speculate that the patterns of appraisal children use during this process would explain their emotional responses. For example, if the divorce is unexpected, creates uncertainty, and the valence is unpleasant, children may experience fear and apprehension. In contrast, if the separation is expected and facilitates their goal of living in a home free of conflict and tension, children may experience happiness. Similar analyses could be performed to understand emotions experienced during the formation of the stepfamily. Finally, changes over time in emotional reactions to the divorce and the formation of the stepfamily could be explored through the reappraisal process during conversations with a trusted sibling, a parent, or even a grandparent.

Evaluation of Emotion Appraisal Theories The theories that fall within the general rubric of appraisal theory have been extremely important and useful in the quest to understand emotional experience and responses to these emotions. Although MRI and other brain-scanning techniques have made significant advances in locating areas of the brain activated by a few basic emotions, such as fear and anger, there is no imaging technique that can provide a physiological profile for the social emotions of hurt, guilt, shame, embarrassment, hope, gratitude, pride, disappointment, forgiveness, or regret. Their origin and affective qualities can be explained only by patterns of appraisal. In addition, the scope of applicability for appraisal theories is almost literally unlimited. Emotions are experienced in every context of our lives—at work or in the classroom, at home, at social gatherings, in public places, and during encounters with spouses, dating partners, good friends, or people we don’t even

34 Metts like. It has been used to explain emotional reactions in samples that range from toddlers to senior adults and across in different cultures (Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda, 2013). Finally, the fundamental premises of appraisal theory have been confirmed in numerous studies. Whether participants are asked to recall an event from their own lives, respond to a hypothetical emotion situation, or view a stimulus video, the profiles of appraisals emerge as predictive of the emotions that are identified. Moreover, in hypothetical situations, if the appraisals are manipulated by the researcher (e.g., some respondents are told that he or she was to blame or was not to blame), the emotions reflect the appraisal manipulation. Of course, as with all theories of human behavior, appraisal theories have limitations. The most common criticism is not directed to the theoretical principles, but rather to the method used to test them. As noted previously, respondents are typically asked questions such as, “Did you feel that you were responsible for this?” (self-blame), “Did you feel in control? (potency), or “Was this unexpected?” (novelty). Critics and even some appraisal advocates note that responses to these directed questions may reflect stereotypical or prototype emotion features. If so, the subtle nuances that might distinguish emotions experienced in real-life situations are not discovered. A second criticism, typically directed toward the process models, is that distinguishing between cognitions occurring in primary and secondary appraisal is difficult. So much of the appraisal process is unconscious and occurs very quickly, blurring the distinction between these levels of appraisal. Third, appraisal theories have been criticized for their lack of attention to emotions that do not fit comfortably into the theory. For example, Ellsworth and Scherer (2003) note that love and desire are not considered in the appraisal research because they change according to type. That is, there are many types of love and each is unique, such as love of a parent for a child, love of a child for a parent, love of a romantic partner, love of an unrequited lover, and love of a pet. They also suggest that the theory has not addressed the problematic situations when people experience mixed emotions that involve different appraisal patterns assessed simultaneously rather than sequentially. For example, can there be positive valence combined with goal obstruction?

Continuing the Conversation The future for appraisal theories in understanding family dynamics is rich and promising. Researchers just need to be responsive to methodological criticism. They should be creative and open-minded in their methods and areas of investigation. For example, rather than ask children and parents to recall emotional events or react to hypothetical situations, researchers could videorecord family dinner interactions or siblings playing a competitive game. The videos could be replayed for each family member in private, and family members could respond to questions such as, “When your husband/wife, son/daughter, brother/sister/parent said that, what were you thinking? Did you feel any

Appraisal Theories of Emotion

35

emotion? Which one or ones? What is it about that comment that caused your emotion? Why do you think they said it?” Obviously these are very general questions, but with careful guidance from the interviewer and a careful integration of family members’ interview responses, a profile of reciprocal appraisals, emotional experience, and expression should emerge. Another area that holds promise for family scholars and practitioners is exploring the role of parental communication in helping children understand the appraisal process and why their interpretations are important. The potential utility of providing this information is evident in the parental “emotion coaching and dismissing” model (Lunkenheimer, Shields, & Cortina, 2007). Research suggests that children’s understanding of emotional experience and ability to respond constructively are consequences of parental engagement. That is, children demonstrate more positive emotion regulation when parents respond to emotional displays with emotion coaching, which involves recognizing and processing the emotion interactively, compared to emotion dismissing, during which the emotion is invalidated and/or ignored (Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007). If an age-appropriate explanation of appraisal theory were included in emotion coping conversations, children’s emotion regulation would be further enriched and extended to other contexts outside of the home, such as school, sports, and social groups. Two other, more abstract, topics would be interesting to introduce into the discussion. First, there appears to be an overlap between appraisal concepts and politeness theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Messages that show regard for positive face (the desire to be valued and included) or negative face (the desire for autonomy and independence) not only are polite and reduce face threat, but may also influence appraisals in interesting ways. For example, if a parent had to share a teacher’s evaluation with a teenage daughter (e.g., “Your teacher says you are rude and inconsiderate”), the daughter would likely feel hurt or embarrassed. But if the parent adds a compliment of worthiness before the statement (e.g., “You’re a sweet young woman and I know how respectful you are”), that could lessen the negative intensity of the motive-consistency appraisal to achieve rewards or avoid punishment. Similarly, an expression of negative politeness from an older brother who wants to control his sibling’s behavior (e.g., “I know you are old enough to make your own decisions and you don’t need my advice, but you should probably stop smoking now before it becomes a habit”) may lessen the negative intensity of the goal-conduciveness appraisal (obstructing or facilitating a goal) or the potency/agency (self as weak or strong force in the situation or event). Examination of the role of politeness in moderating appraisal intensity could identify an additional factor in understanding the appraisal process. Second, forgiveness is very important in families, particularly when complicated by parental conflict or separation, problematic siblings, or newly formulated stepfamily relationships. Resentment and lingering anger can be contagious and curtail displays of positive emotions that enlighten family members and build resilience in coping with problems. Forgiveness is the critical step in

36 Metts moving beyond rumination and resentment. It is not simply a lessening of negative emotions, but a transformation of negative emotions to positive emotions. Reducing rage to mild anger or annoyance is not true forgiveness; replacing it with positive feelings and affectionate regard is true forgiveness. Appraisal theories have been used to guide research on forgiveness in romantic relationships, marriage, and even the workplace. But relatively little attention has been directed toward forgiveness in the family. A focused analysis on the reappraisal process would clarify the mystery inherent in achieving forgiveness within families. In an ideal world, forgiveness would not be necessary and appraisals would be used only to distinguish mildly positive emotions from intensely positive emotions, and happiness from pride or relief. In the real world, negative emotions are experienced when hope becomes disappointment, comments evoke anger and hurt, or inappropriate actions induce embarrassment, guilt, or shame. In essence, appraisals become the links between family member’s actions and the affective climate of the family. Understanding the structure and consequences of the appraisal process is fundamental to understanding what a family is. As Marcelina Hardy reminds us, Family is a blessing. Just keep saying that when you are irritated by something a family member says.

References Arnold, M. B. (1960). Emotion and personality. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Bartsch, A., & Hübner, S. (2005, December). Towards a theory of emotional communication. CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture, 7(4), Article 2. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb/vol7/iss4/2 Batenburg A., & Das, E. (2014). An experimental study on the effectiveness of disclosing stressful life events and support messages: When cognitive reappraisal support decreases emotional distress, and emotional support is like saying nothing at all. PLoS One, 9(12), 1–20. Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. J. (1998). How the comforting process works: Alleviating emotional distress through conversationally induced reappraisals. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 245–280). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. David, A., Ghinea, C., Macavei, B., & Kallay, E. (2005). A search for “hot” cognitions in a clinical and a non-clinical context: Appraisal, attributions, core relational themes, irrational beliefs, and their relations to emotion. Journal of Cognitive and Behavioral Psychotherapies, 5, 1–42. Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 572–595). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Fosco, G. M., & Grych, J. H. (2007). Emotional expression in the family as a context for children’s appraisal of interparental conflict. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 248–258.

Appraisal Theories of Emotion

37

Kim, K. L., Jackson, Y., Conrad, S. M., & Hunter, H. L. (2008). Adolescent report of interparental conflict: The role of threat and self-blame appraisal on adaptive outcome. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 17, 735–751. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834. Lazarus, R., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer. Lunkenheimer, E. S., Shields, A. M., & Cortina, K. S. (2007). Parental emotion coaching and dismissing in family interaction. Social Development, 16, 232–248. McLaren, R. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2008). Appraisal and distancing responses in response to hurtful messages. Communication Research, 35, 339–357. Metts, S., Schrodt, P., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2017). Stepchildren’s communicative and emotional journey from divorce to remarriage: Predictors of stepfamily satisfaction. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 58, 29–43. Mills, R. S. L., Nazar, J., & Farrell, H. M. (2002). Child and parent perceptions of hurtful messages. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 731–754. Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion Review, 5, 119–124. Morris, S. A., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotional regulation. Social Development, 16, 361–388. Parrott, W. G. (2004). Appraisal, emotion words, and the social nature of self-conscious emotions. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 136–138. Ray, R. D., Wilhelm, F. H., & Gross, J. J. (2008). All in the mind’s eye? Anger rumination and reappraisal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 133–145. Roseman, I. J., Spindel, M. S., & Jose, P. E. (1990). Appraisals of emotion-eliciting events: Testing a theory of discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 899–915. Scherer, K. R. (2009). The dynamic architecture of emotions: Evidence for the component process model. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 1307–1351. Siffert, A., & Schwarz, B. (2011). Parental conflict resolution styles and children’s adjustment: Appraisals and emotion regulation as mediators. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 172, 21–39. Smith, C. A., & Kirby, L. (2000). Consequences require antecedents: Toward a process model of emotion elicitation. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Feeling and thinking: The role of affect in social cognition (pp. 83–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2012). Appraisal patterns of envy and related emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 195–204.

4

Attachment Theory in Families The Role of Communication Laura K. Guerrero

Hannah and her husband Matthew recently had a baby son named Noah. Hannah is nervous about parenting. She remembers how difficult her childhood was and longs to make sure things are different for Noah. Hannah’s mother suffered from bipolar depression. Her father left them just before she started kindergarten and she has barely seen him since. Hannah’s mother was often irrational and highly emotional, especially after the divorce. When Hannah was in middle school, her mother started seeing a counselor and taking medication. Her emotions were calmer and her communication with Hannah was more consistent, which improved their relationship immensely. Matthew, on the other hand, grew up in a large two-parent family in a household filled with love, laughter, and occasional conflict that was always resolved quickly and fairly. Hannah has always thought that Matthew is better at expressing emotions and managing conflict than she is because he was raised in a more positive environment. Hannah gets emotional much more easily and sometimes worries that Matthew will see all her flaws and leave her. She wants Noah to grow up in a positive environment so he will be as secure as Matthew is.

How might Hannah and Matthew’s experiences growing up shape them as individuals, as a couple, and now as parents? Could their early life experiences have affected their communication as adults? What can they do to provide Noah with a secure and happy environment that will enable him to build strong relationships and communicate well throughout his life? Attachment theory provides a framework for answering these questions and understanding how family members’ attachment styles influence one another’s communication.

Intellectual Tradition of Attachment Theory Attachment theory emerged at a time when social scientists were discovering that affection and physical contact were crucial for healthy social and emotional development in primates, including humans. Evidence from orphanages showed that children who were deprived of touch were more likely to suffer from emotional, psychological, and physical problems than were children who were stimulated by touch (Spitz, 1945). Bowlby’s (1951) seminal work on children in institutions produced similar findings. His observations, which provided the foundation for attachment theory, demonstrated that children who are

Attachment Theory

39

deprived of loving interaction with their mothers tend to show three progressive stages of distress indicative of insecure attachment: protest (i.e., excessive crying, screaming, and clingy behavior when a parent tries to leave); despair (i.e., becoming withdrawn and refusing comfort); and detachment (i.e., becoming angry and rejecting the caregiver). Further evidence for the negative effects of tactile deprivation was found in Harlow’s famous monkey studies, which showed that, in the absence of their mother, baby monkeys preferred cuddling up against warm cloth-covered wire frames more so than against metal frames holding a bottle of milk (Harlow & Harlow, 1962). Collectively, these studies produced a climate conducive to attachment theory, which was fully articulated in Bowlby’s (1969, 1973, 1980) trilogy of books on attachment, separation, and loss. Mary Ainsworth’s research extended attachment theory by showing clear connections between behavior and distinct attachment styles in young children. Her initial work drew upon observations of infant-mother communication in Uganda (Ainsworth, 1967). Next, she conducted in-home observations of children in Baltimore and then compared those observations with findings from an experiment (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). This famous experiment, referred to as the strange situation, exposed one-year-old children to a sequence of events and noted the children’s reactions. Events included having the child and mother interact in a playroom, having a stranger join them, and having the mother and stranger leave and return at designated times, with the child alone for three minutes between the leave and return segments. Three attachment styles were evident based on Ainsworth’s data from the observations as well as the strange situation experiment: secure, anxious-ambivalent (resistant), and avoidant. Later, Hazan and Shaver (1987) applied attachment theory to adult romantic relationships. Since then, the theory has been applied to various relationships, including those between friends, romantic partners, and siblings, as well as adult parent-child relationships. Although attachment theory is considered a psychological theory, Ainsworth and Bowlby (1991) noted that it is “eclectic, drawing on a number of scientific disciplines, including developmental, cognitive, social, and personality psychology, systems theory, and various branches of biological science, including genetics” (p. 340). The theory has been used extensively by psychologists and family scholars. Clinicians have also developed therapies for couples and families that are rooted in attachment theory. (Although applicable to family communication, a discussion of these therapies is outside the scope of this chapter.) Just as attachment theory is eclectic in terms of disciplinary boundaries, it is also diverse in terms of the methods used to test it. Methods range from detailed observations and interviews to questionnaires and laboratory experiments, and from grounded inductive methodologies to deductive methods that involve testing theoretically derived hypotheses. As such, although the majority of research on attachment theory is conducted in the post-positivist tradition, the theory is best viewed as a broad social scientific theory that crosses disciplinary and methodological boundaries.

40 Guerrero

Main Goals and Features of Attachment Theory Early work on attachment theory focused on the effect that interaction between infants and caregivers had on personality development, including emotional health (Ainsworth & Bowlby, 1991). As scholars branched out and applied the theory to various relationships, the goals of the theory broadened so that researchers began investigating cohesive patterns of cognition, emotion, and behavior that vary based on attachment style. Attachment Styles in Children Results from the strange situation experiment showed that most children, approximately 60 to 70 percent, had secure attachment styles. The other children were classified as having either avoidant or anxious ambivalent styles, which both represent insecure attachments (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978). Table 4.1 shows how children with these attachment styles differed in response to the strange situation. These patterns of behavior reflect the type of attachment children have with their caregiver, including their tendencies toward seeking proximity with the caregiver and using their parent as a “secure base” for comfort and protection.

Table 4.1 Reactions to the Strange Situation Based on Children’s Attachment Styles

Secure

Anxious Ambivalent (Resistant)

Free to Explore the Environment?

Yes, but uses mom as a secure base

Explores the least; cries the most

Explores the environment without seeming to care what the caregiver is doing

Reaction to Stranger (Level of Stranger Anxiety)

Anxious when alone with the stranger, but friendly when mom is present

Very anxious around the stranger

Fine whether stranger is present or not; similar reactions to mom and stranger

Reaction to Separation (Level of Separation Anxiety)

Shows some distress but calms down

Intense distress and anxiety, hard to calm down

Little to no distress

Reaction to Reunion with Mom

Happy

Approaches mom Little reaction but resists contact and seems ambivalent (relieved but angry)

Avoidant

Attachment Theory

41

Attachment Styles in Adults When Hazan and Shaver (1987) first proposed that adult love relationships can be conceptualized as an attachment process, they delineated three styles of adult attachment that paralleled those found for children in parent-child relationships—secure, avoidant, and anxious-ambivalent—with a little more than half of their participants classified as secure. Later, Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) identified four adult attachment styles that represent the intersection of models of self and others. Models of self represent the extent to which people see themselves as lovable and worthy of respect. People with negative models of self experience high levels of attachment anxiety because they fear rejection or abandonment (Brennan, Clark, & Shaver, 1998). Models of others, on the other hand, represent the extent to which people see others as helpful, responsive, and caring. People with negative models of others experience high levels of attachment avoidance and tend to be uncomfortable with closeness (Brennan et al., 1998). These same models underlie children’s attachment styles, with secure children having positive models of themselves and their caregivers, anxious-ambivalent children having primarily negative models of self, and avoidant children having primarily negative models of others. The four styles of adult attachment described by Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991; see Figure 4.1) are secure (positive model of self and others); dismissive (positive model of self, negative model of others); preoccupied (negative model of self, positive model of others); and fearful (negative model of self and others). Secure individuals are comfortable with closeness and autonomy in their relationships. They enjoy being in relationships but are also fine on their own. Dismissive individuals are counter-dependent to the point that they often distance others to maintain their independence and pursue their personal goals. Preoccupied individuals, in contrast, are co-dependent. They crave intimacy and desire excessive connection in their relationships, often to the point of

Positive Model of Self (Low Attachment Anxiety)

Secure

Dismissive Negative Model of Others (High Attachment Avoidance)

Positive Model of Others (Low Attachment Avoidance)

Preoccupied

Fearful

Negative Model of Self (High Attachment Anxiety)

Figure 4.1 Bartholomew and Horowitz’s Four Styles of Adult Attachment

42 Guerrero pushing others away. Finally, fearful individuals want close relationships but are skittish, usually because they have been hurt or rejected in past relationships and are afraid history will repeat itself. In the scenario presented at the beginning of the chapter, Matthew appears to have a secure attachment style, whereas Hannah appears somewhat insecure. Because Hannah sometimes worries that Matthew might leave her, she appears to have attachment anxiety and is therefore likely to be either fearful or preoccupied. Continuity and Change in Attachment Styles Initially, many theorists believed that attachment styles remain fairly stable throughout one’s life. Indeed, Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) contended that early interactions with caregivers provide the initial blueprint for personality development in relation to attachment processes. Later work has verified that the attachment styles formed in childhood set the stage for attachment later in life (Fraley & Roisman, 2015). Studies have also shown that attachment styles emerge early in life, usually by 12 to 18 months of age (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Children also have a tendency to model the attachment style of their same-sex parent (Mikulincer & Florian, 1999a). One study showed that “securely attached young adults were more likely to have securely attached mothers, avoidant young adults were more likely to have avoidant parents, and anxiousambivalent young adults were more likely to have anxious-ambivalent parents” (Mikulincer & Florian, 1999a, p. 7). Although attachment styles are relatively stable, they can be altered by positive or negative experiences. Around 70 percent of adults believe that their attachment style has been consistent, whereas about 30 percent believe that it has changed (Davila, Burge, & Hammen, 1997). Take Hannah as an example. When she was young, her mother suffered from bipolar depression and her father divorced her mother and left them—both ingredients in a recipe for insecure attachment. Later, however, her mother got treatment and their relationship improved. Hannah also developed close friendships and has a happy relationship with Matthew. These experiences helped her overcome her initial insecurity and develop more positive models of herself and others. Attachment style also varies based on the specific relationship as well as the type of relationship a person is in (Pierce & Lydon, 2001). So Hannah may be more securely attached to Matthew than she is to anyone else, although in the past she felt more secure in her friendships than in her romantic relationships.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Attachment Theory Communication plays a major role in attachment theory for various family relationships, including those between parents and children, spouses, and siblings. Communication is related to attachment in at least four ways, as shown in Figure 4.2: (1) as a cause of attachment style; (2) as a consequence of attachment style; (3) as a mediator; and (4) as a reinforcing agent.

Attachment Theory 1.

Communication

Attachment Style

2.

Attachment Style

Communication

3.

Attachment Style

Communication

Relationship Quality

4.

Attachment Style

Communication

Response/Feedback

43

Figure 4.2 Relationships between Attachment Style and Communication

Communication as a Cause of Attachment Style Communication is the main mechanism through which attachment styles develop and change (see Line 1, Figure 4.2). When children receive consistent, sensitive, and responsive care, they usually develop a secure attachment style. Children who receive inconsistent care that is sometimes responsive and other times rejecting tend be anxious ambivalent. Finally, children who are over- or under-stimulated or experience fairly consistent rejection by their caregivers tend to be avoidant (Ainsworth et al., 1978). Thus, when Hannah was a child, she most likely developed an anxious-ambivalent attachment style in response to her mother’s inconsistency. She may also have had shades of an avoidant style if she felt rejected by her father. If Hannah wants her son to grow up secure, she and Matthew should be consistently responsive to Noah. They should also try to provide him with a level of stimulation that he is comfortable with, rather than over- or under-stimulating him. Indeed, Dinero, Conger, Shaver, Widaman, and Larsen-Rife (2011) found that positive parental communication with 15- and 16-year-old teens predicted more attachment security at age 25, which showcases the power parental communication has in shaping attachment. Communication continues to shape attachment throughout the life span. Le Poire et al. (1997) found that people’s attachment styles were influenced not only by their attachment to their parent, but also by their current romantic partner’s attachment style. In particular, people who were most secure had a secure attachment to their parent and also had romantic partners who were

44 Guerrero secure. Indeed, Le Poire et al.’s study suggested a person’s attachment style is shaped more by one’s current partner than one’s parent. This is good news for Hannah. Because Matthew has a secure attachment style, she is likely to feel supported by him and to become more secure in her own attachment style. Her positive interactions with Matthew may help her overcome some of the insecurities she developed during her childhood. Communication as a Consequence of Attachment Style Attachment styles represent patterned ways that people think, feel, and communicate. As such, attachment styles help predict how individuals vary in terms of traits, thoughts, emotions, and communication. These differences emerge most when the attachment system is activated, such as when a person needs protection or support, or is dealing with distress. For example, in the strange situation experiment described earlier in this chapter, young children reacted differently to separation from and reunion with their caregiver based on their attachment style. There are also individual differences in how adults communicate based on attachment style. Guerrero, Andersen, and Afifi (2014) summarized research showing that adults with different attachment styles vary in their conflict behavior, maintenance behavior, emotional expression, self-disclosure, nonverbal intimacy, and social skill. These differences reflect the way people with different attachment styles view themselves and their relationships. For example, Matthew might be more open and expressive than Hannah because he is more trusting of others. Hannah might be overly sensitive because she has experienced rejection from others in the past. Communication as a Mediator of Attachment and Relationship Quality One of the key findings in the literature is that security is associated with satisfaction in couple relationships (Feeney, 2016). Within families, secure attachment predicts cohesion, expressiveness, and adaptability (Mikulincer & Florian, 1999a, 1999b). Communication may help explain these associations (Feeney, Noller, & Roberts, 2000; see Line 3, Figure 4.2). Research has shown that there are attachment style differences in constructive conflict behavior (Feeney, 1994), self-disclosure (Keelan, Dion, & Dion, 1998), and emotional expression (Guerrero, Farinelli, & McEwan, 2009), and that these differences help explain why people are happier when they (or their partners or family members) are secure. In all these cases, people with secure attachment styles report engaging in more positive, constructive, and appropriate communication than do those with insecure attachment styles. Because he is secure, for example, Matthew might be open and affectionate with Hannah, which then makes Hannah satisfied with their relationship.

Attachment Theory

45

Communication as Reinforcement of Attachment Style Communication also reinforces a person’s attachment style (see Line 4, Figure 4.2). People communicate in ways that reflect their attachment style, and then people respond to that communication in ways that reinforce models of self and others (Bartholomew, 1993). In the strange situation experiment, for instance, secure children were distressed but then calmed down and were happy to see their mother when she returned. These behaviors make the child’s interaction with the environment and her or his mother more enjoyable, which in turn makes them feel secure. Avoidant children, in contrast, have little reaction to separation and reunion, which makes it difficult to bond with their caregiver and build a secure attachment. Similarly, when anxious-ambivalent children get upset and push their parent away, the parent could get frustrated or overcompensate, which feeds into the inconsistent pattern of parenting that makes these children anxious. This type of reinforcement effect can characterize spousal communication as well. For example, if Hannah has a preoccupied attachment style, she might tend to overdo things and smother Matthew at times. Even though Matthew loves her, he might push back and say he needs some time alone or with friends. This reaction could then make Hannah doubt his feelings for her even more.

Research and Practical Applications of Attachment Theory There are literally hundreds of articles on attachment, with a sizable portion of these focusing on some aspect of family interaction. Two strands of research on conflict and emotion, however, are highlighted here as examples because they have received considerable attention and are especially relevant to family communication. Conflict Communication Researchers have used attachment theory as a foundation for investigating conflict in families. Dinero et al. (2011) summarized research showing that insecure attachment in childhood is related to more negative conflict interaction in adulthood. Mikulincer and Florian (1999a) found that secure and avoidant parental attachment were related to low levels of conflict in one’s family, whereas anxious parental attachment was related to high levels of family conflict. La Valley and Guerrero (2012) demonstrated that secure parents and young adult children tend to report using collaborating and compromising behaviors during conflicts with each other. Preoccupied parents and children report using relatively high levels of competitive fighting (such as yelling) and indirect fighting (such as holding grudges), and dismissive parents and children report using low levels of collaborating and high levels of indirect fighting and avoiding. Thus, a person’s own attachment style is related to how people communicate during parent-child conflict. This study also showed that if the family member

46 Guerrero (parent or child) is secure, people are more likely to use the positive strategies of collaborating and compromising, but if the family member is dismissive, people are more likely to use indirect fighting (La Valley & Guerrero, 2012). Thus, people adapt to the attachment styles of family members. Attachment style is also associated with conflict in couples. O’ConnellCorcoran and Mallinckrodt (2000) studied couples with children. They found that avoidant individuals tend to use withdrawal and defensiveness in response to conflict, whereas preoccupied individuals tend to use demanding behavior, nagging, and whining. Couples that include a preoccupied partner paired with a dismissive partner are especially prone to demand-withdraw conflict patterns, with the preoccupied partner in the demanding role and the dismissive partner in the withdrawing role. In contrast, couples comprising two secure partners engage in the least demand-withdrawal (Millwood & Waltz, 2008). Men who have attachment anxiety tend to engage in aggressive communication during conflict, especially if their relationship is characterized by patterns of demand and withdraw (Fournier, Brassard, & Shaver, 2011). Emotional Regulation and Expression Attachment security is related to expressing and regulating emotions effectively. By age 3, children who are securely attached to their mothers demonstrate better emotional understanding than children who are insecurely attached, presumably because their mothers talk about emotions with them (Raikes & Thompson, 2006). Another study showed that fifth-graders who are securely attached to their mothers are able to regulate and cope with emotion effectively, which is related to having better social interaction with peers (Contreras, Kerns, Weimer, Gentzler, & Tomich, 2000). Secure spouses express more love than anxious spouses, and secure husbands express more love, pride, and happiness than do avoidant husbands (Feeney, 1999). These findings are consistent with the broader literature on attachment-style differences in emotional expression. As summarized by Guerrero et al. (2014), individuals with secure attachment styles tend to express positive emotion readily and manage negative emotion in a healthy manner. Those with preoccupied attachment styles tend to express negative emotion using aggressive, demanding, and passive aggressive means. Dismissive individuals experience and express relatively low levels of emotion. Finally, individuals with a fearful attachment style inhibit the experience and expression of negative emotions.

Evaluation of Attachment Theory Attachment theory is one of the most popular social science theories. In 2016, a search for the term “attachment theory” in Google Scholar produced over 102,000 results. Why have so many scholars used attachment theory in their research, and particularly in their research on family communication? One answer lies in the theory’s intuitive appeal. People can easily relate to the

Attachment Theory

47

attachment styles described in the theory. Attachment theory also highlights how cognitions, emotions, and communication work together in coherent ways. Thus, the theory ties various strands of research together and is useful for scholars from different disciplines, including communication, family studies, sociology, and various branches of psychology. For family scholars, an especially appealing aspect of the theory is that it looks at how attachment functions in infant-parent relationships, later parent-child relationships, couple relationships, and sibling relationships, as well as how attachment in one relationship within the family system influences other relationships inside and outside of the family (e.g., peer relationships). The theory, however, can be criticized for lacking specificity in certain areas. Ainsworth and Bowlby (1990) re-emphasized that attachment influences individuals throughout the lifespan. Yet attachment is likely to take different forms at various life stages and within different relationships. Theorists have discussed that peer and romantic attachments are more reciprocal than childparent attachments. Young children receive care, whereas parents provide comfort and safety. In peer and romantic relationships, ideally both partners act as caregivers and care providers. Yet theorists have not adequately addressed the implications that this shift has for behaviors related to proximity-seeking and caregiving. Similarly, the theory lacks detail on how attachment needs evolve throughout the lifespan, as well as how the influence of attachment figures changes. For example, during adolescence, peers likely have more power to affect and modify attachment styles than do family members. Scholars have also argued that attachment theory does not apply well to cultures where people are nurtured by the community rather than a primary caregiver (Field, 1996), and that the primary caregiver’s influence on the child may be overstated in comparison to genetic predispositions (Harris, 1998).

Continuing the Conversation The lack of specificity in these areas highlights possible avenues for future research. One issue is how well attachment translates to various relationships within families. Because attachment is rooted in caregiving behavior, siblings may not be attached to one another in the same way as parents and children, and parents may not have the same type of attachment to a child that a child would have to a parent. The issue of multiple attachments also deserves attention. Infants become attached to their primary caregiver (usually the mother) first, but later develop attachments to other family members. Thus, the way all members of the family communicate could influence a young child’s attachment style. The strength and importance of attachments to various family members may also change throughout the life span. Another important area of research revolves around how communication can help move a family member’s attachment style from insecure to secure. In the scenario presented in this chapter, Hannah develops a more secure attachment style after her mother started engaging in more consistently responsive

48 Guerrero behavior. It would be helpful to identify specific communication strategies that Hannah’s mother could have used to help her daughter recover from her earlier insecurities and become more secure. On the opposite side of this equation, there is research looking at how events such as divorce or a death in the family influence attachment security in families, but there is little or no research on how communication could help keep family members secure (or make them insecure) during these crisis situations. The attachment system is activated in times of crisis, so these are times when communication could either act as a mediator between attachment and outcomes, or could function to reinforce or modify family members’ attachment styles. Studying issues such as these could give both practical and theoretical insight into how families use attachmentrelated communication to deal with family crises, which would be a welcome addition to the literature on attachment in families.

References Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1967). Infancy in Uganda: Infant care and the growth of love. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ainsworth, M. D. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46, 333–341. Bartholomew, K. (1993). From childhood to adult relationships: Attachment theory and research. In S. Duck (Ed.), Understanding relationship processes: Vol. 2. Learning about relationships (pp. 30–62). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–244. Bowlby, J. (1951). Maternal care and mental health. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York, NY: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New York, NY: Basic Books. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., Weimer, B. L., Gentzler, A. L., & Tomich, P. L. (2000). Emotion regulation as a mediator of associations between mother–child attachment and peer relationships in middle childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 111–124. Davila, J., Burge, D., & Hammen, C. (1997). Why does attachment style change? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 826–838. Dinero, R. E., Conger, R. D., Shaver, P. R., Widaman, K. F., & Larsen-Rife, D. (2011). Influence of family of origin and adult romantic partners on romantic attachment security. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 1(S), 16–30. Feeney, J. A. (1994). Attachment style, communication patterns, and satisfaction across the life cycle of marriage. Personal Relationships, 1, 333–348.

Attachment Theory

49

Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult attachment, emotional control, and marital satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 6, 169–185. Feeney, J. A. (2016). Adult romantic attachment. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment (3rd ed., pp. 435–463). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (2000). Attachment and close relationships. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 185–201). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Field, T. (1996). Attachment and separation in young children. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 541–562. Fournier, B., Brassard, A., & Shaver, P. R. (2011). Adult attachment and male aggression in couple relationships: The demand-withdraw communication pattern and relationship satisfaction as mediators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 1982–2003. Fraley, R. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2015). Early attachment experiences and romantic functioning: Developmental pathways, emerging issues, and future directions. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and research: New directions and emerging themes (pp. 9–38). New York, NY: Guilford. Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Afifi, W. A. (2014). Close encounters: Communication in relationships (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Guerrero, L. K., Farinelli, L., & McEwan, B. (2009). Attachment and relational satisfaction: The mediating effect of emotional communication. Communication Monographs, 76, 487–514. Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. (1962). Social deprivation in monkeys. Scientific American, 207, 136–146. Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York, NY: Free Press. Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 511–524. Keelan, J. P. R., Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1998). Attachment style and relationship satisfaction: Test of a self-disclosure explanation. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 30, 24–35. La Valley, A. G., & Guerrero, L. K. (2012). Perceptions of conflict behavior and relational satisfaction in adult parent–child relationships: A dyadic analysis from an attachment perspective. Communication Research, 39, 48–78. Le Poire, B. A., Haynes, J., Driscoll, J., Driver, B. N., Wheelis, T. F., Hyde, M. K., . . . Ramos, L. (1997). Attachment as a function of parental and partner approachavoidance tendencies. Human Communication Research, 23, 413–441. Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1999a). The association between parental reports of attachment style and family dynamics, and offspring’s reports of adult attachment style. Family Process, 38, 243–257. Mikulincer, M., & Florian, V. (1999b). The association between spouses’ self–reports of attachment styles and representations of family dynamics. Family Process, 38, 69–83. Millwood, M., & Waltz, J. (2008). Demand-withdraw communication in couples: An attachment perspective. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 7, 297–320. O’Connell-Corcoran, K., & Mallinckrodt, B. (2000). Adult attachment, self-efficacy, perspective taking, and conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78, 473–483. Pierce, T., & Lydon, J. E. (2001). Global and specific relational models in the experience of social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 613–631.

50 Guerrero Raikes, H. A., & Thompson, R. A. (2006). Family emotional climate, attachment security and young children’s emotion knowledge in a high risk sample. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24, 89–104. Spitz, R. A. (1945). Hospitalism: an inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early childhood. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1, 53–74.

5

Attribution Theory Who’s at Fault in Families? Valerie Manusov

In our everyday lives, we frequently ask ourselves why people did what they did. How come my Dad didn’t come to my play? Why is my sister dating that guy? The answer to these “why” questions have been termed “attributions.” More specifically, attributions involve both (a) the processes involved in interpreting or explaining our own and others’ actions, and (b) the final result (i.e., the explanations we provide) for an action. According to Heider (1958), we engage in attribution-making like “naïve scientists” as we discern options to determine why people behaved as they did. Moreover, we are particularly inclined to make attributions for those—like our family—with whom we are particularly intertwined. We also make them for our own behavior (“Why did I say that?”). Attributions occur in our minds as we determine why we or someone else acted in a particular way. Importantly, they also show up in our speech when we talk to others about why we think something occurred and as such become communicative acts as well as psychological processes. The large body of scholarship exploring these kinds of sense-making functions is known as attribution theory. This label is, however, somewhat misleading. The research on attributions perhaps more accurately reflects a set of theories or principles that help us understand and predict what happens when people explain their social worlds to themselves or to others. For the sake of consistency with other chapters in this book, however, I refer throughout the rest of the text to the singular: attribution theory.

Intellectual Tradition of Attribution Theory Normative Models The earliest modern writing on attribution processes was Heider’s (1958) argument that people attempt to make sense of one another’s actions as part of a general need to control and predict the world around them. When someone acts in a certain way, we cannot know the cause of the action directly. Instead, we assess what we believe is the likely reason behind it by weighing the probability of various potential causes to determine the most probable cause for an action (Heider, 1958). Did she not send me a text because she forgot?

52 Manusov Because she’s mad? Because her phone battery died? Heider argued that evidence for this form of sense-making can be seen in the everyday ways we talk about others and their actions (e.g., “My husband yelled at me because he had a difficult upbringing”; “The reason my mother is strict is that she cares about me”) and represents a universal process, albeit modified at times by culture and other factors. In what can be described as a normative view of attributional processing, social psychologists accepted certain beliefs about people and how they select and organize information coming from the social world around them. The most important of these are (1) that people are active interpreters of the events occurring in their lives, and (2) that people use consistent and logical (i.e., normative) means to make their interpretations. For Heider (1958), these means or choices are based primarily on what he termed an action’s causal locus: the judgment of a behavior’s cause as internal (i.e., a disposition, such as personality) or external (i.e., an environmental factor, such as social pressure) to a person. An example study using causal locus was done by Enlund, Aunola, Tolvanen, and Nurmi (2015), who found that mothers’ positive emotions predicted the degree to which they viewed their children’s school success as caused by the children’s effort and ability rather than something external to the children. Interestingly, the authors also noted that mood and the resulting attributions could change over the course of a day. Jones and Davis (1965) discussed the idea of causal locus more fully in their early theory, called Correspondent Inferences. For the authors, inferences to a person’s intention are the most informative for us as they best predict that person’s future behavior. For example, if I see my son’s behavior as due to his wanting to be independent rather than an argument he had with this friends, doing so helps me also “know” that he will act similarly at a future time. Jones and Davis also argued that people can and will look at all available evidence to make their inference or attribution, specifically that people will assess the degree to which a person appeared responsible for an action, had the ability to bring about the consequences of the action, and was influenced by the relative contribution of luck or chance in bringing that action about. Once we determine these pieces of information, Jones and Davis asserted that we can make the most accurate inference about the cause of another’s behavior. Kelley (1967) likewise proposed a normative model of attribution-making that came to be known as the ANOVA cube. In his model, named after the statistical process of analyzing variance in quantitative data, Kelley asserted that people weigh the different sources of variability in people’s actions: A behavior can be judged on its consistency (has the person acted like this before in this situation?), its degree of consensus (have others experienced the person acting this way?), and its distinctiveness (does this happen only with this person or also with other people?). If we judge that the behavior was high in consistency, consensus, and distinctiveness, then we should/will attribute the cause to something about the person (i.e., an internal or “entity” attribution) rather than to something external.

Attribution Theory 53 “Bias” Models As with most established models of social behavior, these early theories have been critiqued extensively. In particular, researchers have challenged the degree to which people act with as much rationality as the models predict that they will, leading some researchers” (e.g., Crittenden & Wiley, 1985) to call these first entries into attribution theory building “overly rational”. A large body of evidence supports the idea that attribution-making is “biased” in that it often veers from the normative models proposed. Ross (1977), for example, noted that people tend to make internal attributions far more often than they make external attributions and much more often than the available information demands. He called this tendency the “fundamental attribution error.” Another noteworthy deviation from normative models deals with the tendency for people to make attributions for others’ behaviors in a different way than they make attributions for their own behaviors, a pattern known as the “actor/observer effect” (Fiske & Taylor, 1984). A recent study in Iran, for example, found that both parents and their adolescent children made different attributions for themselves than they did for people they observed when they engaged in conflict (Foroudastan, Nouri, & Botlani, 2013). Specifically, parents and adolescents made more personal attributions as observers of conflict but more situational attributions when they judged their own conflict behavior. Such biases may be based on our own development. For instance, Nelson and Perry (2015) contend that children tend to develop what the authors refer to as “hostile attributions”; that is, they are likely to attribute more hostile or threatening intent to others’ ambiguous behaviors. This “bias” is due to the limited cognitive capacity that young children have for understanding others’ perspectives. Most children lose this tendency as they age, but for some, particularly those with low self-control and who make more hostile attributions, the bias to see others’ actions as negative in this way is likely to endure. Multi-Dimensional Models Another development that occurred in theory-building about attributions began with Weiner’s (1986) extension of the dimensions on which we make attributions. In addition to assessing whether another person (or some outside influence) was the cause of a behavior, attributions also differ on the basis of how positive or negative and how constant the cause is, how much influence the person had over that cause (i.e., responsibility), how deliberate it was perceived to be, and whether the cause applies only to this specific circumstance or can be seen as a broader condition. For instance, Jacobs, Woolfson, and Hunter (2016) found that parents’ attributions for their disabled children’s behavior could be understood only by looking across the dimensions of stability, control, and responsibility. Whether normative or “biased,” and uni- or multi-dimensional, the foundational work on attributions came largely from the field of psychology and reflects

54 Manusov a post-positivist view of the world. That is, most scholarship in this area—the early work or that done more recently—is undergirded by the belief that behavior is largely predictable and that people, or at least groups of people, will think and act similarly to one another. Heider’s (1958) contention that we are “naïve scientists” speaks to this tradition as well.

Main Goals and Features of Attribution Theory Consistent with a post-positivist perspective, research using attribution theory bends toward making predictive claims about when, why, and how we engage in causal sense-making. As for the “when” question, researchers have found that attribution-making occurs most often when our own or another’s behavior is surprising and/or negative (Floyd & Voloudakis, 1999; Wong & Weiner, 1981). Moreover, this tendency can be consequential: Colalillo, Miller, and Johnston (2015), for example, recently studied the tendency for parents to make attributions for their children’s misbehavior, finding, among other things, that when parents’ causal reasoning puts the onus on the child for misbehavior, the child was even more likely to misbehave. The attributions made also were related to less positive self-assessments by the children. The “why” question, as noted, is based in the belief that people work to make sense of the world around them and to understand their own actions (Heider, 1958). At the heart of that sense-making are questions about both cause and responsibility for behavior, and our desire to make sense may be based at least in part on a need to reduce our uncertainty (Sillars, 1982). That we particularly feel the need to make sense of behaviors that are ambiguous (Manusov & Koenig, 2001) also speaks to the reason why we offer attributions for behavior and suggests that people tend to prefer “knowing” the reason for actions. The “how” question is addressed more by those theories mentioned earlier. Normative models by Jones and Davis (1965) and by Kelley (1967) showed “how” people may make attributions most consistent with the evidence that they have. The “bias” models show “how” (or at least “what” or “where”) people land on certain attributions. Additional research provides information about influences on how people make attributions. Sargeant and Bond (2015), for instance, looked at how parental attitudes influenced children’s attributions about police behavior. Kimmes, Durtschi, Clifford, Knapp, and Fincham (2015) also showed how anxious attachment can lead to “pessimistic” attributions by spouses. These kinds of studies help reflect the foundations of an attributionbased approach to research.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Attribution Theory Although the bulk of research using attribution theory is conducted by psychologists, the theory’s focus on sense-making ties it directly to communication as well. Two foundational chapters appeared in the 1980s that spoke to this.

Attribution Theory 55 Sillars (1982) contended that attributions are an integral part of conflict processes and are influenced by relational familiarity (see Parker, Lindstrom Johnson, Jones, Haynie, & Cheng, 2016, for a recent application to parents and adolescents’ divergent view on who or what is to “blame” for conflict). Seibold and Spitzberg (1982) likewise detailed an argument for why communication scholars get value from taking an attributional perspective. Most notably, the authors asserted that attribution theory provides a conceptual framework for understanding the interpretation of identities, situations, and relationships we encounter in our everyday lives. Manusov (1990; Spitzberg & Manusov, 2014) continued making the connection between attributions and communication and specified ways in which attribution processes work as part of communication. First, attributions can be seen as the explanations—the socially created, verbal reasons—given for communication behaviors (e.g., “She said that to hurt me”); in this way, they are similar to the more general category of “accounts” people provide in conversation for their own and others’ actions. Second, attributions can be seen as the psychological process leading to certain interpretations or meanings for communication behaviors (e.g., if I think my husband was intentional about sitting close to me on the couch, I would then have to pick a meaning for his behavior that reflected that intentionality). Third, we can think of attributions as the actual meaning given to a behavior (“She hurt me on purpose” is the meaning I might make for my sister’s behavior; the attribution is the same as— not just underlying—the meaning). For example, Percy, Creswell, Garner, O’Brien, and Murray (2016) studied parents’ verbal attributions of information as “fearful,” finding that such vocalized attributions increased their children’s anxiety. All of these variations show how attributions become important as communicative acts or as influences on or sense-making for those acts.

Research and Practical Applications of Attribution Theory Married Couples Given its concern with explanations, it is not surprising that attribution principles have been studied in the family. Most of this focus has been on heterosexual couples, and its emphasis has been on distinctions in attributionmaking by satisfied and dissatisfied couple members. The tendency is for non-distressed or satisfied couples to make low-impact attributions for negative behaviors (and, conversely, to allow positive events more influence), an occurrence that has been termed “relationship-enhancing” attribution-making; the type of attribution more common for distressed or dissatisfied couples is called “distress-maintaining” (Holtzworth-Munroe & Jacobson, 1988) attributions. In some cases, such attributions are as likely to occur for husbands as for wives, but other patterns often emerge. For instance, Oka, Whiting, and Reifman (2015), in an observational study of couples’ communication, found “women who report lower relationship quality also display more hostility in interactions,

56

Manusov

and . . . women who report lower relationship quality have male partners who display more distress-maintaining attributions in interactions” (p. 386). The occurrence and influence of “distress-maintaining” attributions appear augmented when couples are categorized as “aggressive.” Sillars, Leonard, Roberts, and Dun (2002) concluded “aggressive couples have an acutely negative style of communication, which becomes more negative when husbands drink alcohol” (p. 97). Given the tendency for husbands in aggressive relationships to pay heightened attention to communication, and the likelihood that their attributions for their wives’ communication will be negative, the link between attributions and communication “presents a combustible situation” (Sillars et al., 2002, p. 101). Therapy has been found to lessen the negative attributions that can occur for abusive behavior by couples (Hrapczynski, Epstein, Werlinich, & LaTaillade, 2011). As can be seen, much of the work just discussed centering on attributions in marriage (and other intimate relationships) focuses on the link that attributions have with overall relational satisfaction. Some, however, expand the connection to other important variables. For instance, Rempel, Ross, and Holmes (2001) looked at the ways in which couples who had different levels of trust made attributions in their talk for conflict. Couples with the lowest trust for each other used more negative attributions that worked to diminish the likelihood that the conflict would escalate, and those with the highest trust levels provided positive attributions for their conflict. Rempel et al. contended that the results could not be accounted for by the couples’ degree of relational satisfaction; thus trust acts somewhat separately from satisfaction to influence attribution-making for couples. Other research suggests that couples’ attribution patterns are often tied to their family-of-origin (FOO). Gardner, Busby, Burr, and Lyon (2011), in particular, argued that people’s FOO experiences affect couples’ relational attributions (“the perceived meaning one partner assigns to the other partner’s characteristics and behavior” p. 256). Specifically, the authors found that FOO experience was the strongest predictor of attributions for one’s self and for one’s partner. So, for instance, if spouses were raised in households in which their family expressed empathy, they were more likely to make more empathic (“relationship-enhancing”) attributions within their marriage. For Gardner et al., this pattern of attributions “sets the tone” for the family. Although investigated less than would be expected, some research also focuses on the relationship between attributions and couples’ behaviors. In one study, Manusov (2002) showed that attributions made by one spouse for another’s nonverbal cues may influence the behaviors the attributor engages in with the other (e.g., when a spouse thought that the partner could have had or had control over his or her facial expressions, the attributor was more likely to be facially pleasant, gaze more, and use a more upright posture when talking to his or her spouse). More recently, Oka et al. (2015) reported that wives who made distress-maintaining attributions also tended to use more hostile communication than did those who did not use this form of sense-

Attribution Theory 57 making. The links between attributions and other affective and behavioral outcomes show the extent to which attribution-making may permeate intimate relationships. Other Family Relationships Families are, of course, often composed of more (or other) than a couple, and researchers have sought to look at additional ways that attributions occur in families, particularly in child-parent interactions. Some scholars have looked at possible ways in which parents’ attributions are transmitted to their children. Benson, Arditti, Reguero de Atiles, and Smith (1992), for example, asked young adults about their own intimate relationships as well as about their relationship with their parents. The authors concluded that positive attributions in the mother-child relationships and negative attributions in father-child relationships were both associated with the attributions the children made in their own intimate relationships. A particularly salient context of study for attributions in the family revolves around the relationship between abuse and attributions. Bugental, Shennum, Frank, and Ekman (2001) argue that children raised in homes where they are physically and/or psychologically abused often have “unreliable life experiences” (Bugental et al., 2001, p. 250) that may influence the type of attributions they make. Such effects start early: Miller, Howell, and Graham-Bermann (2014) found that children from 4 to 6 years old already showed problematic attributions, including self-blame, for the violence that occurred in their homes. Wilson and Whipple (2001) likewise found interesting, if troubling, associations between abuse and attributions. In their work, however, the authors were most concerned with the way in which parents who abuse their children provide attributions for their children’s “misbehavior” (i.e., the actions the parents believe need changing and that may escalate into abusive encounters). They argued that physically abusive parents tend to make attributions for their child’s misbehavior (e.g., temper tantrums) that are more internal and general and that assign blame and age-related knowledge to the child for his or her actions (i.e., “She should have known better”). In an extension of this work, Rodriguez and Tucker (2015) found that distressed mothers’ negative attributions for their child’s behavior exacerbated their abuse risk. Wilson and Whipple (2001) also learned that dysfunctional attributions in families may be linked in many cases to parents’ depression. Other work has focused on the larger family and found that different families in which abuse occurred were more or less likely to be helped by therapy. For instance, Silvester, Bentovim, Stratton, and Hanks (1995) looked at attributions spoken by family members (i.e., the statements in families’ talk that could be categorized as causal or responsibility statements). They found three categories of families based on their likelihood of rehabilitation: good, uncertain, and poor. “In families rated Good, parents were more likely to attribute more control to

58 Manusov self than child for negative outcomes. They were also more likely to nominate themselves as causing negative events” (p. 1221).

Evaluation of Attribution Theory As discussed, initial models of attribution-making suggested that people will make assessments of the circumstances of an action to best determine its cause (Jones & Davis, 1965; Kelley, 1967). Most subsequent work, particularly recent applications, does not search for or find support for the normative models. This tendency may have hurt the theory on at least one ground: According to Spitzberg and Manusov (2014), there are many criteria on which theories are evaluated. Among these, “[s]cope and generality refer to the breadth of phenomena and contexts in which a theory applies . . . . Attribution theory was developed originally as a universal theory of human sense-making, but research has limited its scope” (p. 44). It has done so by focusing on specific conditions or behavior such as “shyness, loneliness, conflict, accounts, abuse, anger, shame, achievement motivation, moral responsibility, and relationship breakups. Whereas this work has been important for showing the consequential nature of and conditions for attributions, they move away from more universal claims” (Spitzberg & Manusov, 2014, p. 44). Additionally, most studies of attributions tend to take one of two forms. First, work often focuses on the many “biases” attributions reflect. The predictive nature of biases is more in line with a proposition than with a fully formed theory, and there is often little discussion about circumstances when the biases do not work as they are proposed to (for exceptions, see Floyd, 2000; Manusov & Koenig, 2001). Second, many studies simply focus on “attributions” in a broad sense, without a larger theoretical frame. All of this work advances theory as a body, but individual studies rarely work to test specific aspects of original work or attempt to build larger theoretical platforms.

Continuing the Conversation Overall, attributions can be seen as a common and specific form of sense-making that is part of people’s attempts at understanding the social world. When that social world involves their families, the ways in which people make their attributions for behavior are linked to such factors as relational quality, trust, and, notably, abuse. The links between attribution-making and other important psychological and communicative factors make the work in this area particularly important to those who wish to understand family dynamics. As noted in this chapter, attributions may be formed for communication behavior, and they can affect how we make sense of that communication. But they may also be communicated, and several studies of family communication have made that their focus (e.g., Percy et al., 2016; Silvester et al., 1995). For example, Bower and Casas (2016) showed that parents used verbal attributions to their children’s character as a way to reinforce prosocial behavior.

Attribution Theory 59 Important avenues for future exploration can help uncover other kinds of naturally occurring attributions family members make. Whereas most of the research on attributions takes a post-positivist perspective, the very nature of attributions makes them ripe for interpretive inquiry. What are the types of meanings that can be revealed in our hidden or spoken attributions? What do they say about us? In a very different way, I have also recently proposed that there are valuebased critiques that can be offered for the attributions we provide and for our tendency to make such attributions. Specifically, the increasing research focus on mindfulness, which is defined as our ability to engage with awareness, nonjudgmentally, and in the present moment (Kabat-Zinn, 1990), points toward holding back on making attributions in our everyday interactions (Manusov, 2015). Given that attributions are often biased and reflect our presuppositions about others, attempting to keep ourselves from being “naïve scientists” is itself worth exploring.

References Benson, M. J., Arditti, J., Reguero de Atiles, J. T., & Smith, S. (1992). Intergenerational transmission: Attributions in relationships with parents and intimate others. Journal of Family Issues, 13, 450–465. Bower, A. A., & Casas, J. F. (2016). What parents do when children are good: Parent reports of strategies for reinforcing early childhood prosocial behavior. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 1310–1324. Bugental, D. B., Shennum, W., Frank, M., & Ekman, P. (2001). “True lies”: Children’s abuse history and power attributions as influences on deception detection. In V. Manusov & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships (pp. 248–265). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Colalillo, S., Miller, N. V., & Johnston, C. (2015). Mother and father attributions for child misbehavior: Relations to child internalizing and externalizing problems. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 34, 788–808. Crittenden, K. S., & Wiley, M. G. (1985). When egotism is normative: Self-presentational norms guiding attributions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 48, 360–365. Enlund, E., Aunola, K., Tolvanen, A., & Nurmi, J. -E. (2015). Parental causal attributions and emotions in daily learning situations with the child. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 568–575. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1984). Social cognition. New York, NY: Random House. Floyd, K. (2000). Attributions for nonverbal expressions of liking and disliking: The extended self-serving bias. Western Journal of Communication, 64, 385–404. Floyd, K., & Voloudakis, M. (1999). Attributions for expectancy violating changes in affectionate behavior in platonic friendships. The Journal of Psychology, 133, 32–33. Foroudastan, M., Nouri, A., & Botlani, S. (2013). The study of comparative effect of actor-observer bias in parents-adolescents conflicts. Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4, 658–669. Gardner, B. C., Busby, D. M., Burr, B. K., & Lyon, S. E. (2011). Getting to the root of relationship attributions: Family-of-origin perspectives on self and partner views. Contemporary Family Therapy, 33, 253–272.

60 Manusov Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1988). Toward a methodology for coding spontaneous causal attributions: Preliminary results with married couples. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 101–112. Hrapczynski, K. M., Epstein, N. B., Werlinich, C. A., & LaTaillade, J. J. (2011). Changes in negative attributions during couple therapy for abusive behavior: Relations to changes in satisfaction and behavior. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 38, 117–132. Jacobs, M., Woolfson, L. M., & Hunter, S. C. (2016). Attributions of stability, control, and responsibility: How parents of children with intellectual disabilities view their child’s problematic behaviour and its causes. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 29, 58–70. Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–266). New York, NY: Academic Press. Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full catastrophic living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York, NY: Bantam Dell. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 14, 192–241. Kimmes, J. G., Durtschi, J. A., Clifford, C. E., Knapp, D. J., & Fincham, F. D. (2015). The role of pessimistic attributions in the association between anxious attachment and relationship satisfaction. Family Relations, 64, 547–562. Manusov, V. (1990). An application of attribution principles to nonverbal messages in romantic dyads. Communication Monographs, 57, 104–118. Manusov, V. (2002). Thought and action: Connecting attributions to behaviors in married couples’ interactions. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 14–31). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Manusov, V. (2015). Mindfulness as morality: Awareness, nonjudgment, and nonreactivity in couples’ communication. In V. Waldron & D. Kelley (Eds.), Developing good relationships: Moral communication across the lifespan (pp. 183–201). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Manusov, V., & Koenig, J. (2001). The content of attributions in couples’ communication. In V. Manusov & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships (pp. 134–152). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Miller, L. E., Howell, K. H., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2014). Developmental changes in threat and self-blame for preschoolers exposed to IPV. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29, 1535–1553. Nelson, J. A., & Perry, N. B. (2015). Emotional reactivity, self-control and children’s hostile attributions over middle childhood. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 592–603. Oka, M., Whiting, J. B., & Reifman, A. (2015) Observational research of negative communication and self-reported relationship satisfaction. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 43, 378–391. Parker, E. M., Lindstrom Johnson, S. R., Jones, V. C., Haynie, D. L., & Cheng, T. L. (2016). Discrepant perspectives on conflict situations among urban parent-adolescent dyads. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 1007–1025.

Attribution Theory 61 Percy, R., Creswell, C., Garner, M., O’Brient, D., & Murray, L. (2016). Parents’ verbal communication and childhood anxiety: A systematic view. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 19, 55–75. Rempel, J. K., Ross, M., & Holmes, J. G. (2001). Trust and communicated attributions in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 57–64. Rodriguez, C. M., & Tucker, M. C. (2015). Predicting maternal physical child abuse risk beyond distress and social support: Additive role of cognitive processes. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 24, 1780–1790. Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174–177). New York, NY: Academic Press. Sargeant, E., & Bond, C. E. W. (2015). Keeping it in the family: Parental influences on young people’s attitudes to police. Journal of Sociology 51, 917–932. Seibold, D. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1982). Attribution theory and research: Review and implications for communication. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voight (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (pp. 85–125). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sillars, A. L. (1982). Attribution and communication: Are people “naïve scientists” or just naïve? In M. E. Roloff & C. R. Berger (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 73–106). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Sillars, A. L., Leonard, K. E., Roberts, L. J., & Dun, T. (2002). Cognition and communication during marital conflict: How alcohol affects subjective coding of interaction in aggressive and nonaggressive couples. In P. Noller & J. A. Feeney (Eds.), Understanding marriage: Developments in the study of couple interaction (pp. 85–112). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Silvester, J., Bentovim, A., Stratton, P., & Hanks, H. G. I. (1995). Using spoken attributions to classify abusive families. Child Abuse and Neglect, 19, 1221–1233. Spitzberg, B. H., & Manusov, V. (2014). Attributes of attribution theory: Finding good cause in the search for theory. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 37–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Wilson, S. R., & Whipple, E. E. (2001). Attributions and regulative communication by parents participating in a community-based child physical abuse prevention program. In V. Manusov & J. H. Harvey (Eds.), Attribution, communication behavior, and close relationships (pp. 227–247). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Wong, P. T. P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions, and the heuristics of attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650–663.

6

Communicated Narrative Sense-Making Theory Linking Storytelling and Well-Being Jody Koenig Kellas

Telling and hearing significant family stories can have lasting effects on those involved, often in the form of values, impressions, fears, lessons, and/or beliefs. Whether family stories are lasting may be an artifact of the way stories are told, when, where, and with whom. The content of messages and stories matters as does the process of storytelling. The meaning of storytelling content, along with the verbal and nonverbal tone, pace, warmth, engagement, coordination, humor, tension, hesitation, silences, sarcasm, touch, other-centeredness, responses, questions, and turn-taking, all create an environment in which the telling of stories can affect, reflect, foster, and/or inhibit connection, sense-making, and coping. Research on the content and process of family storytelling suggests links to mental, physical, and relational health, which in turn suggests interventionist opportunities for increasing sense-making, cohesion, and well-being. The significance of family storytelling is contextualized in the current chapter on communicated narrative sense-making (CNSM) theory, designed to synthesize and systematize the influence of storytelling content, process, and translation on individuals, families, and health.

Intellectual Tradition of Communicated Narrative Sense-Making Theory As I have discussed elsewhere (e.g., Koenig Kellas, 2015), most narrative theorizing grows out of research traditions grounded in the pursuit of rich, qualitative, subjective meaning situated within the interpretive paradigm. CNSM embraces the importance of the rich, subjective meanings investigated by interpretivists, but also acknowledges the patterned nature of socially constructed life (Miller, 2000). Thus, CNSM is situated in the post-positivist paradigm while also drawing inspiration from—and sometimes borrowing methods from—research situated in the interpretive paradigm. CNSM theory builds upon interdisciplinary post-positivist research linking narrative identity and well-being (e.g., McAdams & McLean, 2013), storytelling content, processes, and relational health (e.g., Holmberg, Orbuch, & Veroff, 2004), and the health benefits of expressive writing (see Frattaroli, 2006), along with other interpretive orientations that place narratives and storytelling

Communicated Narrative Sense-Making

63

as central to the process of making sense of illness identity (e.g., Frank, 1997), developing compassionate (health) care (Charon, 2006), and helping improve mental health and relationships through the reframing of dispreferred stories (see White, 2007). These programs of research focus on the potential for storytelling to affect and reflect psychosocial, physical, and relational health. CNSM adds to these programs of research by synthesizing their goals to investigate the content, process, and outcomes of narratives and storytelling and identify explicitly the communication behaviors that affect and reflect storied sense-making and well-being. In short, CNSM theory is a homegrown theory with many interdisciplinary roots across metatheoretical traditions.

Main Goals and Features of Communicated Narrative Sense-Making Theory The main goal of CNSM theory is to shed light on the communicated content, process, and functions of storytelling as they help to explain and are explained by individual and relational health and well-being. Its main assumptions, features, and propositions are summarized within three theoretical heuristics: retrospective storytelling, interactional storytelling, and translational storytelling. Assumptions Narrative as Communication. First, CNSM focuses on the ways in which narratives are communicated. Previous research examines narratives as sense-making devices, but often conceptualizes them as individual and psychological. For example, Frank’s (1997) illness narratives and McAdams’s (e.g., McAdams & McLean, 2013) life stories represent the ways in which individuals create narrative identities, whereas research in the expressive writing paradigm tradition focuses on individuals’ most emotional and private stories of trauma (Frattaroli, 2006). Despite overlaps among these approaches and CNSM, the communication of narratives is not a feature of these previous articulated theories. CNSM puts communication at the heart of understanding the links between narratives and health by defining storytelling as the communicative manifestation of narrative sense-making. Links to Health and Well-Being. A second assumption of CNSM theory is the links between storytelling and health, broadly conceived. Health and illness are often the subject of significant (family) storytelling because illness produces stress, anxiety, worry, and depression that can be understood through narrative sense-making (e.g., Harter & Hayward, 2010). Previous research has established consistent and significant links among narrative content, writing, and storytelling, and well-being, such as mental health, perceived stress, family functioning, physical health, and risk behavior (see Koenig Kellas & Kranstuber Horstman, 2015). Empirical studies using CNSM theory assume the connection between storytelling and well-being and seek to illuminate those connections.

64 Kellas Functions of Storytelling. The basis for the link between storytelling and health is grounded in the overarching functions of narratives and storytelling. People tell stories in order to create and construct identity; socialize one another to cultural, societal, and personal values, morals, beliefs, behavior, and actions; make sense of and cope with difficulty, complexity, trauma, and risk (see Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2013); and connect interpersonally (i.e., develop and maintain relationships with others). These functions motivate storytelling and are the result of storytelling and may provide the underlying mechanisms for explaining the link between storytelling content or process and health. In sum, CNSM theory assumes (a) a focus on storytelling as communicated; (b) links among storytelling content, structure, process, and individual and relational health and well-being (along with other variables illustrative of interpersonal and family dynamics; e.g., perceptions of family supportiveness, attachment styles); and (c) that the link between storytelling and health may be understood, at least in part, by understanding the underlying functions of narratives and storytelling: creating, socializing, coping, and connecting. Heuristics CNSM theory is guided by three heuristics: retrospective storytelling, interactional storytelling, and translational storytelling (Koenig Kellas & Kranstuber Horstman, 2015), and scholars using CNSM should frame their investigations in one or more of the three. The heuristics help to organize previous research, but are meant also as heuristics in the true meaning of the word—inspiring interest and generating future research. Retrospective Storytelling. The premise underlying the retrospective storytelling heuristic is that the stories we hear and tell can have significant lasting effects on our beliefs, values, behavior, and health. This is especially true in families. According to Stone (2004), we hear stories early in childhood when we are blank and unresisting canvases. The content of the stories we hear and participate in telling during family life affect, and reflect, our thinking and actions, self-concept, as well the ways in which we practice health and engage in risk. Empirical studies that test the potential lasting impacts of retrospective storytelling tend to focus on the content of the story. For example, adolescents who reportedly heard their parents’ stories about love and mistakes when it came to the subject of sex (see Holman & Koenig Kellas, 2016) also reported significantly higher perceptions of the conversational effectiveness and communication competence of their parents during “sex talks.” Kranstuber Horstman (2013) examined parental courtship stories from the perspective of young adults to explore the potential links and lasting effects of retrospective storytelling and found that participants who rated their parents’ courtship stories as significant to them also reported higher levels of interdependence, traditional marriage values, and lower levels of assertiveness in relationships.

Communicated Narrative Sense-Making

65

We not only hear, but we also tell significant family stories that affect and reflect sense-making and health. For example, colleagues and I (Koenig Kellas et al., 2014) found that adult stepchildren who told stepfamily origin stories with idealized themes were significantly more satisfied than those whose stories were coded as dark-sided or sudden. In a study of family triads, those who jointly told stories of family identity that were characterized by accomplishment and overcoming adversity together were significantly more satisfied and functional than family whose identity stories were dominated by the theme of stress (Koenig Kellas, 2005). In sum, the stories we hear and tell are linked in significant and meaningful ways to individual and relational identity, sense-making, and well-being. Previous research demonstrates the potential lasting effect of significant family stories and individual identity, sense-making, and perceptions of the teller(s). Therefore, the first proposition of CNSM within the retrospective storytelling heuristic is: Proposition 1: The content of retrospective storytelling reveals individual, relational, and intergenerational meaning-making, values, and beliefs. As I mentioned, CNSM is a theory rooted in post-positivism, but with interpretive possibilities. Proposition 1 is likely to be examined through qualitative interviews (e.g., Flood-Grady & Koenig Kellas, 2016) and written or online surveys with open-ended prompts (e.g., Holman & Koenig Kellas, 2016). The content of stories is typically analyzed thematically, using content analysis, or through cross-case data matrix analysis—a form of patterned coding that combines qualitative and quantitative methods for identifying and synthesizing patterns across participant cases (Miles, Huberman, & Soldana, 2014). Although retrospective storytelling studies tend to focus on the content of stories we hear and tell, they may also lend insight into the processes that characterize the telling of stories, such as how often the story is/has been told, its significance to tellers, and/or the ways in which the story is untellable. Kranstuber Horstman (2013), for example, found that certain story types (e.g., romantic, overcoming adversity) were told significantly more often than others (e.g., tainted, factual). Jackl (in press) examined narrative adaptation, or the rules narrators follow when deciding what version of a story to tell, thereby lending insight into the processes relevant to retrospective storytelling. Together, extant findings suggest a bias toward positive story tone such that positive stories are rated as more effective, competent, and told more often than negatively themed stories. This may reflect a social desirability bias, but it also reflects important cultural standards and scripts that affect and reflect storytelling in the family. In order to formulate axioms, the current theory needs further testing to determine the specific features of retrospective storytelling that predict health. However, extant research shows that possible features of retrospective storytelling content could include: the degree to which the story

66 Kellas is meaningful/significant to the teller; story theme or tone; and story coherence or completeness (see also McAdams & McLean, 2013). Preliminary results suggest a positive, linear relationship between positively valenced storytelling content (e.g., positive tone, redemptive themes, coherence) and well-being.1 Future research should test the possibility of curvilinear and other relationships between variables in order to further texturize the theory and guard against a positivity bias in CNSM (see Koenig Kellas, Trees, Schrodt, LeClair-Underberg, & Willer, 2010); however, our research to date suggests support for the proposition that: Proposition 2: Retrospective storytelling content that is framed positively (e.g., redemptively, prosocially, affectively positive, characterized by high levels of agency, coherently) will be positively related to individual and relational health and wellbeing. Interactional Storytelling. The heuristic of interactional storytelling is at the heart of CNSM because it focuses explicitly on the communicative processes that characterize storytelling. Interactional storytelling is an orientation toward research that focuses on the collaborative process of telling stories and its links to individual and relational well-being. In early work on CNSM, colleagues and I identified four sets of interrelated verbal and nonverbal behaviors that characterized varying levels of sense-making when families jointly told stories of difficulty and family identity. Koenig Kellas and Trees (2006) found that family triads who exhibited more engagement, turn-taking, perspective-taking, and mutual interpretations tended to engage in what we called family-unit sensemaking—meaning that resulted when families collaborated to tell and make sense of a stressful family story. Families who engaged in individual or incomplete sense-making, however, engaged in these behaviors to a lesser degree. My colleagues and I further sharpened our operationalization of these four behaviors in a series of publications that examined not only the nature of interactional sense-making, but also its correlates. Koenig Kellas and Trees (2005) created an observational rating scheme called the interactional sensemaking (ISM) rating system. Each behavior is rated along two dimensions on five-point Likert-type scales. Higher levels of engagement (warmth and involvement), turn-taking (dynamism and distribution of turns), perspectivetaking (attentiveness and confirmation), and coherence (organization and integration) indicate higher levels of ISM. Koenig Kellas (2005) found perspective-taking in joint family storytelling to be a consistent, significant, positive predictor of family functioning. Trees and Koenig Kellas (2009) found that higher levels of perspective-taking and coherence predicted family cohesion, adaptability, and perceptions of family supportiveness. Koenig Kellas et al. (2010) found that all four ISM behaviors predicted actor and/or partner effects for husbands’ and wives’ mental health and/or perceived stress. The research to date, therefore, provides the basis for CNSM’s third and fourth propositions:

Communicated Narrative Sense-Making

67

Proposition 3: Higher levels of ISM predict higher levels of narrative sensemaking. Proposition 4: Higher levels of ISM predict higher levels of individual and relational health and well-being. In each of the studies reviewed, the most consistent, significant predictor of outcomes was perspective-taking. Thus, colleagues and I set out to more fully understand the properties of what we referred to as communicated perspectivetaking (CPT), based on the reasoning that we were looking beyond the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes, but rather the ability to communicate the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes. We had spouses jointly tell a story of stress and then rate the degree to which their partners attended to, understood, and confirmed their perspectives in an observational recall design (Koenig Kellas, Willer, & Trees, 2013). After rating each minute of the interaction for CPT, participants also commented on the specific communication behaviors that supported their ratings. The result was a set of six semantic differential behaviors that characterize partners’ perceptions about their spouses’ CPT, including: agreement-disagreement, attentiveness-inattentiveness, relevantirrelevant contribution, coordination-uncoordination, positive tone-negative tone, and freedom in storytelling-constraint in storytelling. We have since used these findings to develop the Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System (CPTRS) (see Koenig Kellas, Carr, Horstman, & DiLillo, in press), and initial findings show that husbands’ and wives’ CPT predicts their respective spouses’ relational satisfaction during conversations about marital conflict. Finally, we have developed a measure of Other Communicated Perspective-Taking (OCPT) that allows participants to report on the degree to which partners take their perspective along a series of items developed from the six semantic differential behaviors identified by Koenig Kellas et al. (2013). Based on CPT findings to date, CNSM includes the following proposition: Proposition 5: Higher levels of CPT predict higher levels of individual and relational health and well-being. Additional research needs to test the robustness of engagement, turn-taking, and coherence for predicting individual and relational well-being. Translational Storytelling. Finally, the third heuristic in CNSM—translational storytelling—contends that narrative methods, empirical results, and theorizing can be used to create interventions and that these interventions predict health and well-being among participants across a variety of contexts. In other words, research on narratives and storytelling can be used for the public good through translational research, or “research linking scientific findings with programs and policies that improve human health and well-being” (Wethington, Herman, & Pillemer, 2012, p. 4). This CNSM heuristic concerns the translational

68 Kellas possibilities of narratives and storytelling for addressing those problems and generating effective solutions for family coping and well-being in the context of difficulty, trauma, illness, and stress. Many scholars engage in rich, creative, and empirically tested work that we would consider translational storytelling. For example, documentaries (e.g., Harter & Hayward, 2010), plays (e.g., Beach et al., 2016), school-based interventions (e.g., keepin’ it REAL drug resistance program, Hecht & MillerDay, 2007), and medical school curriculum (e.g., COMFORT, Goldsmith, Wittenberg-Lyles, Frisby, & Platt, 2015) have all been developed from research centered in narrative theories, methods, and empirical results. Current, ongoing projects grounded in CNSM involve taking narrative data and translating findings into community-based programs and contexts. For example, Holman and Koenig Kellas’s (2016) findings on memorable stories in sex-talk conversations have contributed to the basis for the “Let’s Change the Talk” campaign whose goal is “to create empirically-based and adolescentdesigned public service announcements (PSAs) to encourage parents to talk to their children about dating, intimate relationships, and sexual health” (letschangethetalk.org). In addition, our research on family caregivers, patients/ survivors, and health care practitioners is an example of ongoing translational storytelling research. Specifically, in a qualitative, retrospective storytelling study, Koenig Kellas, Castle, Johnson, and Cohen (2016) interviewed stakeholders in the context of cancer care to understand families’ cancer stories, including their communication and relational hopes and challenges. We engaged in thematic analysis and identified an overarching theme of “cancer as communal”—an acknowledgment that cancer care, coping, and relationships are better when all parties take a communal, community-based, collaborative, and compassionate approach. From that study and previous extant research on Narrative Medicine (e.g., Charon, 2006), and Narrative Therapy (White, 2007), we have designed a five-session, group-based narrative intervention designed to increase CPT, coping, and well-being among participants based on the rationale that stakeholders in cancer care share the experience, but face different challenges and hopes (Koenig Kellas et al., 2016). This project illustrates some defining principles of translational storytelling in CNSM. First, although it is not a requirement of using the theory, CNSM heuristics can be progressive such that research within retrospective, interactional, and translational storytelling can inform one another. In the case of our cancer research, retrospective storytelling and interactional storytelling findings informed the creation of the translational storytelling intervention (which still needs to be tested empirically). Second, CNSM provides an orientation to storytelling research that can—and most often does—include the utilization of other theoretical orientations. We used CNSM as the overarching framework to understand the links among storytelling, coping, and health while drawing from narrative medicine and narrative therapy principles as a method and means to effectively model and teach effective CPT.

Communicated Narrative Sense-Making

69

To summarize translational storytelling, previous research—both from within retrospective and interactional storytelling CNSM research and outside this framework—provides evidence for the benefits of storytelling content and process across a variety of contexts. Translational storytelling research marshals this evidence to create and test narratively-based interventions designed to improve the quality of communication and quality of lives of individuals and families coping with difficulty, trauma, illness, and stress. Current research is just beginning to test the effects of translational storytelling within a CNSM framework. Thus, a working proposition is: Proposition 6: Interventions that promote narrative reflection and sense-making benefit participants in the context of difficulty, trauma, illness, and/or stress. We hope to continue developing the theory in order to further test the tentative proposition that: Proposition 7: Interventions that incorporate (a) positive narrative (re)framing techniques and/or (b) high levels of ISM will result in benefits for individuals and families in the context of difficulty, trauma, illness, and/or stress. Overall, use of CNSM theory involves an examination of the ways in which storytelling (as communicated) helps to shed light on individual or relational health, well-being, coping, and/or sense-making as situated within one or more of the three heuristics of retrospective, interactional, and/or translational storytelling.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Communicated Narrative Sense-Making Theory Communication is conceptualized as storytelling content, structure, and process in CNSM theory. As articulated previously, a central premise of CNSM is conceptualizing and operationalizing narrative as communication. As Koenig Kellas and Kranstuber Horstman (2015) established in their communicated sense-making (CSM) model, there are several sense-making devices, such as attributions, perspective-taking, and stories, that are often or typically considered as cognitive, but ought to be further considered communicatively. CNSM is one of those CSM devices. Thus, although much extant research treats stories as individual constructs and focuses little on how stories are collaboratively told, CNSM requires a focus on storytelling. CNSM involves multiple methodologies to examine storytelling, including interviews, surveys, video-taped observations (e.g., joint storytelling), experimental designs, and expressive writing, to name a few. It also allows for multiple forms of analysis, including thematic coding, quantitative rating and/or coding, statistical analysis, and mixed methods forms of analysis (e.g., cross-case data-matrices). Although there is no one—or correct—method for using CNSM, following

70 Kellas Riessman (2008), I argue for the need for conceptual boundaries such that stories or storytelling content, structure, or process must be the object of inquiry in CNSM research. In other words, narrative is not just a method for knowing about other concepts (see Koenig Kellas, 2015), but in CNSM, the content, structure, or process of narratives and storytelling are the focus of the research.

Research and Practical Applications of Communicated Narrative Sense-Making Theory In current research, scholars are using CNSM to understand the impact of retrospective storytelling in consequential family contexts. For example, Castle (2015) grounded her research in CNSM by executing a two-study, mixed methods retrospective storytelling study on the family stories of women with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). First, she analyzed the illness stories SLE women tell and identified three overarching SLE family myths, including harmonious, battle, and abandoned. Castle found that participants with harmonious myths reported significantly higher levels of mental health and family satisfaction than those whose myths were coded as battle or abandoned. This mixed methods research will be the basis for the design of translational storytelling interventions, such as diagnostic tools meant to help health care providers identify SLE families at risk of individual and relational challenges in the context of SLE and identify services to promote family coping. Jackl’s research on untellable tales uses CNSM to understand the content and process of retrospective storytelling when the significant family stories are untellable, such as in the case of stories that break canonical scripts (e.g., Jackl, 2016) or in the case of untellable parenting stories that may put parents in a bad light. Finally, Flood-Grady and Koenig Kellas (2017) use CNSM retrospective storytelling to examine the lasting impact of stories emerging adults report having heard in their families about mental illness. Horstman and colleagues have recently extended research on interactional storytelling by examining the relationship between ISM and individual narrative sense-making (NSM). For example, Horstman, Maliski, Hays, Cox, Enderle, and Nelson (2016) found that the ISM behaviors of CPT and coherence helped to explain changes in daughters’ NSM over time such that higher levels of daughter CPT predicted more positive stories over time, and higher levels of coherence between mothers and daughters during a storytelling interaction predicted higher levels of coherence in daughters’ written stories over time. Finally, in addition to our work on cancer and palliative care, we are in the midst of translational storytelling research testing the psychosocial (e.g., mental health, loneliness, generativity) and physiological (e.g., cortisol) effects of a storytelling intervention for residents in assisted living facilities (ALFs), with the hope of further developing empirically supported interventions for residents and staff. We are planning additional translational storytelling interventions in the context of equine assisted learning, among others.

Communicated Narrative Sense-Making

71

Evaluation of Communicated Narrative Sense-Making Theory CNSM is innovative and creates a framework within which to give systematic attention to a significant and prevalent, yet understudied, communicative process—storytelling. Its grounding in post-positivism but openness to other paradigms, along with its flexibility across methodologies, renders CNSM a theory useful to multiple scholars interested in narrative meaning-making. Its focus on health and well-being, along with other important psychosocial and physiological indicators of health and coping, underscore the social and personal significance of storytelling in everyday life. The three heuristics provide guidance and flexibility for conducting research on retrospective, interactional, and translational storytelling. Its flexibility, of course, is also a limitation of the theory. Because of its mixed method orientation and three heuristics, scholars may tread on more uncertain ground when attempting to couch their work in CNSM than in theories that are axiomatic or further established. This chapter, including the theory’s developing propositions, is meant to reduce this uncertainty, but because the theory is still in its early stages of development and testing, it will evolve over time. Interactional storytelling studies may be the easiest to approach because the theory is the most prescriptive when it comes to ISM propositions. We need additional research to narrow down the operationalizations of retrospective storytelling content that will eventually animate a finalized version of this theory. Translational storytelling research is, like most translational scholarship, part of a larger, longitudinal body of work and may be more difficult to approach prior to engaging in retrospective and/or interactional storytelling research. However, translation is essential to the effective and ethical treatment of our research; CNSM provides a framework for engaging in the important endeavor of translation.

Continuing the Conversation CNSM has been fermenting over the last decade or more. Like any good vintage, it will take time to perfect. I invite scholars to test and further evidence the propositions. Storytelling is the primary way in which we make sense of our relationships, our lives, loves, triumphs, and difficulties. The content and process of our storytelling is consequential. This theory offers heuristics for further exploring and solidifying our understanding of the intricacies of the links among storytelling, sense-making, and health.

Notes 1. Of course, these studies are cross-sectional and cannot determine causality. In other words, although CNSM presumes lasting effects of storytelling, more longitudinal and/or experimental research is needed to test these assumptions.

72 Kellas

References Beach, W., Dozier, D. M., Buller, M. K., Gutzmer, K., Fluharty, L., Myers, V. H., & Buller, D. B. (2016). The Conversations about Cancer (CAC) Project-phase II: National findings from viewing When Cancer Calls and implications for entertainmenteducation (E-E). Patient Education Counseling, 99, 393–399. Castle, K. (2015). Illness narratives of women with systemic lupus erythematosus and family communication: A mixed methods study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http:// digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstuddiss/35/ Charon, R. (2006). Narrative medicine: Honoring the stories of illness. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Flood-Grady, E., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2016). Sense-making, socialization, and stigma: Exploring narratives told in families about mental illness. Manuscript submitted for conference presentation. Frank, A. (1997). The wounded storyteller: Body, illness, and ethics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 823–865. Goldsmith, J., Wittenberg-Lyles, E., Frisby, B. N., & Platt, C. S. (2015) The entry-level physical therapist: A case for COMFORT communication training. Health Communication, 30, 737–745. Harter, L. M., & Hayward, C. (Producers). (2010). The art of the possible. Athens, OH: Ohio University Scripps College of Communication. Hecht, M. L., & Miller-Day, M. (2007). The Drug Resistance Strategies Project as translational research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 35, 343–349. Holman, A., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2016, November). “Say something instead of nothing:” Adolescents’ perceptions of their parents’ real and ideal conversations about sex. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Philadelphia, PA. Holmberg, D., Orbuch, T. L., & Veroff, J. (2004). Thrice-told tales: Married couples tell their stories. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Horstman, H. K., Maliski, R., Hays, A., Cox, J., Enderle, A., & Nelson, L. R. (2016). Unfolding narrative meaning over time: The contributions of mother-daughter conversations of difficulty on daughter narrative sense-making and well-being. Communication Monographs, 83, 326–348. Jackl, J. (2016, November). “Do you understand why I share that?”: Exploring tellability within untellable romantic relationship origin tales. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, Philadelphia, PA. Jackl, J. (in press). Rules of telling: Exploring narrative adaptation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Koenig Kellas, J. (2005). Family ties: Communicating identity through jointly told family stories. Communication Monographs, 72, 365–389. Koenig Kellas, J. (2015). Narrative theories: Making sense of interpersonal communication. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 253–266). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Koenig Kellas, J., Baxter, L. A., LeClair-Underberg, C., Thatcher, M. S., Routsong, T. R., Lamb Normand, E., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2014). Narratively (re)framing stepfamily

Communicated Narrative Sense-Making

73

beginnings: The relationship between adult stepchildren’s stepfamily origin stories and their perceptions of the family. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 149–166. Koenig Kellas, J., Carr, K., Horstman, H. K., & DiLillo, D. (in press). The Communicated Perspective-Taking Rating System and links to well-being in marital conflict. Personal Relationships. Koenig Kellas, J., Castle, K., Johnson, A., & Cohen, M. Z. (2016, November). Cancer as communal: Understanding communication and relationships from the perspectives of patients,survivors, family caregivers, and health care providers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association, Philadelphia, PA. Koenig Kellas, J., & Kranstuber Horstman, H. (2015). Communicated narrative sensemaking: Understanding family narratives, storytelling, and the construction of meaning through a communicative lens. In L. Turner & R. West (Eds.), Sage handbook of family communication (pp. 76–90). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Koenig Kellas, J., & Trees, A. R. (2005). Rating interactional sense-making in the process of joint storytelling. In V. Manusov (Ed.), The sourcebook of nonverbal measures: Going beyond words (pp. 281–294). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.. Koenig Kellas, J., & Trees, A. R. (2006). Finding meaning in difficult family experiences: Sense-making and interaction processes during joint family storytelling. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 49–76. Koenig Kellas, J., & Trees, A. (2013). Family stories and storytelling: Windows into the family soul. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (2nd ed., pp. 391–406). New York, NY: Routledge. Koenig Kellas, J., Trees, A. R., Schrodt, P., LeClair-Underberg, C., & Willer, E. K. (2010). Exploring links between well-being and interactional sense-making in married couples’ jointly told stories of stress. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 174–193. Koenig Kellas, J., Willer, E. K., & Trees, A. R. (2013). Communicated perspective-taking: Spouses’ perceptions of each others’ behaviors during stories of marital stress. Southern Communication Journal, 78, 326–351. Kranstuber Horstman, H. (2013). “Love stories aren’t always like the movies”: The positive and negative relational implications of inherited parental courtship stories. In J. Koenig Kellas (Ed.), Family storytelling: Negotiating identity, teaching lessons and making meaning (pp. 57–78). New York, NY: Routledge. McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 233–238. Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Miller, K. I. (2000). Common ground from the post-positivist perspective: From “straw person” argument to collaborative co-existence. In S. R. Corman & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational communication: Finding common ground (pp. 46–67). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. Los Angeles, CA: Sage. Stone, E. (2004). Black sheep and kissing cousins: How our family stories shape us. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Trees, A. R., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2009). Telling tales: Enacting family relationships in joint storytelling about difficult family experiences. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 91–111.

74 Kellas Wethington, E., Herman, H., & Pillemer, K. (2012). Introduction: Translational research in the social and behavioral sciences. In E. Wethington & R. E. Dunifon (Eds.), Research for the public good: Applying the methods of translational research to improve human health and well-being. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice. New York, NY: Norton.

7

Communication Accommodation Theory and Communication Theory of Identity Theories of Communication and Identity Jordan Soliz and Colleen Warner Colaner

When we think of family, the idea of a close-knit, homogenous group often comes to mind. Sentimental images and media portrayals typically convey family as a group of individuals with shared values, attitudes, and beliefs. Moreover, popular discourse remains nostalgic for an off-base notion of how families “used to be” (Coontz, 2000), promoting an idea that the ideal family eschews difference for the betterment of the collective whole. In actuality, our family experiences are quite different from these idealized perceptions. Even in close and cohesive families, individual family members bring their own experiences and worldviews to their familial relationships and interactions. Families certainly (attempt to) construct a shared family identity by promoting and socializing—explicitly and implicitly—what it means to be a member of a family, including expectations for our behavior. However, we also recognize that individual family members are unique and, as such, communication in family relationships is inherently tied to the different identities in play. By identity, we are referring to idiosyncratic aspects of individual family members (e.g., personality), family members’ connection with various social identities (e.g., religion, ethnic-racial identity, age group, gender), and the overall relational or family culture. Thus, there is a clear intersection between family communication and these different dimensions of identity. Why do we talk with our parents in a style that is often very different from how we interact with siblings? How do family members talk with each other about social issues when they have distinct political and religious orientations? Do the expectations about how we interact and communicate in our family reflect who we are as individuals? Does our family interact in ways that differ from social expectations on how families should be? If so, does this affect our perceptions of our family and ourselves? In this chapter, we introduce two theories of communication that address these types of questions and various others that attend to identity and difference in family: communication accommodation theory and communication theory of identity. We begin with communication accommodation theory.

76 Soliz & Warner Colaner

Intellectual Tradition of Communication Accommodation Theory Communication accommodation theory (CAT) emerged in the early 1970s (e.g., Giles, 1973) as a framework to understand the motivations for and ways in which individuals adjust their speech (e.g., dialects, accents) in interactions. CAT further developed over the next few decades to include a wider range of behaviors we may adapt in interactions (e.g., topic of discussion, various nonverbal cues) and evaluative outcomes (e.g., communication satisfaction, interpersonal solidarity, attitudes toward individuals and social groups) of these communicative shifts (for review, see McGlone & Giles, 2011). Further, the theory posits that there are various factors that influence our motivations for communicative shifts, as well as the manner in which we perceive the way in which others communicate with us. CAT emerged from a post-positivist tradition relying primarily on experimental methods in early development of the tenets and propositions of the theory. However, as outlined by Gallois, Weatherall, and Giles (2016) and Soliz and Bergquist (2016), CAT has emerged as a theory of paradigmatic utility guiding research on a variety of orientations and methodologies (e.g., discourse and conversational analysis, survey designs, experiments, ethnography, qualitative interviews). CAT’s heuristic value as a theory is evidenced in its application to a variety of contexts (e.g., intercultural relations, intergenerational interactions, patient-physician communication, police-civilian relations, computer-mediated discourse). Further, one of the reasons CAT has “morphed into a communication theory of enormous scope” (Griffin, 2009, p. 397) is because it attends to both interpersonal and intergroup dynamics of interactions. Tajfel and Turner’s (1979) foundational work on social identity theory and intergroup relations emphasized that our self-concept develops, in part, from the social groups from which individuals belong and this social identity influences our attitudes and behaviors (i.e., language and communication) toward and about others. The study of intergroup communication, therefore, asserts that interactions are influenced by interpersonal and intergroup features and it is in this interpersonal-intergroup orientation that CAT has found its foothold in family communication scholarship over the last decade (Soliz & Giles, 2014). Soliz and Rittenour (2012) assert that family relationships are not immune from group distinctions that are present in non-family, non-intimate relations. Family relations may be influenced by differences in social identities, such as ethnic-racial differences in multiethnic-racial families (Soliz, Thorson, & Rittenour, 2009) or age distinctions in intergenerational family relationships (Soliz & Harwood, 2006). Differences are also evident in formative family processes, such as stepfamily relationships (e.g., DiVerniero, 2013; Speer, Giles, & Denes, 2013). In this approach to investigating families, CAT offers a framework for understanding how communication both affects and is influenced by these familial differences and how our communication is enacted to maintain relational, personal, and familial identity.

Theories of Communication and Identity 77

Main Goals and Features of Communication Accommodation Theory CAT’s focus is on the communicative adjustments that occur in our interactions, emphasizing two primary types of adjustments. Convergence refers to strategies in which individuals adapt communication to be similar to others. Conversely, divergence reflects communicative adjustments made to highlight differences with others. However, individuals may also adhere to a maintenance strategy in which communication behaviors remain the same throughout an interaction. CAT also accounts for various nuances within these strategies (see Dragojevic, Gasiorek, & Giles, 2015 for review). For instance, individuals may converge or diverge to or away from more socially acceptable talk based on the goals of the interaction. A teenage child, as an example, is often going to converge to a more respectful style of talk compared to how they talk with their peers to match parents’ and societal expectations of how a child should talk to an adult (Williams & Thurlow, 2005). CAT speaks to various motivations for our affective and cognitive motivations for our communicative adjustments. Thus, we could envision this child adapting their communication to this preferred style, especially with certain affective (e.g., approval) or tangible (e.g., money for shopping) goals. CAT also proposes that convergence and divergence can occur on various communicative dimensions (e.g., topic of conversation, speech style, nonverbal cues) and these communicative adjustments may or may not be matched by other individuals in conversations. Referring back to our previous example, there is likely an asymmetrical interaction between the teenager and parent, as we would not expect the parent to adjust their communication to the style of their adolescent child. For instance, an interaction in which a parent is using adolescent slang would likely be perceived as awkward and uncomfortable on the part of the child even if the parent is doing so with the motive of connecting with the child. In fact, this example of different perspectives on the behavior of a parent speaks to another tenet of CAT. Specifically, regardless of what is actually— or objectively—occurring in the interaction, individuals in the interactions have subjective perceptions, or evaluations, of these interactions. Further, while one may intend to adapt their communication in a specific manner—what Thakerar, Giles, and Cheshire (1982) refer to as psychological accommodation—the actual communication may be much different. The potential variability in perceptions of communication is evident in one of the foundational models based on CAT: the communication predicament of aging model (Ryan, Giles, Bartolucci, & Henwood, 1986). This model outlines the process in which young adults will often adapt their communication to perceived cognitive and communicative deficiencies in an older adult typically based on specific stereotypes of older adults. Often, these linguistic and nonverbal adjustments include simplified language, louder talk, and a lower speech rate as the younger adult is attempting to converge to the perceived needs of the older adult. Yet, this style of communication is often evaluated negatively and perceived as patronizing, or

78 Soliz & Warner Colaner overaccommodating, to what is actually desired by the older adult. Highlighting another tenet of CAT—the relational, identity, and social outcomes of communication—the model asserts that this patronizing behavior can negatively influence the older adult’s overall self-concept and well-being. This negative effect of being the recipient of patronizing communication is also evident in intergenerational family relationships. Both grandparents and grandchildren report that perceived patronizing communication not only is dissatisfying but has negative implications for emotional closeness in the relationship (Harwood, 2000).

How Communication is Conceptualized in Communication Accommodation Theory CAT posits that there are a variety of linguistic and nonverbal dimensions that can be adapted as part of the strategies individuals enact in interaction. As such, communication is typically discussed in broad terms of accommodation and nonaccommodation, with accommodating behaviors reflecting attempts to match or meet the needs, desires, or expectations of a conversational partner’s communicative preferences. Nonaccommodation references situations in which communication fails to meet these needs or expectations (i.e., underaccommodation) of a conversational partner or, as alluded to in our example above, overshoots the partner’s preference (i.e., overaccommodation). Whereas accommodation is often associated with positive outcomes and nonaccommodative behaviors linked with negative consequences, this is not always the case and there are intricacies to how these behaviors function in interactions (see Giles, 2016). Returning to our example of grandparent-grandchild interactions, for instance, Harwood (2000) found that accommodating behaviors on the part of the grandchild are evaluated positively by the grandparent and likely enhance relational solidarity. Yet, for grandchildren, this positive evaluation is only evident when the accommodation is by choice as opposed to being forced or enacted because of undesired expectations (“I avoid certain ways of talking,” p. 751). The various tenets of the theory as well as the conceptualization of communication in CAT have been synthesized into specific principles of accommodation (Dragojevic et al., 2015). For instance, one function of communication accommodation is to increase or minimize social distance. Although space does not allow for a complete reiteration of the principles, they are used to guide and refine current CAT-based inquiries.

Research and Practical Applications of Communication Accommodation Theory In this chapter, we have already discussed some of the family communication scholarship invoking CAT as a theoretical framework and CAT-based family communication research has increased dramatically over the last decade (Soliz & Giles, 2014). For instance, Ng, He, and Loong (2004) investigated discourse

Theories of Communication and Identity 79 in multigenerational family conversations in which there are differences in language proficiency. In the inquiry, they identified processes whereby middleaged parents served as accommodative brokers between grandparents who only spoke Chinese and grandchildren fluent in English. A more recent study that addresses an understudied yet increasingly common family type—interfaith families—demonstrates how CAT is applied to understand how families manage differences as they balance different faiths with the desire to achieve relational harmony. As families are increasingly composed of numerous social identities, interfaith families are on the rise. Colaner, Soliz, and Nelson (2014) investigated religious differences, specifically examining when parents and their adult children have different religious beliefs. Not surprisingly, the findings revealed that religious differences were associated with decreased feelings of relational solidarity. Yet, the nature of the communication relevant to these religious differences played a role in the relational solidarity. In this study, accommodative and nonaccommodative behaviors reflect a sociolinguistic strategy at the heart of CAT: discourse management. For instance, parental communication accommodation—including religiousspecific supportive communication and respecting divergent values—was associated with increased feelings of relational satisfaction and shared family identity. In fact, moderation analysis revealed that the negative relationship between religious difference and relational solidarity was not significant when families had high levels of accommodative communication. Conversely, aspects of parental nonaccommodation of children’s religious beliefs (e.g., emphasizing divergent values) contributed to low religious solidarity as it highlighted intergroup dimensions in the family. In general, the finding from this study suggests that accommodative communication has the potential to allow families to transcend social identity difference through communication that is supportive and inclusive of diverse commitments and worldviews.

Evaluation of Communication Accommodation Theory As evidenced in CAT’s application to multiple contexts (Soliz & Giles, 2014), it is a theory with great heuristic value and scope (Littlejohn & Foss, 2005) given its consideration of interpersonal and intergroup dynamics in understanding human interaction and relationships. As such, its application to family relationships and interactions allows us to account for the manner in which communication influences and reflects familial solidarity or relational distance as well as the degree to which our interactions recognize and attend to personal and social difference in our family relationships. Further, given the various sociolinguistic strategies at the heart of CAT, the theory also recognizes the multiple modes of behaviors that constitute our interactions (e.g., topics of conversation, interpretability strategies, interpersonal control behaviors), thereby not limiting the theoretical scope of what constitutes communication in a family. As pointed out by Giles and Soliz (2014), CAT is not without its limitations (e.g., identifying direct and indirect associations with communication and

80 Soliz & Warner Colaner specific outcomes, questioning conscious vs. unconscious motivations for our communication). Within the context of family, there are additional limitations that offer opportunities for research and theoretical development. For instance, CAT focuses primarily on dyadic interactions and, in the application to family, has not extensively accounted for family system factors or sequential nature of familial interactions. Further, CAT does not currently emphasize the relational history and general relational dynamics in understanding our communication. CAT does, however, recognize the significance of sociohistorical context in understanding enactment and evaluation of behaviors, and we see relational context as a natural extension of this aspect of the theory—e.g., How are accommodative and nonaccommodative practices embedded in family communication patterns? How does familial identity influence perceptions and evaluations of behavior from familial and non-familial others? Next, we turn to the communication theory of identity.

Intellection Tradition of Communication Theory of Identity Based on Hecht’s early work on communication and identity, especially in intra/interethnic communication (e.g., Hecht, Larkey, & Johnson, 1992; Hecht, Ribeau, & Sedano, 1990), communication theory of identity (CTI) emerged as a theory that accounted for various philosophical perspectives on identity. As outlined in Hecht, Warren, Jung, and Krieger (2005), CTI “attempts to integrate the holism from Asian and African conceptions, polarity from the Greeks, harmony from African views, collectivism from Asian ideas, and the individual orientation in the Greek tradition” (p. 259). Further, the tenets of the theory were influenced by the social identity and intergroup traditions as well as more postmodern orientations and interpretive approaches to communication (Hecht, 2014). Thus, both in its development and application, CTI is not constrained to one paradigmatic tradition as is evident in the methodological orientations across CTI scholarship, such as qualitative interviews (Hecht & Faulkner, 2000) and surveys (Wadsworth, Hecht, & Jung, 2008).

Main Goals and Features of Communication Theory of Identity CTI positions identity as consisting of four interdependent layers: personal, enacted, relational, and communal. Personal identity refers to self-concept focusing on an individual-level understanding (i.e., definition of self); enacted identity addresses the manner in which we communicate, or perform, our identity, relational identity reflects aspects of identity that are shaped in and through relationships. Relational identities emerge in various forms: identity as a product of social interaction, in which identity is modified and influenced by others’ view of the individual (i.e., how those in relationships view us), identity as defined by relational roles (e.g., parent or spouse), and identity as the relational unit (e.g., being part of a family group). The relational frame importantly

Theories of Communication and Identity 81 includes the relationship itself as a form of identity, such as a joint couple identity referring to “the unique, shared identity that is constructed and established by relational partners” (Kennedy-Lightsey, Martin, LaBelle, & Weber, 2015, p. 233). Finally, communal identity attends to the manner in which larger social discourses (e.g., media depictions, popular culture) and social identities (e.g., ethnicity, age, sexual orientation) shape how we view ourselves in relation to social expectations and depictions. These four identity layers interpenetrate and inform one another. However, CTI acknowledges that identity layers have the potential to be misaligned, thus forming identity gaps (Wadsworth et al., 2008). Identity gaps can occur across 11 possibilities as two (personal-enacted gap), three (personal-enacted-relational gap), and four (personal-enacted-relational-communal gap) layers contradict (Hecht et al., 2005). CTI scholars have researched two identity gaps most frequently: the personal-relational identity gap, occurring when one’s selfperception differs from others’ perception of that person, and the personal-enacted identity gap, existing when one presents the self during social interaction in a manner that differs from one’s self-perception (Jung & Hecht, 2004; Wadsworth et al., 2008). Scholars have also recently identified within layer identity gaps, when aspects of an identity are inconsistent with one another. Given that the relational layer is multidimensional, relational-relational gaps are most likely to occur. Such a gap emerges when memberships in distinct family groups conflict, such as an adoptee’s simultaneous identification with birth and adoptive families (Colaner, Halliwell, & Guignon, 2014). Kam and Hecht (2009) theorized within layer gaps in reference to the relational layer of the grandchildgrandparent relationship and have suggested within layer gaps are likely to occur with regard to the other identity layers. Identity gaps are a natural byproduct of complex social interaction as people present a version of themselves while communicating with others that may differ from other aspects of their identity (Jung & Hecht, 2004). Beyond the presence of these gaps, it is important to consider the degree to which identity layers contradict and how such a gap has a bearing on an individual’s sense of self. Individuals tend to experience relational and personal distress when identity gaps are large or occur frequently (Hecht et al., 2005).

How Communication is Conceptualized in Communication Theory of Identity CTI conceptualizes communication as central to identity in that a “person’s sense of self is part of his or her social behavior, and the sense of self emerges and is defined and redefined in social behavior” (Hecht et al., 2005, p. 260). The identity layers of CTI are embedded in the production of shared meaning within relational and social groups. Identity is created and sustained by presenting a version of one’s self, understanding others’ view of one’s self, and interaction with individuals in close relationships. In this sense, communication constitutes our identity (Hecht, Jackson, & Pitts, 2005).

82 Soliz & Warner Colaner The clearest manifestation of the mutual dependence of communication and identity is in the enacted identity layer. According to CTI, the enacted layer points to the performance of our identity to others. Individuals’ expression of their identity in social interactions is considered to be the manifestation of identity. Jung and Hecht (2004) explain this further, stating, “some aspects of communication are identity, and at the same time, identity influences communication” (p. 266). This cyclical, mutually dependent relationship between communication and identity interacts with other layers of identity. The enactment of identity stems from self-conceptions of one’s identity (i.e., personal layer), is rooted in roles and histories with other people (i.e., relational layer), and is guided by social discourses and identities (i.e., communal layer).

Research and Practical Applications of Communication Theory of Identity In recent years, CTI has been used as a theoretical framework for understanding family relationships and family communication. Kam and Hecht (2009) found that young-adult grandchildren who perceived a personal-enacted identity gap in their interactions with their grandparents tended to use more topic avoidance and experience low communication and relational satisfaction. KennedyLightsey et al. (2015) revealed similar findings assessing married couples, finding that identity gaps were related to decreased feelings of relational and communication satisfaction as well as feelings of being understood. Kennedy-Lightsey et al.’s study importantly assessed gaps related to the couple-enacted identity gap, revealing that couples engage in joint identity performance. Colaner et al. (2014) conducted focus groups to understand the extent to which adult adoptees experienced identity gaps. Analyses revealed that adoptees’ relational identity layer with the adoptive and birth families was a meaningful component of their personal identity. At the same time, relationships with the birth and adoptive family conflicted with one another and with the adoptees’ personal layer of identity, generating relational-relational and personal-relational identity gaps. Nuru’s (2014) research illuminated the identity gaps experienced by individuals who identify as transgender. This work reveals the important role of communication in negotiating transgender identity in interactions with others, demonstrating the prevalence of personal-enacted, personal-relational, and enacted relational identity gaps.

Evaluation of Communication Theory of Identity CTI is particularly suited to illuminate diverse family experiences. CTI’s consideration of multiple layers of identity and communication speaks to the complexity of family relationships. The multidimensional nature of the relational layer, in particular, can guide family communication scholars to better understand complex family forms. As families are increasingly difficult to categorize within discrete structures (Galvin, 2013), individuals will have a larger array of

Theories of Communication and Identity 83 relational identities. Diverse family forms, such as blended families, multiethnicracial families, and adoptive/foster families, as well as families containing individuals created through reproductive technology or who identify as same-sex or transgender individuals, generate additional opportunities to form relational identities. With multiple relational identities come additional opportunities for identity gaps between the relational identities as well as between relational and other identity layers. Additionally, modern families tend to have a greater diversity of social identities within a single family unit, such as race, age, religion, and sexual orientation (Soliz & Rittenour, 2012). Increased variety of social identities generates more possibilities for identity gaps related to the communal layer. CTI’s ability to model identity gaps at numerous, specific locations has the potential to intricately explain complex family structures and experiences. Because CTI positions identity and communication as mutually dependent, family communication scholars studying complex family structures will be able to use CTI extensively and productively. At the same time, the application of CTI to personal experience can at times be murky. While the distinct layers are clearly articulated, the layers interpenetrate with one another, such that all layers are dependent on one another. Such interdependence makes it difficult to understand a single layer in isolation. Perhaps this difficulty in separating the layers is the reason for a relatively limited scope of research applying the identity gaps. In general, communication scholars have operationalized few identity gaps in research studies. The bulk of research examines personal-relational, personal-enacted, and relational-enacted gaps (e.g., Colaner et al., 2014; Jung & Hecht, 2004; Kam & Hecht, 2009; Nuru, 2014). Relatively few studies have examined gaps related to the communal layer, gaps between three or four layers, or within aspects of single layers.

Continuing the Conversation As we discuss in the introduction to this chapter, families have and will continue to be social collectives characterized by relational networks in which there are both shared and divergent values, identities, and worldviews. As such, we need theories that can attend to how families manage identity and difference as well as the manner in which communication reflects general familial identity. Likewise, current family theories need to explicitly account for more macrolevel social dimensions (i.e., social identity distinctions) that are increasingly common in the landscape of modern families (e.g., interfaith, multiethnic-racial families, families with different sexual identities). Both CAT and CTI speak to these needs and thus we see great promise for continued application to the family context. Further, there is opportunity to integrate these theoretical terrains to better understand family functioning and the role of family in shaping our skills and practices in interactions for others. For instance, the manner in which families engender communication competencies may lead to a larger repertoire of communication behaviors allowing for more appropriate accommodative behaviors. This, in turn, may minimize the levels and

84 Soliz & Warner Colaner consequences of enacted identity gaps. Further, identity gaps in family relationships may be minimized (or amplified) by the nature of perceived accommodation (or nonaccommodation).

References Coontz, S. (2000). Historical perspectives on family diversity. In D. H. Demo, K. R. Allen, & M. A. Fine (Eds.), Handbook of family diversity (pp. 15–31). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Colaner, C. W., Halliwell, D., & Guignon, P. (2014). “What do you say to your mother when your mother’s standing beside you?” Birth and adoptive family contributions to adoptive identity via relational identity and relational–relational identity gaps. Communication Monographs, 81, 469–494. Colaner, C. W., Soliz, J., & Nelson, L. R. (2014). Communicatively managing religious identity difference in parent-child relationships: The role of accommodative and nonaccommodative communication. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 310–327. DiVerniero, R. A. (2013). Children of divorce and their nonresidential parent’s family: Examining perceptions of communication accommodation. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 301–320. Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J., & Giles, H. (2015). Communication accommodation theory. In C. Berger & M. Roloff (Eds.), International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic006/abstract Gallois, C., Weatherall, A., & Giles, H. (2016). CAT and talk in action. In H. Giles (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 105–122). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Galvin, K. (2013). The family of the future: What do we face? In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (2nd ed., pp. 531–545). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87–105. Giles, H. (2016). Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Giles, H., & Soliz, J. (2014). Communication accommodation theory: A situated framework for relational, family, and intergroup dynamics. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 160–174). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Griffin, E. (2009). Communication accommodation theory of Howard Giles. A first look at communication theory (pp. 387–399). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Harwood, J. (2000). Communicative predictors of solidarity in the grandparentgrandchild relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 743–766. Hecht, M. L. (2014). Communication theory of identity: Multilayered understandings of performed identities. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 175–188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hecht, M. L., & Faulkner, S. L. (2000). Sometimes Jewish, sometimes not: The closeting of Jewish American identity. Communication Studies, 51, 372–387.

Theories of Communication and Identity 85 Hecht, M. L., Jackson, R. L. II, & Pitts, M. J. (2005). Culture: Intersections of intergroup and identity theories. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 21–42). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Hecht, M. L., Larkey, L. K., & Johnson, J. N. (1992). African American and European American perceptions of problematic issues in interethnic communication effectiveness. Human Communication Research, 19, 209–236. Hecht, M. L., Ribeau, S., & Sedano, M. V. (1990). A Mexican American perspective on interethnic communication. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 14, 31–55. Hecht, M. L., Warren, J. R., Jung, E., & Krieger, J. L. (2005). A communication theory of identity: Development, theoretical perspective, and future directions. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication (pp. 257–278). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jung, E., & Hecht, M. L. (2004). Elaborating the communication theory of identity: Identity gaps and communication outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 52, 265–283. Kam, J. A., & Hecht, M. L. (2009). Investigating the role of identity gaps among communicative and relational outcomes within the grandparent-grandchild relationship: The young-adult grandchildren’s perspective. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 456–480. Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., Martin, M. M., LaBelle, S., & Weber, K. (2015). Attachment, identity gaps, and communication and relational outcomes in marital couples’ public performances. Journal of Family Communication, 15, 232–248. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2005). Theories of human communication (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. McGlone, M. S., & Giles, H. (2011). Language and interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 201–237). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ng, S. H., He, A., & Loong, C. (2004). Tri-generational family conversations: Communication accommodation and brokering. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 449–464. Nuru, A. K. (2014). Between layers: Understanding the communicative negotiation of conflicting identities by transgender individuals. Communication Studies, 65, 281–297. Ryan, E. B., Giles, H., Bartolucci, G., & Henwood, K. (1986). Psycholinguistics and social psychological components of communication by and with the elderly. Language and Communication, 6, 1–24. Soliz, J., & Bergquist, G. (2016). Methods of CAT inquiry. In H. Giles (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 123–152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Soliz, J., & Giles, H. (2014). Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of Communication Accommodation Theory. In E. Cohen (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 38 (pp. 108–143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Soliz, J., & Harwood, J. (2006). Shared family identity, age salience, and intergroup contact: Investigation of the grandparent-grandchild relationship. Communication Monographs, 73, 87–107. Soliz, J., & Rittenour, C. E. (2012). Family as an intergroup arena. In H. Giles (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 331–343). New York, NY: Routledge.

86 Soliz & Warner Colaner Soliz, J., Thorson, A., & Rittenour, C. E. (2009). Communicative correlates of satisfaction, family identity, and group salience in multiracial/ethnic families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71, 819–832. Speer, R. B., Giles, H., & Denes, A. (2013). Investigating stepparent-stepchild interactions: The role of communication accommodation. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 218–241. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. C. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 205–255). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thakerar, J. N., Giles, H., & Cheshire, J. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In K. Scherer & C. Fraser (Eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205–255). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wadsworth, B. C., Hecht, M. L., & Jung, E. (2008). The role of identity gaps, discrimination, and acculturation in international students’ educational satisfaction in American classrooms. Communication Education, 57, 64–87. Williams, A., & Thurlow, C. (2005). Talking adolescence: Perspectives on communication in the teenage years. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

8

Communication Privacy Management Theory Understanding Families Sandra Petronio

In today’s world, families deal persistently with questions about private information. Parents face the task of telling children about genetic diseases discovered in their family, and adult children are often afraid to tell their parents about their HIV status. When a family member is struggling to manage a stigmatized illness, families often must judge whether to guard that information or reveal it to outsiders. Both keeping and telling may be either beneficial or detrimental to the family member or others in the family. Just like managing privacy with outsiders, within families there are judgments members make about how much to share or keep private from other family members. Dealing with privacy in families, although complex, is critically important. Indeed, family privacy is essential to family functioning because it often furnishes self-protection from public view, grants a degree of latitude for interpreting social norms, and affords a buffer zone from social pressures, performing an ameliorative function (Berardo, 1974). Sustaining family privacy is frequently—although not exclusively—conducted within the backstage behavior of family life (Berardo, 1974). Backstage actions thus function as a testing ground for front stage social behavior that families are expected to perform with outsiders. Theoretically, the backstage allows families to try out social performances among parents, siblings, or spouses who typically accord them loyalties and refrain from ridicule or punishing acts if they fall short of anticipated outcomes. Although backstage practice is a viable part of any privacy definition, the difficulty lies in the fact that privacy management often involves more than behavior enacted “behind closed doors.” This chapter presents communication privacy management (CPM) theory as a vehicle for bridging both the definitional parameters and the processional dynamics of privacy in families (Petronio, 1991, 2002). Underpinning CPM theory is attentiveness to the variability of privacy choices and awareness of the dialectical nature found in private disclosures (see also Altman, Vinsel, & Brown, 1981).

88 Petronio

Intellectual Tradition of Communication Privacy Management Theory CPM theory highlights the multifaceted nature of privacy management in a parsimonious fashion. Regarding family interactions, CPM theory provides an organizational structure that captures the dynamic sense of family communication patterns, yet also allows us to examine the process that includes breakdowns in an understandable way (Caughlin & Petronio, 2004; Child & Petronio, 2015; Petronio, 2010). In the context of developing theories, CPM theory is relatively “new,” having been published first in 2002. CPM theory is grounded in the discipline of communication and borne out of the way people communicatively interact with one another. The information communicated is private to the individual and is considered as such because it holds a degree of potential vulnerability for that person. CPM theory has also been influenced by the work of Altman particularly from his research and teachings on issues of privacy and the environment in which social behavior is enacted (Altman, 1975; Altman & Taylor, 1973). The early development of CPM theory started prior to the 2002 publication. One of the initial goals was better grasping of the meaning of “self-disclosure” (Petronio, 2002). The 1970s brought a proliferation of research on selfdisclosure. A question that drove the initiation of CPM theory considered what information about the “self” defined the nature of disclosure. In searching for an answer, it became clear that disclosure is more about the process of giving and receiving information than about the kind of information that is revealed. CPM argues that information disclosed represents what is considered “private” and owned by an individual. Having determined “disclosure” as a process and private information as what people reveal, the next decision was to use families as a prototype to initiate the development of CPM theory. Given the complexity inherent in grasping the way an invested group of people navigate something as complex as managing both their personal privacy as well as family privacy matters set the stage to move the ideas forward. To date, CPM theory has broadened understanding of how people manage information they treat as private. CPM theory has developed a “privacy language” that helps people talk about how they regulate privacy disclosure choices and the outcomes when there are breakdowns. CPM has led to a significant number of research investigations and applications of its concepts. At present, there are a considerable number of citations that illustrate the utility of CPM and validate its many theoretical propositions. The citations show the theory’s use across contexts such as research on health, families, interpersonal relationships, organizational settings, and social media. Moreover, approximately 11 countries are represented in the CPM research literature. As a communication-based theory that initially grew from exploring family privacy, the expansion to other communication areas has been widespread and the theory is now used by many other disciplines (for reference, visit www.cpmcenter. iupui.edu).

Communication Privacy Management Theory 89

Main Goals and Features of Communication Privacy Management Theory Communication privacy management is a practical theory that helps explain how people manage private information (Petronio, 2002). As a consequence, the construction of CPM theory permits applications that provide an opportunity to understand everyday problems and events people encounter regarding their private information. CPM theory also assumes that privacy is not a singular concept; rather, the nature of managing private information is dialectical. The dialectical tension between wanting to disclose to a friend and worrying about telling that person private information illustrates a push and pull of choices. Both sides of this tension occur simultaneously, making it difficult to conceive of disclosure without the nature of privacy. If all information is available, the notion of privacy becomes invalid. Likewise, if all information is restricted, disclosure would not exist. Together, each concept helps define the domain of the other. In determining a basic definition of privacy management, CPM theory proposes that people characterize information they consider private as something they own and control. However, people often distribute a measure of ownership by intentionally disclosing information, creating authorized co-owners. Typically, owners believe that when they disclose, they do not give up their ownership or control over the information. Nevertheless, when giving private information to a co-owner, a privacy relationship is formed. As such, owners hold authorized co-owners accountable and obligate them to take responsibility for protecting the information. CPM theory uses a metaphoric boundary to illustrate that there are two levels of boundaries. Accordingly, CPM theory envisages a personal privacy boundary as an entity that houses information considered private and defined as belonging solely to the individual. In addition, collective boundaries represent instances when private information is shared with others and can reflect a spectrum of collectivities from dyads to large groups. When a decision to disclose is enacted, a privacy relationship is formed. Information owners use privacy rules to control the way the shared boundary regulation works. One of the most important dimensions of CPM theory is the utility and nature of these privacy rules (Petronio, 2002). Decisions to disclose or protect private information are predicated on criteria people use to make choices about rules usage. CPM theory argues that there are two types of criteria: core and catalyst (Petronio, 2013). The core criteria produce stable and often routinized rules (Petronio, 2002; see p. 79). These criteria typically remain in the background, influencing rule choices based on such issues as cultural expectations, socialization of family privacy orientations, and gender. Given the nature of privacy management, however, there is also a set of catalyst criteria used to judge disclosure that triggers privacy rule changes. These catalyst criteria include unexpected situational factors, changes in privacy regulations, reassessment of initial motivations, and revision of a cost-benefit calculus for telling or not telling.

90 Petronio With both core and catalyst criteria, privacy management rules emerge and combine in complex ways to affect individuals’ decisions to share or protect their private information. Caughlin and Afifi (2004) show that various motivations, such as wanting to protect one’s relationship or wishing to disclose only to a responsive and competent confidant, can influence the extent to which typical privacy rules for topic avoidance apply. In particular, when college students and their parents considered avoiding communication to be motivated by desires to protect their relationship, they tended to be less dissatisfied by avoidance. In shifting from personal privacy boundaries to the formation of a collective privacy boundary, people tend to use three privacy boundary processes. These processes function on two levels. First, the information owner determines who to tell private information. Second, the same three processes are used to identify privacy rules the owner wants the authorized co-owners to use. First, people use linkage privacy rules to determine who receives their personally private information. Once that transformation takes place, owners set parameters for who else can know. Second, people use permeability rules to make two kinds of judgments: deciding how disclosive they want to be with a selected co-owner and judging the level of permeability information owners will allow co-owners. Third, people tend to have a strong sense of ownership rights over their information. As such, they also establish co-ownership status rules that govern the parameters for the level of co-ownership privilege. Because these rules determine whether the authorized co-owner has full rights of ownership or a limited partnership, the recipient is given more or less responsibility as caretaker of the disclosed information. The use of these rules may function smoothly and be synchronized among the co-owners, leading to successfully coordinated privacy boundaries. Rules may also malfunction. Consequently, CPM proposes the notion of privacy turbulence that allows for incidences when privacy rules are broken and disruption to the management system occurs (Petronio, 2002). Although malfunctions can be problematic, research shows that they can serve as a stimulus to recalibrate the privacy management system (Child, Petronio, Agyeman-Budu, & Westermann, 2011).

How Communication is Conceptualized in Communication Privacy Management Theory Obviously, communication is at the core of Communication Privacy Management theory. The discussion in this section focuses specifically on how CPM theory applies to privacy management in families. For family functioning, members preserve personal privacy boundaries and also necessarily engage in managing multiple privacy boundary spheres with other members and outsiders. CPM theorizing and research have shown that family members control an exterior boundary regulating private information flow to those outside the family (Morr, 2002; Petronio, 2002, 2010). For example, one study shows that the willingness to disclose domestic abuse to someone outside the family depends

Communication Privacy Management Theory 91 largely on opting in or out of the culture of affluence during their marriage (Haselschwerdt & Hardesty, 2017). Members also control interior privacy boundaries. Families construct dyadic and group privacy compartments or cells within the interior family boundary as they share personal information with select family members. Accordingly, the borders of interior privacy cells shift and change, at times to include some members and at other times to exclude those same members from other information. For example, rules that thwart access such as, “don’t tell Grandma this” indicate that Grandma is not granted entrance to this inner cell between certain family members (Petronio & Bantz, 1991). Privacy coordination for both the interior and exterior family privacy rules adjusts to demands families encounter. However, because too much change results in instability for the family, the consistent use of certain rules forms the basis for family privacy orientations (Petronio, 2002, p. 156). CPM argues that families represent a clear example of collectivities that use privacy rules repeatedly to form basic orientations to privacy choices. Research supports the identification of three orientations for internal and external privacy boundaries (Morr, 2002; Morr Serewicz & Canary, 2008; Petronio, 2002). In other words, families can have high permeability orientations, in that members are very open disclosing internally to members and externally to people outside their family. However, there are gradations that occur. Not all families with high permeability orientations are as open with those inside or outside their family. Some families are completely open only to those within their families and reserve the information for members instead of telling outsiders. On occasion, families might also reverse the focus and be completely open with outsiders while restricting information internally with family members. Families may also have moderate permeability regarding their privacy boundaries. These families are more judicious with choices about who knows information about family members, both among the individuals within the family and to those outside. Whereas the high permeability families are less guarded, moderate families have more rules and take more precautions in judging disclosure to others within or outside the family. Finally, there are families with a low permeability orientation to privacy, in which information is highly restricted. The members draw thick boundary lines around their information with each other and those outside the family. This orientation best reflects families that keep secrets because they have many rules that disallow the transmission of private information to others (Vangelisti, 1994; Vangelisti & Caughlin, 1997; Vangelisti, Caughlin, & Timmerman, 2001). As couples develop their relationships, they negotiate privacy rules that are acceptable to each partner and collectively as a couple. This negotiation often takes place through a process of trial and error. A partner presumes it is acceptable to tell friends that his girlfriend’s father is an alcoholic. When a friend mentioned she heard about her father from her partner, privacy turbulence occurs. Although no explicit rule coordination took place, the girlfriend

92 Petronio felt her privacy was violated. Because CPM argues that privacy boundary coordination and privacy turbulence go hand and hand, the necessary bumps in the road force people to adjust their assumptions about rules guiding personal ownership and expectations for co-owner responsibility. Not only do couples negotiate privacy rules within their relationships, but families often have to teach existing rules to new family members to be integrated. This type of socialization takes place both explicitly, through actively instructing new members, and implicitly. Morr (2002) discovered that when couples are engaged or newly married, one way families acknowledge the status of a new member is through disclosing family secrets. In contrast, however, individuals who become part of a blended family often share secrets with only their original family and conceal this information from new stepparents and stepsiblings (Caughlin et al., 2000; Morr Serewicz & Hosmer, 2011). Such restrictions of private information from new family members can signal whether or not someone is accepted as part of a family system (Golish & Caughlin, 2002). Afifi’s (2003) research makes the difficulty stepfamilies have in managing privacy more obvious. Stepfamilies often face dialectical tensions of loyaltydisloyalty and revealing-concealing among the custodial, non-custodial parents, and stepparents. These tensions make all members feel caught in dilemmatic struggles between levels of loyalties as that affects revealing and concealing. These are rocky times for stepfamilies. They experience privacy turbulence because the rules for privacy management unavoidably must change to accommodate new alliances and privacy needs. Defining who is considered part of an interior family privacy boundary and who is not has import for judgments members make about disclosure. When individuals become parents, they teach their children their agreed-upon rules. From a young age, children learn rules that pertain to how to protect their world. Interestingly, because the idea of ownership plays predominately in CPM theory, the development of “mine” or what belongs to the child may serve as preliminary grounding to cognitively comprehend the more sophisticated notion of privacy. Because management of privacy requires a complex array of rules and choices, children may not be able to navigate adeptly. Many children, for example, misapply family rules about being open when they interact with others. Such incidents often result in embarrassment for parents, such as the child who repeats unflattering comments parents make about a relative. Young children are not always skillfully able to negotiate privacy choices and they need a training ground to begin the process of understanding control over information. Especially in our world today, children require guidance to be equipped with the ability to determine how to regulate their privacy boundaries. Experiences with social media and new technologies complicate the issues for both parents and children of all ages (Child & Petronio, 2015). Complicating issues for parents include teens who are often more knowledgeable about online spaces than parents, and parents, in turn, often cope using covert monitoring (Erickson et al., 2016). Although parents appear to have a heightened sense of urgency when it comes to social media, research shows that

Communication Privacy Management Theory 93 the fears are disproportionate to the reality (Webb, 2015). Parental concerns include adolescent and young adult users. However, privacy needs increase as children age, and a balance of control is often difficult to reach for both the child and parent. By the time children enter adolescence, and more so when they become young adults, they have acquired the need for more privacy and have advanced cognitively to manage a more complex set of decision criteria. Some have argued that the concept of privacy is a good measure of the de-individuation process wherein adolescents move away from the parents and establish their own independent identity (Youniss & Smollar, 1985). When parents respect a child’s need to “own” private information and negotiate synchronized privacy rules, they are better able to have a satisfying relationship with their children (Hawk et al., 2013; Petronio, 1994). Consequently, the part privacy management plays developmentally is critical, and working toward coordination helps maintain family relationships. Although synchronization of privacy rules is important and helps to keep the system running smoothly, CPM argues that the complexity of the process means a probability privacy turbulence will occur. Privacy turbulent situation range from minor disruptions to a full collapse. There are many examples of research and applications illustrating privacy turbulent situations.

Research and Practical Applications of Communication Privacy Management Theory Privacy turbulent can be both problematic and productive. The disturbances make people feel uncomfortable and uneasy. Turbulence can interrupt an equilibrium found in using a privacy management system that people count on by using privacy rules they developed. However, these same feelings inspire attention to the way the rules function (or malfunction) depending on the circumstances. When owners’ rules break down or result in problems, they see a need to adjust those rules so they better fit their needs. Many applications of CPM theory have focused on discovering what issues account for the reasons and types of privacy turbulence (see www.cpmcenter.iupui.edu). Among them is the exploration of privacy dilemmas. Privacy dilemmas are particularly salient for families and provide a good example of a catalyst instigating privacy turbulence (Petronio & Caughlin, 2006; Petronio, Jones, & Morr, 2003; Thorson, 2015). Research on family privacy dilemmas illustrates how privacy rules are compromised, leading to turbulence. These dilemmatic situations are discernible by the predicaments occurring when recipients receive private information from members and become unexpected co-owners. In many ways, these privacy dilemmas are “conversational hot potatoes,” disrupting privacy management. The initial research found four identifiable types, and a new study by Thorson (2015) confirms and adds to these: confident, accidental, illicit, interdependent, and dishonesty dilemmas (Petronio et al., 2003). Confident dilemmas occur when a family member discloses unexpected private information and asks a

94 Petronio family confidant to keep the information restricted from other members. The dilemma arises when withholding information from one member has negative outcomes for another member. Thorson (2015) finds incidences of confidant dilemmas when an adult child discovers concealed parental infidelity. Such situations lead to stress for the reluctant confidant. As one respondent noted, “you don’t want to tell on one that would destroy another . . . being responsible for tearing the family apart” (Thorson, 2015, p. 48). The choice between two uncomfortable options defines not only confidant dilemmas but is a main ingredient in all types of privacy management dilemmas. The accidental dilemmas occur when a person inadvertently discovers a family member’s private information, but knowing and telling others has the potential to disrupt the family. Advice columns are rife with examples of people inadvertently discovering information about a family member, creating accidental dilemmas, such as discovering that a young sibling is taking drugs. Illicit dilemmas arise when a member snoops and finds something that is harmful for that person and/or another family member. Such dilemmas often result from successful “spying,” as in cases when parents intentionally listen to an adolescent’s private phone conversations or use covert monitoring of a child’s social media sites. Parents may find out that their child has a drinking or drug problem. Without revealing this information, the parent cannot help the child, but revealing the information may negatively affect trust required for a good parent-child relationship. Interdependent dilemmas occur when a family member must choose between what is best for the self versus best for another family member or one’s relationship with another family member. In such cases, the decision to reveal private information would be straightforward if one is concerned only about oneself. However, the interdependent nature of families and their privacy boundaries means that, in addition to the risks and benefits directly affecting individuals, family members can become disturbed by potential issues for other members as well. Somebody keeping a secret from another family member may incur psychological costs, such as becoming preoccupied and anxious with the secret (Caughlin et al., 2000). Revealing the secret, on the other hand, might lead to conflicts with the other family members that are best avoided (Roloff & Ifert, 2000). Dishonesty dilemmas, discovered in Thorson’s (2015) research, comprise two types: knowingly being lied to and being accused of lying. Parents who deny they are having an affair when questioned by their adult child and children who confront their parents with knowledge of their infidelity but then are accused of lying reflect additional turbulent dilemmatic situations that trigger the need for recalibrating the way private information is managed. As the research identifies, in all types of family privacy dilemmas, there are no right answers and therefore no viable solution available. Instead, there are only management options that will result in changing privacy rules as the consequences of the privacy dilemma unfold (Petronio et al., 2003).

Communication Privacy Management Theory 95 Family privacy dilemmas represent one example of how management of private information can become turbulent, but there are many others. For each, we witness the way a privacy management system can be challenged and begin to recognize the effects that turbulence has on family relationships. Given the responsibilities of authorized co-ownership and the effect of negotiating family privacy boundaries surrounding private family information and members’ personal boundaries, the relational dimension is an important element. Yet, CPM argues that disruption is inevitable and necessary because it reflects how the management process is self-correcting necessarily occurs.

Evaluation of Communication Privacy Management Theory In general, communication privacy management theory is designed to explain everyday privacy issues. As such, it is our challenge to test the utility of CPM theory so that we can understand the way people, in all contexts, manage their private information. CPM is especially useful for grasping the way families navigate private disclosures to both insiders and those outside the family. Theories can live on only if we are brave enough to seek change when change is clearly warranted. Theories die when people are not willing to acknowledge that adjustments in the basic thesis are needed. CPM has benefited from an evolutionary process of development that we hope continues to progress. CPM theory gives us a heuristic and language to talk about and capture the way people in families understand privacy management.

Continuing the Conversation The future of CPM theory continues to evolve. Google Scholar shows that there are over 4000 citations to date and they appear to be growing. This body of information illustrates utility. Yet, the theory is already teasing us with new angles of inquiry suggesting further elaborations, applications, promise of new concepts, and questions. For example, how can whistleblowing be understood from a CPM lens? How does “planning” factor into privacy management? What are families willing to risk by concealing information? These questions and many more have evolved out of the existing body of literature.

References Afifi, T. D. (2003). ‘Feeling caught’ in stepfamilies: Managing boundary turbulence through appropriate communication privacy rules. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 729–755. Altman, I. (1975). Environment and social behavior: Privacy, personal space, territory, and crowding. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.

96 Petronio Altman, I., Vinsel, A., & Brown, B. B. (1981). Dialectic conceptions in social psychology: An application to social penetration and privacy regulation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 107–160. Berardo, F. M. (1974). Marital invisibility and family privacy. In S. Margulis (Ed.), Privacy (pp. 55–72). Stony Brook, NY: Environmental Design Research Association. Caughlin, J. P., & Afifi, T. D. (2004). When is topic avoidance unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Communication Research, 30, 479–513. Caughlin, J. P., & Petronio, S. (2004). Privacy in families. In A. L. Vangelisiti (Ed.), The handbook of family communication (pp. 379–412). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Caughlin, J. P., Golish, T. D., Olson, L. N., Sargent, J. E., Cook, J. S., & Petronio, S. (2000). Intra-family secrets in various family configurations: A communication boundary management perspective. Communication Studies, 51, 116–134. Child, J. T., & Petronio, S. (2015). Privacy management matters in digital family communication. In C. J. Bruess (Ed.), Family communication in the age of digital and social media (pp. 32–54). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Child, J. T., Petronio, S., Agyeman-Budu, E. A., & Westermann, D. A. (2011). Blog scrubbing: Exploring triggers that change privacy rules. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 2017–2027. Erickson, L. B., Wisniewski, P., Xu, H., Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., & Perkins, D. F. (2016). The boundaries between: Parental involvement in a teen’s online world. Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, 67, 1384–1403. Golish, T. D., & Caughlin, J. P. (2002). “I’d rather not talk about it”: Adolescents’ and young adults’ use of topic avoidance in stepfamilies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 78–106. Haselschwerdt, M. L., & Hardesty, J. L. (2017). Managing secrecy and disclosure of domestic violence in affluent communities. Journal of Marriage and Family, 79, 556–570. Hawk, S. T., Keijsers, L., Frijns, T., Hale, W. W., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2013). “I still haven’t found what I’m looking for”: Parental privacy invasion predicts reduced parental knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1286–1289. Karpel, M. A. (1980). Family secrets. Family Process, 19, 295–306. Morr, M. C. (2002). Private disclosure in a family membership transition: In-laws’ disclosures to newlyweds (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3054643) Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Canary, D. J. (2008). Assessments of disclosure from the in-laws: Links among disclosure topics, family privacy orientations, and relational quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 333–357. Morr Serewicz, M. C., & Hosmer, R. A. (2011). In-laws or outlaws: The dark and the bright in in-law relationships. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships II (pp. 217–243). New York, NY: Routledge. Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 1, 311–335. Petronio, S. (1994). Privacy binds in family interactions: The case of parental privacy invasion. In W. R. Cupach & B. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of interpersonal communication (pp. 241–258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of disclosure. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Communication Privacy Management Theory 97 Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation? Journal of Family Theory and Review, 2, 175–196. Petronio, S. (2013). Brief status report on communication privacy management theory. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 6–14. Petronio, S., & Bantz, C. (1991). Controlling the ramifications of disclosure: “Don’t tell anybody but . . .” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10, 263–269. Petronio, S., & Caughlin, J. P. (2006). Communication privacy management theory: Understanding families. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 35–49). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Petronio, S., Jones, S. M., & Morr, M. C. (2003). Family privacy dilemmas: Managing communication boundaries within family groups. In L. Frey (Ed.), Group communication in context: Studies of bona fide groups (2nd ed.) (pp. 23–56). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Roloff, M. E., & Ifert, D. E. (2000). Conflict management through avoidance: Withholding complaints, suppressing arguments, and declaring topics taboo. In S. Petronio (Ed.), Balancing the secrets of private disclosures (pp. 151–179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Thorson, A. R. (2015). Investigating adult children’s experiences with privacy turbulence following the discovery of parental infidelity. Journal of Family Communication, 15, 41–57. Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Family secrets: Forms, functions and correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 113–135. Vangelisti, A. L., & Caughlin, J. P. (1997). Revealing family secrets: The influence of topic, function, and relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 679–705. Vangelisti, A. L., Caughlin, J. P., & Timmerman, L. (2001). Criteria for revealing family secrets. Communication Monographs, 68, 1–27. Webb, L. M. (2015). From misconceptions to more accurate understandings. In C. J. Bruess (Ed.), Family communication in the age of digital and social media (pp. 3–31). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Youniss, J., & Smollar, J. (1985). Adolescent relations with mothers, fathers and friends. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

9

Communication Theory of Resilience Enacting Adaptive-Transformative Processes When Families Experience Loss and Disruption P. M. Buzzanell

We all experience occasions of loss that change our lives in dramatic ways. These losses might be the death of parents or grandparents, the passing of a family pet, the heartbreak of a relationship in dissolution, or the shattering of dreams about getting into medical school. Our friends and family tell us that “time will erase” the pain. Even as we feel we are simply going through the motions in our lives, it is not time but human resilience that enables us to adjust and change—not by forgetting, denying, or coping, but by legitimizing our feelings and learning to live with our losses. Resilience is neither something we do alone nor an inherent characteristic that only some people have. Instead, human resilience is “constituted in and through communicative processes that enhance people’s abilities to create new normalcies” (Buzzanell, 2010, p. 9). This conceptualization of human resilience is quite different from other definitions grounded in people’s abilities to “bounce back.” It is also different from the structural integrity of resilient engineering designs or adaptive capacities in organisms and environment. The communication theory of resilience situates resilience in human interaction, drawing upon discursive and material resources. Resilience continues to grow over the course of our lives as we encounter and make sense of new circumstances and relationships. Moreover, its processes draw upon interpersonal, family, and interorganizational connections, posing a multilayered communication system of adaption and transformation using face-to-face and mediated communication. In short, the communication theory of resilience leverages the power of stories, relationships, and creativity, not only to help people survive but (hopefully) to construct a better world.

Intellectual Tradition of the Communication Theory of Resilience Resilience has not only captured the imagination of researchers and practitioners from many different disciplines but has also gone through several phases in scholarly orientations. Environmental scientists often discuss the abilities of

Communication Theory of Resilience

99

humans and other life forms to adapt to disasters in ecosystems, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and other forms of devastation. They and other specialists in community or social resilience discuss how current and projected alterations in ecosystems mean that intergenerational regional occupations, such as fishing, might change in ways that affect entire communities. For human resources and organizational behavior scholars, resilience is the trait that enables organizational members and leaders to “snap back” by facing reality, searching for meaning, and making do with whatever resources are available (Coutu, 2002). Other scholars have noted that high disruption in collectivities prompt sensemaking, whereby well-worn paths for restabilization do not address issues but then become cycles of human interaction with transformative possibilities (Weick, 1979, 1995). Still other scholars work with children and adolescents from high-risk backgrounds (e.g., witnesses to or survivors of crime) or adults suffering from devastating experiences, seeking interventions to offset behavioral, emotional, and cognitive problems and enable them to develop capacities for productive and satisfying lives. In many disciplines, human resilience scholarship has focused on three phases: identification of internal and external factors that enable people to bounce back; processes whereby people attain these qualities; and reintegration or spiritual force mobilizing energy toward recovery (Richardson, 2002). The communication theory of resilience differs from these other stances by: (a) focusing on ongoing communicative processes of adaptation and transformation, reactivity and proactivity, stability and change, disruption and reintegration, destabilization and restabilization; (b) situating resilience in interaction and relationships, integrating scholarship from interpersonal, family, organizational, health, and mediated communication contexts; (c) refocusing inability to “bounce back” from individual deficit approaches to politicized contexts in which material resources, policies, and ideological structures about the nature and characteristics of families are socially constructed and enacted; and (d) recognizing that there are both benefits and costs for the particular ways in which resilience is constituted. The communication theory of resilience grew out of personal experience and/or research on effects of job loss, deindustrialization, chronic illness and disability, death and relationship loss, and military deployment in families. For instance, when trying to understand parents and children’s meaning-making when family breadwinners lost their jobs, Buzzanell and Turner (2003) found that oft-used stage models of grief did not align with the data. By using a social constructionist lens whereby family members expressed their understandings about what happened, we found that they exerted considerable effort to portray appropriate feelings and identities (emotional labor and identity work) in the ongoing formation of normalcy. Family members enacted gendered roles and practices, worked hard to portray positive emotions, upheld the worth and account versions of the individuals who lost their jobs even when they had doubts, prioritized and maintained family routines in spirit if not in exact detail,

100

Buzzanell

and reassured themselves repeatedly that things were “normal”, that their families “never skipped a beat” and took things “in their stride.” Repetitions of normalcy language, retention of family routines, rituals, and roles, and other communicative strategies enabled people to legitimize their anger but also create stories and actions that enabled them to move forward. This study displayed how individuals in collectivities were able to communicatively constitute their families through times of loss and uncertainty. Following the social constructionist tradition, the communication theory of resilience originally focused on the social forces and interpretations that created the phenomenon of resilience (Gergen, 1985). Yet there were glimmers of inequity, whereby children and wives did not acknowledge their own and each other’s discursive and material contributions, thus adapting but not realizing the potential for change in gendered roles and family organizing processes (Buzzanell & Turner, 2012). By shifting to adaption-transformation dialectic tensions and by challenging in whose interests and in what politicaleconomic-cultural spaces (critical approach) resilience is constituted for oneself and for others (Lucas & Buzzanell, 2011, 2012), the communication theory of resilience retains its basis in the interpretive approach but recognizes that structures and consequences can constrain agency in complex ways (e.g., policies, structures, and practices associated with poverty, food insecurity, and immigration laws).

Main Goals and Features of the Communication Theory of Resilience The goals of the communication theory of resilience are to understand and explain how people utilize discursive and material resources to constitute the new normal of their lives after disruption, loss, trauma, and disaster. Resilience is activated by a trigger event. This starting point is reactive, insofar as resilience processes could be initiated by relational turning points (e.g., miscarriage, disease diagnosis) or by recognition of accumulated challenges and obstacles (e.g., actions by relatives that display dysfunctional patterns). However, resilience is also proactive insofar as these communication processes can be understood and situated in family stories and planning to survive hardships (e.g., storytelling about how great-grandparents kept the house during the Great Depression). Resilience is cultivated by intergenerational behaviors and values (e.g., adding water to ketchup bottles so as not to waste food; creating strong ties with neighbors). Once activated by disruption, there are several processes that can promote adaptive-transformational possibilities. Because human resilience occurs interactively in particular contexts, these five processes are not mutually exclusive and are often entangled in complex ways: (a) crafting normalcy; (b) foregrounding productive action while backgrounding negative feelings; (c) affirming identity anchors; (d) maintaining and using communication networks; and (e) putting alternative logics to work.

Communication Theory of Resilience

101

Crafting normalcy involves language and routines, interactions and rituals, storytelling, and the stories that result to construct a new normal that integrates loss. Crafting normalcy involves the active framing of circumstances and retelling stories for different stakeholders (Harter, 2013; Richardson & Maninger, 2016; Seeger & Sellnow, 2016), juxtaposing hope with reality. For instance, “milspouses,” partners of military personnel deployed into combat and training, described how they needed to come to terms with ongoing separation and reconciliation tensions and to limit inconsistencies in daily routines (Villagran, Canzona, & Ledford, 2013). Rather than crafting a new normal that became stabilized, they operated in a liminal space of past-present relationships and routines, enduring constant disruption because family members were alternating being home and being away, often for indefinite and potentially lifethreatening work. Similarly, taking a narrative lens to earthquake survivors’ stories, Xu (2013) noted how, where, and when survivors talked to one another, providing insight into the value of collective sharing of loss. Survivors also connected with Chinese philosophical and system values (e.g., survivors starting having babies after their only children died in the earthquake; see also communal problem-solving and story construction in post-disaster communities, Richardson & Maninger, 2016). Second, the strategy of foregrounding productive action while backgrounding negative feelings centers on the embodiment of resilience. Foregrounding positive communication often involves conscious decision-making and support of others. When facing stressors, women struggle to sustain and transcend tensions of career and care valuations, work and relational attention, everyday experiences and external metrics of productivity, and focus and balance (Gilbert & von Wallmenich, 2014). These women do not repress, deny, or simply cope; instead they embody the contradictions, frustrations, and mourning of their (temporarily) lost selves amidst nurturing and career priorities. Third, identity anchors are “relatively enduring cluster[s] of identity discourses upon which individuals and their familial, collegial, and/or community members rely when explaining who they are for themselves and in relation to each other” (Buzzanell, 2010, p. 4). By affirming identity anchors with others, people enact that which is most meaningful to them in times of difficulty. For the fathers who suffered job loss, they and their families co-constructed images of breadwinner, head of household, and masculinity (Buzzanell & Turner, 2003), perhaps functioning as compensatory (counteractive) and protective (buffering or moderating effects) factors of relational stressors during times of disruption (Beck, 2016). However, for career and community renewal and maintenance, the abilities to shift or layer framings, identities, and meaningfulness of work to fit within new contexts and impact policies and future practices is essential (Jenkins, Lambeth, Mosby, & Van Brown, 2015; Meisenbach, 2009). This scholarship argues for expansive and flexible, rather than constrictive and unitary, identity anchors. In this respect, the dual-layered process of reintegrating identities and identifications (or connections to family, work, organizations) by building

102

Buzzanell

networks to sustain disaster relief volunteers’ involvement in their not-forprofit organizations and in the work itself requires complicated, interlocking network ties and framings of self-other relationships (Agarwal & Buzzanell, 2015). Disaster relief volunteers exert discursive and material (embodied) effort to situate themselves within their familial (biological and legal, organizational, and community ties), as well as ideological (humanitarian, secular, and egalitarian principles) and destruction-renewal (disaster and intense, yet temporary, rebuilding cycles) network ties. These identity and identification networks anchor them when their experiences in disaster-torn communities seemed overwhelming. Fourth, maintaining and using communication networks enables people to draw upon their bonds with others through face-to-face communication and mediated communication such as social media. Because the starting point for resilience is disruption, people often aim to make sense of what is happening and assess their situations while stabilizing their strong ties (e.g., partners, family, and local community) before expanding networks and considering transformation (Buzzanell, 2010; Doerfel, Lai, & Chewning, 2010; Doerfel & Harris, in press). Over time, people reconfigure their networks and use different means of connection as they enact resilience processes (Chewning, Lai, & Doerfel, 2013; Doerfel et al., 2010). Contacts through Facebook can enable checks on the well being of others, and both Facebook and Twitter provide relevant news about the disruption and its aftermath as well as emotional expressions and advice (Kaufmann, 2015). Although network research on resilience often examines organizing in the face of disaster (for overview, see Doerfel & Harris, in press), other scholarship indicates how those who are unemployed maintain contacts and engage in mediated activities perceived as meaningful and productive (Feuls, Fieseler, Meckel, & Suphan, 2016). Thus, maintaining and using communication networks can aid in crafting normalcy, foregrounding productive action, affirming identity anchors, and engaging with alternative logics, the final phase in Buzzanell’s (2010) theory. Fifth, putting alternative logics to work has its roots in sensemaking, where tried and true response patterns or routines fail to work for a disruption (Weick, 1979, 1995). Yet it also emerges from communication scholarship on contradiction, ambiguity, and paradox, offering opportunities for creative ways of communicating (for overview, see Putnam, Fairhurst, & Banghart, 2016). As in the other resilience processes, people are situated, meaning that they interactively create their context; however, something different happens at this phase. Drawing upon discursive and material resources, people utilize their agency, craft their familial and organizational or community roles, enrich and reframe identity anchors, and seek productive action to react to contextual aspects that they perceive do not enable adaption and transformation for a new normal (Buzzanell, 2010; Mangen & Brivot, 2015). They skirt around rules and design new ways of handling problems, challenge the status quo, and live fully in the face of terminal illnesses—whatever they do, it is not “more

Communication Theory of Resilience

103

of the same.” In adapting to situations that make no sense to them because there is an urgent need for action or a higher order calling them to act, they engage in potentially transformative action. Putting alternative logics to work demands constant interplay between individuals and systems, usurping normative demands, and engaging strategically in dissent (e.g., Essers, Doorewaard, & Benschop, 2013). For instance, when faced with medical conditions requiring workplace adjustments in routines, pregnant women who were dissatisfied with supervisors’ responses appealed to ethics of care by accommodations for their particular circumstances, but their supervisors often maintained ethics of justice logics prioritizing equal treatment and primacy of work accomplishment (Liu & Buzzanell, 2004; see also bounded emotionality as an alternative logic, Mumby & Putnam, 1992). These women’s stories of struggle brought in multiple voices—their own and those of partners, health care professionals, co-workers, supervisors, friends, organizational policies, and federal laws—but neither party seemed able to perceive and transcend incompatibilities or draw upon their networks effectively to transform their work relationships. As another example, milspouses and other members of military families contended with lifestyles that defied the normal of civilian lives during partners’ deployment (Villagran et al., 2013). They moved to new cities where they might not know anyone. Their spouses often were in constant danger, could not be reached directly during family crises, could not talk about where they were or what they were doing, and often came home in physiological distress or with visible or invisible injuries. Milspouses framed their lives as an adventure, lifestyles to celebrate and of which they could be proud. Finally, the realization that one is agent of and co-constructor of realities is, for many, an alternative logic operating at the heart of transformation in the bleakest of circumstances (Pransky, 2003)

How Communication is Conceptualized in the Communication Theory of Resilience Communication is seen as constitutive of resilience. Talk and interaction create, sustain, resist, and modify adaptive and transformative processes in particular contexts. This means that realities and knowledge are socially constructed in holistic and intertwined systems, with specific strategies for resilience processes dependent upon the participants and their cultures. Because language and communication constitute our relationships, values, structures, and policies, our actions operate at the nexus of discursive and material tensions on multiple levels and communication contexts. Moreover, resilience is a process. This means it is an ongoing dynamic activated when humans experience distress and disaster; resilience is cultivated through messages, family rituals, stories of recovery and remembrance, visits to past family homes or ancestral sites, and retention of objects, sayings, and connections whose objective utility or “worth” belies their symbolic connections

104

Buzzanell

(e.g., Lucas & Buzzanell, 2011, 2012; Saltzman, Pynoos, Lester, Layne, & Beardslee, 2013). Furthermore, we are always learning and actualizing resilience through development and enactment of the five processes. Poole (2013) describes how process theories should generate knowledge about communication. Characteristics of process involve stability and change over time with one or more series of events during which systems retain “coherence through unifying principles” (e.g., causal relationships, functional interrelationships, and self-organizing systems, Poole, 2013, p. 378). The communication theory of resilience is a process theory through which events unfold over time with “multiple implications and multiple effects on the process, because of the need to account for temporal connections among events” (p. 380). Accordingly, resilience displays overall patterns in which the five processes mentioned earlier interconnect and generate changes of adaptation and transformation within overall patterns. In resilience, final causality is “driven by natural ends and outcomes of natural processes,” with some critical events short-circuiting or side-tracking construction of a new normal (Aristotilian causes; see Poole, 2013, p. 382). Perhaps families perceive their situations as so bleak and without material and relational network resources that they cannot seem to foreground productive action. For refugees in long-term camps, their identities and new normals may be in a perpetually liminal state as some refugee camp members may never have experienced “home” and the temporariness of refugee status becomes an identity anchor (Hammoud & Buzzanell, 2012). Moreover, different populations exhibit different recoveries from disaster (Fussell, 2015), just as differences among individuals, families, and communities (e.g., race, ethnicity, class, extent of destruction, gender, abilities) can generate interaction that varies by context as well as different requirements for policy and infrastructure (e.g., Canary, 2008; Green, 2013; Kwon, 2013). Thus, there may be multiple paths, orderings, and configurations of the five processes. For resilience, the process of constituting resilience never ends, but always is becoming as humans encounter disruptions and opportunities for reintegration and transformation. The primary criterion for process theories is versatility, meaning that explanations can “be made to ‘stretch’ or ‘shrink’ to fit specific cases that may differ in their length, how rapidly they unfold, or differences in the quality of length of stages or other parts of the process” (Poole, 2013, p. 383).

Research and Practical Applications of the Communication Theory of Resilience This chapter offers many examples of how this theory is used in research and in everyday life. Mentoring is applicable across these life contexts and lifespans. Mentoring serves functions of career development, psychosocial support, and role modeling. Mentoring represents relationships in which experienced individuals (mentors) develop those who are less experienced (mentees), although there are many formal contracts, informal arrangements, and spontaneous or

Communication Theory of Resilience

105

episodic moments in which others offer insights that then become actionable items for our communication. Mentoring communication enables individuals and families to achieve different goals. But mentoring is not always positive. Advice can be destructive and mentors might sabotage others’ personal and professional relationships and portfolios. Differences between yourself and others may mean that you are not included in rich developmental (mentoring) networks that can facilitate relational and career growth. For instance, women engineering faculty of color may express obstacles to their work, differential treatment and expectations, and well-meaning but hurtful exchanges that disrespect them (Buzzanell, Long, Anderson, Kokini, & Batra, 2015). However, these women may position themselves as having conviction and agency to enact their most salient identity anchors. They react to realities but proactively construct new normals, often incrementally and often by mentoring others, thus foregrounding productive action and engaging in alternative logics of care and justice. These experiences teach us to cultivate resilience by developing deep relationships with others, by understanding and enacting who we are and what we value, and by inching our new normal ever closer to the transformative possibilities we envision.

Evaluation of the Communication Theory of Resilience The communication theory of resilience meets a primary criterion of process theories insofar as it is versatile. Research utilizing the five processes that constitute resilience communicatively has often been based on interviews, case studies, focus groups, and observations that highlight connections among events and holistic patterns. However, these studies take time and are unable to specify when, and how, and via which mechanisms the five processes occur. To be complete, then, the theory should specify “the factors that determine which paths occur or influence the choices actors make that determine the observed paths” (Poole, 2013, p. 387), noting that future scholarship probably would not determine ordering of the five processes. Given that the communication theory of resilience incorporates multilevel, complex processes that unfold over time in contextually embedded, messy, and entangled ways, how can we assess its utility? As noted earlier, this theory is versatile because it explains how people react to and proactively prepare for varied disruptions across communication contexts, such as health, relational, family, community or organizational, and networks. Versatility means that the paths that families and communities undertake have regularities insofar as they constitute the five processes of resilience, but the particular end results for losses or disruptions are not always known or final. In this regard, the communication theory of resilience is both parsimonious and heuristic: it provides a relatively simple system of five phases but also helps those who are studying or undergoing disruption to generate research questions and ways of navigating adaptationtransformation dynamics. Capturing how individuals, families, and community

106

Buzzanell

members enact the five processes can help people work through difficult times, as they have in mine (Buzzanell, 2010), as well as enrich theoretical understandings and explanations.

Continuing the Conversation People adapt and stabilize, using strong network ties, affirming deep-seated identity anchors, retaining routines and rituals, talking normalcy, focusing on productive action and feelings, and sometimes engaging in alternative logics that meet systemic needs but also encourage transformation. The breadth and depth, forms and functions, salience and possible sequencing of the five processes vary contextually. Nonetheless, there are future directions that develop resilience through attention to cultivation and its politicized nature and consequences. Scholars and practitioners have indicated that resilience can be learned and cultivated, not solely as a set of skills but as processes embedded in stories and the act of storytelling. Everet alt, Marks, and Clarke-Mitchell (2016) investigated the messages and narratives that Black mothers and daughters shared to develop agency and resilience. Although not designed with resilience in mind, Sutherland’s (2013) notion of memories with momentum—memories we embody and are driven by—can offer a way of continuously cultivating resilience. Some of these memories might be those of well being and embodiment, as Miller-Karas (2015) describes as an Iraq War veteran with physical injuries, lost limbs, and traumatic brain injury began reconnecting awareness of his senses with feeling whole again. Similarly, Cruz (2014) discussed how war memories shaped Liberian women’s organizing processes to collectively ground themselves in productive action, work toward their vision, and use alternative logics that defied the secrecy that previously kept them alive. Cruz argues that memories operate as catalysts for change. As resilience communication scholarship advances, the inclusion of contradiction and critical analyses challenges the ways in which people might not act in their own and others’ best interests during and in the aftermath of crises and disruptions. It may fall to low-income women to resew a “shredded [patchwork] safety net system,” gendered work to enable survival in poverty despite inadequate social services and desires to meet needs (Green, 2013, p. 51). Some vulnerable populations and communities never “bounce back” after widespread destruction and displacement from disaster. “Multidimensional— social, spatial, and temporal—understanding . . . reveals that there are different mechanisms driving recovery for different segments of the population” (Fussell, 2015, p. 11), with implications not only for people experiencing disruption but also for social responsibility. Scholars have begun to critique resilience research as undervaluing hidden costs and structural considerations (Harrison, 2013), thus underestimating the obstacles different individuals and groups face in constituting resilience.

Communication Theory of Resilience

107

Moving from the family and community level that often are sites of resilience studies and into policy formation and societal infrastructures would clarify how and why members of some groups have difficulty enacting the five resilience processes. We also may be able to clarify how and why people may orient to adaption or transformation, whereas others reframe or transcend these tensions and political consequences. Greater attention to the communication construction of resilience offers insight into how we have opportunities every day to talk, interact, and organize structures and policies that can promote greater well-being for ourselves and others.

References Agarwal, V., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2015). Communicative re-construction of resilience labor: Identity/identification in disaster-relief workers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43, 408–428. Beck, G. A. (2016). Surviving involuntary unemployment together: The role of resiliencepromoting communication in familial and committed relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 16(4), 369–385. Buzzanell, P. M. (2010). Resilience: Talking, resisting, and imagining new normalcies into being. Journal of Communication, 60, 1–14. Buzzanell, P. M., Long, Z., Kokini, K., Anderson, L., & Batra, J. (2015). Mentoring in academe: A feminist poststructural lens on stories of women engineering faculty of color. Management Communication Quarterly, 29, 440–457. Buzzanell, P. M., & Turner, L. H. (2003). Emotion work revealed by job loss discourse: Backgrounding-foregrounding of feelings, construction of normalcy, and (re)instituting of traditional masculinities. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 31, 27–57. Buzzanell, P. M., & Turner, L. H. (2012). Crafting narratives for family crises: Communicative behaviors associated with effectively managing job loss. In L. Webb & F. Dickson (Eds.), Communication for families in crisis: Theories, methods, strategies (pp. 281–306). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Canary, H. E. (2008). Creating supportive connections: A decade of research on support for families of children with disabilities. Health Communication, 23(5), 413–426. Chewning, L. V., Lai, C. H., & Doerfel, M. L. (2012). Communication technologies to rebuild communication structures. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 237–263. Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard Business Review, 80(5), 46–56. Cruz, J. (2014). Memories of trauma and organizing: Market women’s susu groups in postconflict Liberia. Organization, 21(4), 447–462. Doerfel, M., & Harris, J. (in press). Resilience processes. In C. Scott & L. Lewis (Eds.), International encyclopedia of organizational communication. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Doerfel, M. L., Lai, C. H., & Chewning, L. V. (2010). The evolutionary role of interorganizational communication: Modeling social capital in disaster contexts. Human Communication Research, 36(2), 125–162. Essers, C., Doorewaard, H., & Benschop, Y. (2013). Family ties: Migrant female business owners doing identity work on the public–private divide. Human Relations, 66(12), 1645–1665.

108

Buzzanell

Everet alt, J., Marks, L. D., & Clarke-Mitchell, J. F. (2016). A qualitative study of the Black mother-daughter relationship lessons learned about self-esteem, coping, and resilience. Journal of Black Studies, 47(4), 334–350. Feuls, M., Fieseler, C., Meckel, M., & Suphan, A. (2016). Being unemployed in the age of social media. New Media & Society, 18(6), 944–965. Fussell, E. (2015). The long-term recovery of New Orleans’ population after hurricane Katrina. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(10), 1231–1245. Gergen, K. J. (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266–275. Gilbert, J., & von Wallmenich, L. (2014). When words fail us: Mother time, relational attention, and the rhetorics of focus and balance. Women’s Studies in Communication, 37, 66–89. Green, A. R. (2013). Patchwork: Poor women’s stories of resewing the shredded safety net. Affilia, 28, 51–64. Hammoud, A., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2012). “The most vulnerable . . . [and] most resilient people”: Communicatively constituting Palestinian refugees’ resilience. In B. Omdahl & J. Harden Fritz (Eds.), Problematic relationships at work (pp. 215–234). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Harrison, E. (2013). Bouncing back? Recession, resilience and everyday lives. Critical Social Policy, 33(1), 97–113. Harter, L. M. (2013). The work of art. Departures in Critical Qualitative Research, 2(3), 326–336. Jenkins, P., Lambeth, T., Mosby, K., & Van Brown, B. (2015). Local nonprofit organizations in a post-Katrina landscape help in a context of recovery. American Behavioral Scientist, 59(10), 1263–1277. Kaufmann, M. (2015). Resilience 2.0: Social media use and (self-) care during the 2011 Norway attacks. Media, Culture & Society, 37(7), 972–987. Liu, M., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2004). Negotiating maternity leave expectations: Perceived tensions between ethics of justice and care. Journal of Business Communication, 41, 323–349. Lucas, K., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2011). It’s the cheese: Collective memory of hard times during deindustrialization. In J. M. Cramer, C. P. Greene, & L. M. Walters (Eds.), Food as communication: Communication as food (pp. 95–113). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Lucas, K., & Buzzanell, P. M. (2012). Memorable messages of hard times: Constructing short- and long-term resiliencies through family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 189–208. Kwon, P. (2013). Resilience in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(4), 371–383. Mangen, C., & Brivot, M. (2015). The challenge of sustaining organizational hybridity: The role of power and agency. Human Relations, 68(4), 659–684. Meisenbach, R. (2008). Working with tensions: Materiality, discourse, and (dis)empowerment in occupational identity negotiation among higher education fund-raisers. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(2), 258–287. Miller-Karas, E. (2015). Building resilience to trauma: The trauma and community resiliency models. New York, NY: Routledge. Mumby, D. K., & Putnam, L. L. (1992). The politics of emotion: A feminist reading of bounded rationality. Academy of Management Review, 17(3), 465–486.

Communication Theory of Resilience

109

Poole, M. S. (2013). On the study of process in communication research. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 371–409. Pransky, J. (2003). Prevention from the inside-out. Cabot, VT: NorthEast Health Realization Institute. Putnam, L. L., Fairhurst, G. T., & Banghart, S. (2016). Contradictions, dialectics, and paradoxes in organizations: A constitutive approach. Academy of Management Annals, 10(1), 65–171. Richardson, B. K., & Maninger, L. (2016). “We were all in the same boat”: An exploratory study of communal coping in disaster recovery. Southern Communication Journal, 81(2), 107–122. Richardson, G. E. (2002). The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(3), 307–321. Saltzman, W. R., Pynoos, R. S., Lester, P., Layne, C. M., & Beardslee, W. R. (2013). Enhancing family resilience through family narrative co-construction. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 16(3), 294–310. Seeger, M., & Sellnow, T. (2016). Narratives of crisis: Telling stories of ruin and renewal. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sutherland, I. (2013). Arts-based methods in leadership development: Affording aesthetic workspaces, reflexivity and memories with momentum. Management Learning, 44(1), 25–43. Villagran, M., Canzona, M. R., & Ledford, C. J. (2013). The milspouse battle rhythm: Communicating resilience throughout the deployment cycle. Health Communication, 28(8), 778–788. Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. New York, NY: Random House. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Xu, K. (2013). In the wake of the Wenchuan earthquake: The function of story-sharing in rebuilding communities in the quake disaster zone. Asian Journal of Communication, 23(2), 152–174.

10 Critical Feminist Family Communication Theory Gender, Power, and Praxis Patricia J. Sotirin and Laura L. Ellingson

A well-known critical feminist treatise (Coontz, 2016/1992) argues that the nuclear family depicted in popular culture and institutionalized in national policies represents a nostalgic vision of The Way We Never Were that does not fit the lived experiences of the majority of people. Yet the dominant approaches in family communication studies too often assume the centrality of this traditional family form. There is a need for more expansive, inclusive, and responsive theoretical perspectives. We argue for the value of the complexities, vitality, and imagination of contemporary critical feminism for energizing and reshaping family communication scholarship. In our view, family is not defined solely by biological or legal ties. Rather, family is a social and material construction organizing relations of power, identity, intimacy, and possibility. Family is also a site of struggle within which differing—and at times, contradictory—forces converge, including personal memories, institutional sanctions, cultural values, and historical legacies. We take family to be thoroughly communicative, enacted in personal interactions as well as through cultural prescriptions, institutional regulations, and state policies. As critical feminists, we critique taken-for-granted inequities and oppressions inherent to normative family models and advocate for diverse, responsive, and just possibilities for all families. Unfortunately, a critical theoretical orientation is rare in family communication studies. In contrast, critical feminist communication theories are wellestablished in other subfields of communication studies, such as organizational communication, media studies, and rhetoric (Dow & Condit, 2005). In a recent review of family communication scholarship published between 2000–2009, however, articles taking a critical orientation comprised only 5.75 percent of the 161 articles examined, and only eight of the total articles professed a feminist theoretical framework (Stamp & Shue, 2013). Instead, mainstream family communication studies uphold prevailing social norms and social science empiricism. In contrast, critical perspectives engage the plethora of lived family forms and more explicitly contextualize the gendered micropolitics of family life within larger social, cultural, and historical relations. In the following sections, we describe and illustrate the value of critical feminist communication perspectives for studies of family and kinship.

Critical Feminist Theories 111

Intellectual Tradition of Critical Feminist Family Communication Theory Communication research is typically understood as empiricist, interpretive, or critical. Empiricist research takes an objectivist orientation that uses social scientific approaches to develop generalizable findings. For example, one study looked at how mothers’ gender socialization affected their aspirations for daughters who identified as feminist by assessing factors of gender socialization and feminist identity on Likert scales (Colaner & Rittenour, 2015). Interpretive research takes a meaning-focused and more subjective orientation that uses humanistic approaches to explore how group members understand their particular form of social life. For example, sexual purity pledges were thematized to understand how families use such pledges in relation to heterosexual norms (Manning, 2015). Critical research focuses on power relations in social contexts and uses a critique-based orientation to develop not only in-depth understandings but also challenges to established social arrangements. For example, a feminist disability study of mothers of children with Down syndrome analyzed how these mothers negotiate and counter representations of their children in educational, medical, and social discourses to advance family-centered language, practices, and policies (Isgro, 2015). Critical feminist theories include standpoint theories that hold that our knowledge of social life is always situated by our social locations, especially as gendered, classed, and raced individuals. Radical feminism advocates for women’s difference as critical to gendered ways of enacting family life. Socialist feminist theories develop economic justice models that challenge capitalistpatriarchal exploitation of gendered labor such as carework. Several critical “post” perspectives have emerged, including poststructural, postmodern, and postcolonial perspectives, that contest the premises of received research traditions. Although these “post” perspectives differ, all take issue with models of representation that assume language can mirror only a pregiven reality; models of power as structured relations of domination and control predicated on religion, patriarchy, or capitalism; and models of identity organized by fixed and polarized differences. Instead, poststructural and postmodern feminisms hold representation as creating rather than mirroring realities. Power is conceived as productive forces operating through complex contextual and contingent networks that produce the subjects of power. Finally, identity is held to be fragmented and multiple, a view that disrupts the coherence of the self and the stable differences of self and other in favor of fluid relations. For example, the argument that gender identity is an ongoing performance rather than the expression of a biologically pregiven nature exemplifies this view (Butler, 2011). No single definition of feminism nor consensus on core concepts in critical feminist communication scholarship has been established. Accordingly, we prefer to describe feminist theorizing as a continual process. Critical feminist theorizing takes gender and sexuality as critical sites of power, identity, experience, and meaning that must be investigated as historical, plural, and enacted through

112

Sotirin & Ellingson

communication. Further, social change is inherent to critical feminist analyses because questioning assumptions, challenging taken-for-granted practices, and seeking more equitable social relations are shared commitments. Although, for some, feminism is about addressing the inequities that disadvantage women, for others, feminism is about social justice across multiple and overlapping forms of oppression. This rich plurality of approaches is what constitutes feminism as a self-reflexively critical perspective; feminists continually reflect on and struggle over their own practices and assumptions. Bringing these characterizations to the study of families, we suggest two starting points in contemporary critical feminist family communication theorizing. First, critical feminists seek to depose the hegemony of the nuclear family form and traditional gendered roles. The idealized model of the patriarchal nuclear family with gender-fixed roles, ahistorical, taken-for-granted gender, race, and class values, and self-managing insularity is simply not workable for most U.S. families. Critical feminist family scholarship seeks to deconstruct such idealizations that both enforce oppressive gendered roles and marginalize and penalize alternative family forms. Likewise, critical feminists refuse to romanticize the family as a “safe haven” where tensions are resolved before bedtime and take an unblinking stance on intimate violence, the rigid expectations of gender roles, intractable work/life conflicts, and regressive policies that perpetuate rather than resolve inequities (Allen, 2016). The critique of entrenched assumptions and practices exposes a myriad of overlapping issues. A second starting point is to identify and promote creative, inclusive, and empowering practices within all family forms. Creativity in family forms and practices is undeniable yet often repressed by institutionalized sanctions. Critical feminists have theorized the resistance and radical potential of single-parent families, families of choice, unmarried parenting, families without children, othermothering in Black communities, and multi-racial kinships. For critical feminists, such creativity reveals the powerful resilience and responsiveness that sustains and continually refashions family life. Further, feminist theorizing advocates for larger cultural and societal changes that build on such alternatives. Hence, family must be studied as diverse, culturally and historically situated, riddled by contrary demands, and ever-changing. Both critique and advocacy animate critical feminist inquiry into families as sites of both nurture/strength and constraint/oppression. We suggest three broad orienting goals of critical feminist family theorizing: (a) problematizing mainstream assumptions and practices; (b) accountability to lived experiences of oppression; and (c) methodological innovation.

Main Goals and Features of Critical Feminist Family Communication Theory One primary goal of critical feminist scholarship is to problematize assumptions about gender, power, communication, and social order underpinning mainstream family forms, norms, and research. This is a communication-focused

Critical Feminist Theories 113 theorizing strategy that highlights culture, context, and history. Problematizing entails reframing taken-for-granted conceptions as historical rather than natural, complex rather than straightforward, preferential rather than neutral, and obscuring rather than illuminating lived realities. For example, conventional family research often reflects the belief that heterosexual couples with their own biological children are (and should be) the standard for family life and kinship relations. Likewise, researchers’ implicit biases promote Western cultural standards for family as universal standards. Destabilizing the categories that guide both research and lived understandings is another aspect of this goal. For example, feminist poststructuralists have critiqued the power of demographic categories to create the realities they seem to merely report, especially the implicit privilege/devaluation in dichotomous categories (mutually exclusive, paired opposites) such as male/female and public/private. Black feminist intersectionality and postcolonial theories analyze the effects of overlapping relational and institutional categories such as racial-ethnic identities, sexual orientation, nationality, immigration status, and economic status on particular families. Another goal of critical feminist scholarship is to keep theorizing accountable to the lived experiences of marginalized groups through praxis. Praxis refers to putting theory into action for social change. So critical feminist communication theorizing is a form of social activism and not merely an academic exercise. In the past, “voice” was a critical concept for realizing this goal, but voice has proven to be a vexed concept. Women of color and postcolonial scholars have critiqued both the “authenticity” of voice and the challenges of researching the experiences of others, especially by White feminists. Thus, reflexivity has become central to feminist scholarship involving both sensitivity to and selfscrutiny of ways that scholarly perspectives are partial and reflect particular values, always producing knowledge that reflects and benefits some people more than others. In addition, reflexivity involves learning from and with research participants rather than about (“othering”) them, respecting the legitimacy of “local” knowledge. For example, feminist family communication scholars demonstrated reflexivity and self-scrutiny in a Women & Language forum in which they critiqued their research assumptions about family integrity, parents’ gendered relations with technology, and class-based ideologies, as well as reflecting on how their embodied experiences of childlessness, disability, and heteronormativity affected their relationships with research participants (Golden, 2011). A third goal of critical feminist scholarship is to develop new and more responsive research methods that both problematize assumptions of conventional methods and create new forms of data, interpretation, and analysis, realizing new ways to understand and imagine family possibilities. Methodologically, feminist communication scholars have been both creative and rebellious, pioneering alternative approaches that have prompted a rethinking of what counts as research and blurring the lines between social science, narrative, and art. Ellingson (2009) urged communication scholars to “crystallize” multiple

114

Sotirin & Ellingson

forms of analysis and representation across the artistic—scientific continuum, show researcher reflexivity and vulnerability, and acknowledge the partial nature of all knowledge claims. Feminist family research includes such approaches as participatory action research, responsive evaluation, and constructivist grounded theory, as well as decolonizing research approaches such as indigenous methods, critical ethnography, sharing circles, and symbol-based reflection. These approaches both challenge what counts as legitimate and normative research methodologies and engage in egalitarian collaborations and emergent research projects grounded in local priorities and practices (Bermúdez, Muruthi, & Jordan, 2016). Finally, feminist researchers have championed arts-based research including autoethnographic stories, fictionwriting, poetry, and performance as especially suited for examining family bonds and trauma (Faulkner, 2016; Sotirin, 2010). Feminist family research is thus responding to calls for “genrebending” experimentation and for embracing forms that engage general audiences better than conventional research reports (Bochner, 2014, p. 423).

How Communication is Conceptualized in Critical Feminist Family Theory Family communication scholars have long construed families as meaningcentered social groups enacted through regularized patterns of talk and interaction. Such a process-oriented definition grants communication a primary role in family life. Yet this remains a functional-instrumental view in which communication patterns and relationships contribute to larger system goals such as stability, harmony, and continuity and can be studied as empirical variables, such as conflict orientations, relational maintenance behaviors, or family affinity patterns. Whereas feminist communication scholars may adopt such an orientation, a social construction perspective is more widely accepted. From this perspective, communication does not reflect or represent what already exists but rather shapes our experiences and knowledge of reality. This view of communication focuses on the significance of meanings, stories, cognitive schema, ideologies, and cultural norms in creating, maintaining, and transforming social life. For example, feminist scholars have argued that families develop through the stories they tell and the ways they tell those stories (Langellier & Peterson, 2006). A poststructuralist feminist communication perspective radically reframes this view of communication, holding that perceived reality can be said to be “authored” through discourse at the cultural, institutional, community, and individual levels in uneven and often contested ways. Discourse is not simply what is said but a network of rules, logics, and enactments that produce ways of thinking about and “doing” family. For example, “intensive mothering” constitutes the role of the “good mother” through discourses of maternal responsibilities, managerial principles, neoliberal values, and White, middleclass family life. Intensive mothering becomes a way of conducting oneself

Critical Feminist Theories 115 as a mother and making sense of one’s experiences, desires, and possibilities. Critical feminist communication critique involves recognizing how cultural discourses naturalize dichotomies (father/mother, work/home), limiting our ability to perceive and reflect upon the contexts and complexities of our experiences. Thus the paradigmatic good mother is still described in terms of her feminine traits and the good father in terms of his masculinity, deemphasizing the ways in which their successful enactment of parenting negotiates gendered expectations and blends gendered behaviors. Critical feminist communication theorizing focuses on discursive struggles to change societal understandings of and language used to describe specific aspects of family life. For example, a critical feminist analysis of stay-at-home fathers not only critiques dominant assumptions about gendered divisions of carework and waged labor but also explores transformative conceptions of masculinity and fatherhood, caretaking, and gendered work/family relations (Medved, 2016). From a discursive perspective, the possibilities and constraints on how families can be lived in particular times and places are never wholly prescribed in social norms and sanctions but entail lived differences and contestations that can inspire cultural imagination to think beyond existing possibilities.

Research and Practical Applications of Critical Feminist Family Theory Three hallmarks of feminist theorizing are integral to current directions in feminist family communication scholarship: the personal is political; the danger of essentialism; and the synergy of feminist anger, struggle, and passion for gender justice. The Personal is Political This slogan developed in 1970s feminist theorizing and public advocacy. Its corollary in family communication studies is that the family as the locus of private/domestic life is not apolitical but riddled by gendered inequities. From a critical feminist communication perspective, this slogan draws attention to overlapping dichotomies: public life and matters are visible, important, political, and reserved for men and masculinity whereas private life and matters are invisible, mundane, domestic, and associated with women and femininity. Critical feminist family communication studies have illuminated how these dichotomies enable denigrated identities (such as stay-at-home fathers) and inequities (such as the “second shift” for employed women), as well as the emergence of alternative understandings (such as housework as significant labor). “The personal is political” emphasizes an important commitment of feminist theorizing to promote social and political change to address gender inequities. Promising methodological developments that center on the personal/ familial as political are feminist autoethnographic explorations of family identities, practices, and cultural discourses. Family life is a critical locus for

116

Sotirin & Ellingson

autoethnographic studies because family relationships are the site of some of the most intense experiences of love, trauma, and loss. The dominance of social scientific studies in family communication renders such intense emotional experiences mute by reducing them to variables and statistics. In contrast, autoethnographic studies bring personal experiences to life through story and poetry. A critical feminist autoethnographic approach emphasizes vulnerability, self-reflexivity, and praxis. For example, Boylorn (2013) uses autoethnographic stories and poetry to critically reflect on complications of race, sexuality, family, and community in a rural southern setting. Her childhood and the lives of the Black women around her are evocatively portrayed and interwoven with insights from critical race and Black feminist theories. In Knit Four, Frog One, Faulkner (2014) uses a variety of poetic forms to plumb mother–daughter relationships, women’s work, mothering, family secrets, and communication in close relationships. The poems engage readers in powerful resistance against dominant cultural discourses of women, family, and motherhood. Finally, Sotirin’s (2010) experience as a feminist mother of two boys grounded her case for autoethnography as “radical specificity,” a concept from Deleuzian philosophy. She argued that whereas readers’ empathic understanding evoked in autoethnographic stories is valuable, such stories may repress what cannot be known, said, or performed about an experience, in favor of what can be shared, communicated, or held in common, inadvertently reinforcing stereotypes and superficial understandings of complex experiences. These approaches to research evoke the personal pain and struggle involved in embodied experiences. More importantly, they provoke critical personal and scholarly reflections about the relational intensities and cultural forces that cast family experience as simultaneously personal and political. The Danger of Essentialism in Identity Politics The consciousness-raising tactics of the women’s liberation movement encouraged women to understand their personal oppressions as shared with all women. This view was later strongly criticized by racial-ethnic feminists as essentialist and universalizing, that is, as assuming that all women shared essential aspects of femininity and femaleness and could therefore understand one another’s experiences. Yet arguments over what can be considered common to all women or what distinguishes women from men often (sometimes inadvertently) naturalize differences. Even attempts to distinguish sex (biological) from gender (social) break down once we interrogate heteronormativity and consider transgender identities. Family communication studies often reproduce essentialist assumptions about family roles, norms, and structures even while arguing for alternative forms and practices. For example, researchers continue to focus almost exclusively on women as daughters, sisters, mothers, or grandmothers, often implicitly assuming women’s family roles involve essentialized functions and identities. Further, heteronormativity undergirds even critical analyses advocating for the

Critical Feminist Theories 117 “normalcy” of LGBTQ families (Chevrette, 2013). Yet the tension between identity politics relying on categories of “differences that matter” and the deconstruction of identity categories as essentialist is troubling for feminist theorists seeking to change power relations premised in categorical distinctions. If categories are themselves suspect, who is the struggle for? The antiessentialist perspective is that sexual and gendered identities are complexly, contradictorily, and incompletely constructed through historical, cultural, and sociopolitical discourses, and neither identities nor social justice goals can be decontextualized. A promising theoretical development is the concept of intersectionality, which one feminist scholar called the future of family studies (Few-Demo, 2014; see also Chapter 16, this volume). Originating in Black feminist thought, intersectionality theory begins with a critique of essentialist categories and argues for a more complex understanding of societal systems and institutional forms of privilege, representation, and oppression. For several decades, feminist scholars have acknowledged the necessity of addressing the “triple jeopardy” of gender, race, and class. Yet densely intertwined relations of inequality/privilege, oppression/domination, and resistance/control operate at the juncture of multiple identities and cultural forces—not only race, ethnicity, class, and gender but sexuality, age, locale, disability, religion, immigration/citizenship status, and more. Critical feminist communication scholars are well prepared to address the demands of intersectional theorizing and research, given that multiplicities of meaning, selves, and contexts are addressed in prevailing feminist perspectives. The Synergy of Feminist Anger, Struggle, and Passion for Gender Justice The stereotype of the “angry feminist” is a long-standing caricature of the passion, determination, and resilience of feminist advocates. Critical feminists are often labeled “angry” when they seek to show how privileging certain identities—heterosexual, White, able-bodied, affluent—and familial forms and practices—(bio)reproductive, married, wage-earning—perpetuate inequities. Certainly, a critical feminist framework on the family is “all about power” (Few-Demo, Lloyd, & Allen, 2014), deconstructing relations of dominance/ subordination and privilege/marginalization in order to unpack the complexities of power, conflict, love, and care. Feminist analysis often focuses on contradictions, ironies, and discontinuities as sites of discursive struggle and governing forces. Exemplary is Bell’s (2005) analysis of a nightly mothers’ march against known neighborhood pedophiles after the murder of a young girl. Despite what might have been extoled as the women’s public agency and a powerful (gendered) challenge to external control, the protesting women were caricatured in the press as angry, overreacting “vigilante mothers.” Whereas Bell adroitly draws out these contradictions, she ultimately points out a more troubling tension: the mothers lived in a housing project for low-income families where pedophiles were routinely

118

Sotirin & Ellingson

relocated without the residents’ knowledge. So politics, class, location, and gender governed the performance of motherhood in local actions, popular imagination, and official policies. This example shows the value of extending family communication analyses beyond the immediate family to include cultural, community, and policy contexts. Critical feminist theorizing informed by multicultural and postcolonial theories likewise attends to multiple, overlapping, and entrenched power dynamics. By and for members of marginalized groups facing systemic oppression, such theorizing pays special attention to generational and geopolitical ideologies, histories, and locations. Even “the family” as an object of study and a social institution has been critiqued as a dominant and damaging ideology (Bermudez et al., 2016) that suppresses what Utal (2009) calls “interfluentiality,” or the dense and complexly interrelated bonds of traditions, ancestral histories, and intergenerational clan and tribal relations that constitute non-nuclear familialcommunity identities and experiences for many indigenous peoples. Moreover, global flows of people, labor, and money figure in these perspectives. For example, caring labor as a global commodity is sharply critiqued for the exploitation of immigrant women of color from developing nations by affluent families in the West; ironies and ethical quandaries abound as care is outsourced and commodified and the children or elderly relatives of affluent dual career partners receive daily care while a caretaker’s own children and parents remain in the home country. Finally, of particular concern in these perspectives are the ways theorizing itself can be oppressive by constructing relations of marginalization and deviance, by pathologizing and/or exoticizing categories of otherness, and by failing to account for the partialities and biases of the academic gaze (McDowell & Fang, 2007). We offer our own work on extended family relationships among aunts, nieces, and nephews as an extended example of the intersection of communication, family, and critical feminism. We studied the aunt not as an identity defined by kinship structures and family roles but as a communicative performance of family relationships (Ellingson & Sotirin, 2010; Sotirin & Ellingson, 2013). Aunts may or may not be genetic or legal family members; aunts may be “fictive kin” designated through friendship, community practices, or obligation. Further, “aunt” is not a stable, well-defined role such as “mother” or “father” but is highly variable. Aunts may be affectionate or emotionally detached; a presence in everyday family life or just an occasional visitor; an admirable role model or a cautionary tale. Given these variations, we talk about aunting as a verb, as something that people do when they communicate with others. By focusing on aunts rather than nuclear family figures, we constructed an alternative view of extended family life that encompasses chosen families, caring communities, geographically dispersed (but emotionally connected) kin, and the changing demographics of familial networks including same-sex couples, single-parent families, and families without children. Our analysis of aunting illustrates how family, kinship, femininity, and gender are framed through a critical feminist lens as a nexus of constraints and opportunities that inspire

Critical Feminist Theories 119 questioning gender roles and developing new insights into how family and community life might be reorganized to promote equity and justice.

Evaluation of Critical Feminist Family Communication Theory We have highlighted powerful ways in which critical feminist family communication questions taken-for-granted assumptions about families in order to problematize dominant arrangements and advocate for equity and inclusivity. Yet critical feminist scholarship is sparse in family communication studies. Why? We acknowledge that objections to this perspective persist. Critical feminist theory holds an explicit political agenda that can blur the line between research and advocacy and violate the criterion for a neutral research stance. So feminist research is sometimes rejected as “advocacy” research. Moreover, despite feminist critiques, a dichotomous view of power prevails in which men/male/masculinity/patriarchy are reified as unrelentingly oppressive. Such a monolithic and reductive conception makes feminist work seem both vengeful and ineffectual. Another objection comes from generational and critical race critiques charging that critical feminist theorizing has paid insufficient attention to intersectionality and too often frames issues from the standpoint of White middle class families. Further, postcolonial feminists have argued that Anglo American models of family, intimacy, sexuality, and gender justice are too often framed as universal. Another objection is that critical feminist family research is not often cited in family studies conducted in other disciplines, despite shared topics such as mothering, sexuality, intimate and domestic violence, work-life, and work-family relations. Such scholarly isolation limits the influence of critical feminist family communication studies. Finally, as with all critical perspectives, critical feminism must acknowledge that reified relations of power, identity, and social life are resistant to change, and passionate debates continue about the practical value of (arguably esoteric) theorizing in promoting change. Nonetheless, we embrace the value of critical feminist theorizing for problematizing taken-for-granted gender identities and issues, advocating alternatives to hegemonic family forms and practices, and advancing creative concepts, strategies, and methodologies.

Continuing the Conversation Going forward, we suggest that critical feminist perspectives will continue to enhance family communication in a number of ways. First, critical feminist theorizing expands on the research agenda of family communication studies by foregrounding issues of gender and power both in and across intimate and social/ institutional relations. Critical feminist theorizing questions accepted models and explanations of family, complicates issues drawn on women’s lived experiences such as abuse or domesticity, and traces the discourses that organize both how we understand such experiences and the authority of the institutions that regulate them. Second, feminist theorizing engages with the complexities and

120

Sotirin & Ellingson

possibilities of family life as communicative, articulating overlapping, often contradictory, and multilevel relations of power and meaning, valuation and identity, in dynamic, interactive, and generative processes. We have emphasized family as an arena of discursive struggle that for feminists invites both critique of damaging and entrenched intersectional inequalities and hope for more just and inclusive alternatives. Third, critical feminist perspectives bring a theoretical vitality to family studies by bridging communication subfields, connecting with family studies in other disciplines, and enthusiastically adapting emergent concepts such as intersectionality and Deleuzian specificity. We anticipate exciting reconceptualizations that challenge family communication researchers to think differently about all aspects of family, gender, and communication. Fourth, critical feminist family theorizing makes theory accountable to the experiences of gendered family life and insists that analyses be relevant to multiple scholarly and public audiences. We have extolled the imaginative power of and commitment to feminist praxis for exploring and advocating how families might be lived otherwise. For all of these reasons, we are confident that the feminist conversation about family life will productively continue to energize and advance family communication studies.

References Allen, K. R. (2016). Feminist theory in family studies: History, reflection and critique. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8, 207–224. Bell, V. (2005). The vigilant(e) parent and the paedophile: The News of the World campaign 2000 and the contemporary governmentality of child sexual abuse. Economy & Society, 34, 83–102. Bermudez, J. M., Muruthi, B. A., & Jordan, L. S. (2016). Decolonizing research methods for family science: Creating space at the center. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 8, 192–206. Bochner, A. P. (2014). Epilogue: On family communication’s search for meaning. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The Sage handbook of family communication (pp. 417–425). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Boylorn, R. M. (2013). Sweetwater: Black women and narratives of resilience. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Butler, J. (2011). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Chevrette, R. (2013). Outing heteronormativity in interpersonal and family communication: Feminist applications of queer theory ‘beyond the sexy streets.’ Communication Theory, 23, 170–190. Colaner, C. W., & Rittenour, C. E. (2015). “Feminism begins at home”: The influence of mother gender socialization on daughter career and motherhood aspirations as channeled through daughter feminist identification. Communication Quarterly, 63, 81–98. Coontz, S. (2016). The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap (Revised and updated edition). New York, NY: Basic Books. (Original work published 1992.)

Critical Feminist Theories 121 Dow, B. J., & Condit, C. M. (2005). The state of the art in feminist scholarship in communication. Journal of Communication, 55, 448–478. Ellingson, L. L. (2009). Engaging crystallization in qualitative research: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ellingson, L. L., & Sotirin, P. J. (2010). Aunting: Cultural practices that sustain family and community life. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Faulkner, S. L. (2014). Family stories, poetry, and women’s work: Knit four, frog one. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. Faulkner, S. L. (2016). TEN (The promise of arts-based, ethnographic, and narrative research in critical family communication research and praxis). Journal of Family Communication, 16, 9–15. Few-Demo, A. L. (2014). Intersectionality as the ‘new’ critical approach in feminist family studies: Evolving racial/ethnic feminisms and critical race theories. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 169–183. Few-Demo, A. L., Lloyd, S. A., & Allen, K. R. (2014). ‘It’s all about power’: Integrating family studies and family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 85–94. Golden, A. G. (Ed.). (2011). Salon: Feminist reflexivity. Women & Language, 34, 99–132. Isgro, K. (2015). From a caretaker’s perspective: Mothers of children with Down syndrome as advocates. Women & Language, 38, 63–82. Langellier, K. M., & Peterson, E. E. (2006). Narrative performance theory: Telling stories, doing family. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 99–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Manning, J. (2015). Paradoxes of (im) purity: Affirming heteronormativity and queering heterosexuality in family discourses of purity pledges. Women’s Studies in Communication, 38, 99–117. McDowell, T., & Fang, S. S. (2007). Feminist-informed critical multiculturalism: Considerations for family research. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 549–566. Medved, C. E. (2016). Stay-at-home fathering as a feminist opportunity: Perpetuating, resisting, and transforming gender relations of caring and earning. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 16–31. Sotirin, P. (2010). Reviews and resources in family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 131–136. Sotirin, P., & Ellingson, L. L. (2013). Where the aunts are: Family, feminism, and kinship in popular culture. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press. Stamp, G. H., & Shue, C. K. (2013). Twenty years of family research published in communication journals: A review of the perspectives, theories, concepts, and contexts. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (2nd ed., pp. 11–28). New York, NY: Routledge. Uttal, L. (2009). (Re)visioning family ties to communities and contexts. In S. A. Lloyd, A. L. Few, & K. R. Allen (Eds.), Handbook of feminist family studies (pp. 134–146). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

11 Dyadic Power Theory Dominance and Power in Family Communication Norah E. Dunbar and Aubrie Adams

Understanding the balance of power is fundamental to understanding the nature of any interpersonal relationship. Families are a particularly interesting venue for the study of power. They include both hierarchical relationships in which power differences are expected—such as the parent-child relationship—and relationships built largely on equality and trust—such as sibling relationships. Dyadic communication—interactions composed of two people—is particularly influenced by power dynamics in families. In the marital dyad, for example, how much power each spouse perceives he or she has can vary based on relational history and the culture in which the spouses live. The amount of power afforded to children is also based on both the history of the family as well as the cultural norms in which the family is embedded. Whether or not parents include children in decision making can be a result of the parents’ expectations for family roles, the trust between parents and children that has been built over time, whether allowing children to voice opinions is normal for that culture, and many other factors. The resources of the children, such as expertise and knowledge that parents might be lacking, can also elevate their power within the family. For example, children who translate for foreignlanguage-speaking parents (called language brokering; e.g., Morales & Hanson, 2005) might experience an elevated place of power in the family compared to children who do not language broker, because their parents depend on them for communication. In this chapter, we will discuss the state-of-the-art for a theory that attempts to explain how power relationships affect communication behavior: dyadic power theory.

Intellectual Tradition of Dyadic Power Theory Dyadic power theory (hereafter called DPT) is a social science theory that looks at the factors that cause individuals to feel powerful relative to others, the communication processes that result from that experience of power, and the outcomes for both the relationship and the individuals within it. It emerged from Norah Dunbar’s Ph.D. dissertation in 1999–2000 under the direction of advisor Judee Burgoon. At the time, Burgoon and Dunbar (2000) were examining the impact of pre-existing power structures on the expression of dominance

Dyadic Power Theory 123 in conflict interactions. Rollins and Bahr (1976) previously set the groundwork for this analysis by proposing several propositions related to marital power in their article “A theory of power relationships in marriage.” Dunbar (2000) modified the propositions, focused on the communication processes that were omitted from the Rollins and Bahr model, and designed a series of studies to empirically test the important role communication plays in dyadic conflict. Since this work was originally tested, summarized, and published (Dunbar, 2004; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005), several other tests of the theory have been conducted and a recent book chapter summarizes the results of these tests and adds new propositions to the theory (Dunbar, Lane, & Abra, 2016). The theory is organized into three stages: (1) pre-interactional factors, such as one’s legitimate authority and resources, which are the “baggage” people bring to all their interactions; (2) the communication processes themselves, such as expressions of dominance, affection, or social support; and (3) the postinteractional outcomes such as relational satisfaction and interaction outcomes, such as who “wins” any given conflict. This is clearly important in families because family members might have hierarchical authority, history, and resources they share before they engage in an interaction. They engage in patterns of behavior that affect the health and well-being of their family system over the long term.

Main Goals and Features of Dyadic Power Theory Dunbar (2004) originally proposed DPT through a series of eight empirically testable propositions that reflect the three stages of pre-interaction, interaction, and post-interaction factors. There have been over a dozen tests of these propositions conducted by Dunbar and other researchers. Dunbar et al. (2016) recently added three new propositions to this as well, but they have not yet been tested empirically. Here, we briefly review the propositions and the evidence for them. Pre-interactional Factors The first three propositions of DPT propose that pre-existing degrees of authority and resources are two of the most important factors that set the stage for an interaction. Dunbar (2004) argues that actors’ resource levels in comparison to their partners’, and the legitimate authority they possess to use those resources, together create a belief about power that exists relative to one’s dyadic partner. The relative nature of power is important when examining family dyads because older siblings might feel that they have more resources and authority than their younger siblings, especially if the age difference is large, but they might still feel they lack power compared to their parents. This will result in different interaction styles compared to whom they are talking to. Power is not an attribute of a person, but is instead an aspect of a relationship, according to DPT.

124

Dunbar & Adams

Interactional Factors DPT also predicts a nonlinear relationship between perceived power and the attempt to communicate that power through “control attempts.” A control attempt is a behavior by one actor intended to change the behavior of another during a social interaction (Dunbar, 2004). Although Rollins and Bahr (1976) assert that more power leads to greater use of control attempts, Dunbar (2004) proposes that the relationship between perceived relative power and control attempts is curvilinear rather than linear. In other words, equal-power partners will have more control attempts than people who are unequal in power, whether those people have higher or lower power. Control attempts can be seen in a wide variety of verbal and nonverbal messages, including dominance displays such as gestures and facial expressions, the use of affection, or even the use of verbal and nonverbal social support (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005; Dunbar & Johnson, 2015). The theory explains that low power partners don’t speak up because they fear the repercussions for doing so (called “the chilling effect;” Cloven & Roloff, 1993) and high power partners don’t need to be dominant because they are probably already getting their way. This proposition has received the most attention from researchers, perhaps because it is somewhat counterintuitive, given that one might expect more power to lead to more dominance displays. Overall, this curvilinear relationship between power and control attempts is supported in several studies with low-power partners making the fewest control attempts, equal-power dyads using the most control attempts, and high-power partners falling somewhere in the middle (see Dunbar et al., 2016, for a review). Equal power partners may feel more freedom to express their grievances during conflicts and may be more likely to vie for position in their relationship with their partner. In families, this means DPT would predict that siblings with presumably equal power will engage in more dominant one-upsmanship with each other than with their parents. When one partner makes a control attempt, the other partner may respond with control attempts of his or her own, called counter-control attempts. Whether or not a control attempt is challenged is also related to the perception of power. This proposition is rarely examined in the current DPT literature, but a qualitative analysis by Dunbar and Mejia (2013) speaks to this. In their detailed analysis of power-equal and power-unequal couples’ conversations, they found that “challenging” or “collaboration” was a type of behavior used by equal power types, whereas “marginalization” or “withdrawal” was used more by unequal power types. This suggests that, consistent with DPT, those with greater power equality are also those that engage in more of the counter-control attempts rather than letting their partners’ control attempts go unanswered. Post-interactional Factors Dunbar’s (2004) final three propositions represent the outcomes of the interaction, including the amount of control one gains in the interaction and the

Dyadic Power Theory 125 level of satisfaction with both the relationship and the interaction that comes as a result. Dunbar proposes that greater control attempts lead to a partner being able to obtain more control; but subsequent counter-control attempts made by the receiving partner hinder the other’s control over the outcomes. Some DPT studies have examined the outcomes of a particular argument, such as who “wins” or satisfies more of their demands (Dunbar & Abra, 2010; Dunbar, Bippus, & Young, 2008; Recchia, Ross, & Vickar, 2010), but others examine sustained effects such as long-term relational satisfaction (Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005; Dunbar & Johnson, 2015). DPT specifically addresses relational satisfaction and predicts another curvilinear relationship—partners who perceive their relative power as extremely high or low will report lower levels of satisfaction compared to partners who perceive the relative power differences as small or moderate (equal power). Equity theory (Walster & Walster, 1975) suggests that individuals are less satisfied when they are in inequitable relationships and they attempt to restore equity to increase satisfaction. In families, wherein inequality is expected in some relationships, unequal power might not translate into a sense of dissatisfaction. An example of this can be seen in the unequal division of labor in family chores. Women, even when working full time, take on more of the household work than their spouses, but they often report that it is a fair arrangement because equity in relationships is subjectively based on what they perceive as normal (Van Willigen & Drentea, 2001). DPT examines both the long-term effects of power on relational satisfaction and also immediate outcomes such as perceptions of conflict escalation, perceptions of progress on the conflict issue, and “who won” the interaction. For example, in an experiment in which people talked about a problem-solving task with a stranger, Dunbar and Abra (2010) found that those in the highpower position changed their previous decision the least after interacting with their partner, whereas those in low-power changed their decision the most. The high-power partners “stuck to their guns” and refused to negotiate with their partner. Even if there is not a conflict involved, the power relationship between family members can affect how good they feel after their interaction and whether or not they felt heard and supported by their family. It can also predict whether or not they choose to engage in conflict at all. Unequal power dyads might avoid topics that are going to lead to conflict because they don’t want to “rock the boat.”

How Communication is Conceptualized in Dyadic Power Theory As a theory that comes out of the social-psychological tradition in Communication, DPT has a close relationship with social exchange theories (Emerson, 1976; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Molm, 1997). Social exchange theories broadly assert that actors conceptualize relationships from an economic perspective. According to Daniels and Evans (2014), people weigh the costs and benefits of their dyadic interactions; costs refer to the negative aspects of their

126

Dunbar & Adams

relationship and benefits refer to the positive aspects. Though theories in this vein are often used to explain dyadic phenomena, they can also be utilized to explain interactions in family communication. For example, when deciding whether a family should have an additional child, parents can weigh up the potential rewards, such as the possibility for affection, greater life fulfillment, and pride in raising a young person, with the associated costs of the undertaking, such as the negative impact on financial resources, future sibling conflict, and sleep deprivation. If a relationship or action costs more than its rewards, it is likely to be terminated or not pursued, but if an actor receives a fair return for his or her social expenditures, he or she is more likely to be satisfied and continue the endeavor. Therefore, individuals will act to maximize rewards and minimize costs in their social interactions (see Dunbar, 2015, for a discussion of the social exchange theories and other related theories). This is true even if the reward is altruistic, such as seeing a partner’s happiness rather than meeting one’s self-serving goals. A recent study by Laurin et al. (2016) showed that low-power partners concern themselves with their partners’ goals more than highpower partners, a finding consistent with DPT. Theories in this vein follow two primary assumptions. The first is that relationships are interdependent: when one partner performs an action, his or her action affects the relationship as a whole. The second assumption is that relational life is a process: this acknowledges the role of both time and change. In particular, social exchanges are influenced by past dyadic experiences that guide how one perceives future costs and benefits (Daniels & Evans, 2014). DPT is similarly rooted within these assumptions. In line with these tenets, communication is conceptualized in accordance with a transactional model (Barnlund, 1970). As explained by Bollen and Bollen (2014), transactional models of communication view interaction as a simultaneous process of message sending and receiving. Communication is collaborative and both interlocutors are jointly responsible for the effect of their communication on the other. Moreover, past experiences play a large role in influencing present interactions: new messages build on those preceding. Thus, DPT views communication as an inherently interdependent process. Communication varies by the control attempts that people use to influence one another. Recall that DPT predicts that equal power dyads use more control attempts than unequal power dyads. These control attempts can take many forms, both verbal and nonverbal. If one spouse wants more children whereas the other does not, the strategies used can range from a verbal discussion in which the pros of having more children are presented logically, to screaming, crying, and guilt-tripping the partner into acquiescence. It can also be more subtle such as visiting friends with a newborn and encouraging the partner to hold the baby, putting baby pictures of previous children up around the house, and making sighing noises or off-hand comments when the subject comes up. The control attempts used by partners can take many forms and use any available means of communication.

Dyadic Power Theory 127

Research and Practical Applications of Dyadic Power Theory DPT was originally conceived as a theory of power in marital relationships, but its applicability into other family relationships and then other settings entirely was quickly realized. The first study of the modified DPT was a test of decisionmaking in couples. Dunbar (2000; Dunbar & Burgoon, 2005) gave 97 couples the task of deciding how to spend a fictional gift of $1,000 and the couples negotiated their various priorities in order to achieve a joint list. The dominance behaviors displayed during the task, both verbally and nonverbally, were coded and analyzed as the control attempts shown during the discussion. How well the joint list reflected the priorities of each person was analyzed to see whose negotiation was more successful. One problem encountered when trying to test the propositions of DPT is that almost all the couples said they were relatively equal to one another in power, so it was difficult to compare equal-power dyads to unequal-power dyads. Although the theory has continued to be tested in families and couples (see Bevan, 2010; Dunbar & Johnson, 2015; Worley & Samp, 2016), researchers have also started conducting experimental tests wherein power was manipulated, to be assured that DPT’s predictions were accurate. In one experiment, Dunbar and Abra (2010) paired strangers to discuss the “desert survival problem,” wherein one has to imagine with a partner that both are stranded in the desert with some items and participants must prioritize which items to salvage from the wreckage of a crashed jeep. In this case, we sometimes gave more power to one participant by appointing one the leader of the group and indicating that he or she was in charge of the final priority list. In another study, we told pairs of subjects they were to examine résumés for a new employee and pick the best one. We assigned one partner to be the boss and the other an employee or told them they were equal-power co-workers (Dunbar et al., 2014). In both of these experiments, the central proposition of DPT was supported. When people feel they are in an equal-power position with their partner, they discuss the issue for longer and use more dominance displays than when they are unequal. Studies in this vein show how both pre-existing power balances and access to resources can work together to affect an interaction and ultimately affect the feelings, emotions, and satisfaction levels that result. This research is especially applicable for professionals in careers such as negotiation, mediation, and marriage and family counseling, in which the potential for facilitating dyadic conflict resolution is high. For example, couples with different pre-existing power dynamics may respond to similar conflicts in very different ways. Consider again the case in which a family is deciding whether or not to have an additional child and one spouse has more power than the other. On the surface, the couple may appear in agreement, but in reality, the high-power partner may be simply using his or her resources and existing power to pressure the low-power partner into compliance even when there is no overt conflict on the topic. The low-power partner may have little say in influencing the outcome and may feel powerless as a result. This can contribute to an overall dissatisfaction with the relationship that may otherwise be difficult to identify the root cause of without exploring pre-existing power-dynamics.

128

Dunbar & Adams

Inversely, a marital dyad composed of equal-power partners may exhibit more overt conflict and dominance displays such as yelling or showing frustration toward the partner’s disagreement. This may appear problematic to an outside observer, such as a counselor, and still could contribute to a situation that is largely dissatisfying, but it could actually indicate a healthier level of power and greater overall satisfaction with the relationship. In other words, dominance displays may be a sign of an equal-power relationship in which both partners feel comfortable and free enough to assert their own positions without fear of a higher powered other. DPT provides a framework for understanding this interaction.

Evaluation of Dyadic Power Theory Though DPT is a relatively new theory that still has room to evolve, it provides a lens for scholars of family communication to examine power dynamics from a dyadic perspective. To best understand the future directions of the theory, it is necessary to critically assess its current strengths and limitations according to accepted standards for social science theories. The following seven criteria (as outlined by Shoemaker, Tankard, & Lasorsa, 2004) are applied to evaluate this theory: (1) testability, (2) falsifiability, (3) parsimony, (4) explanatory power, (5) predictive power, (6) scope, and (7) heuristic value. Testability refers to the degree to which a theory can be empirically tested, and falsifiability refers to the possibility for observations to emerge that may not support the theory. DPT is both highly testable and falsifiable: it examines variables—such as pre-existing resources, perceived power, dominance behaviors, control attempts, outcomes of an argument, and relational satisfaction —all of which can vary to some degree and are subject to manipulation or measurement. In addition, the theory makes a number of specific propositions that can be empirically tested in the form of hypotheses. The potential exists for data to emerge that do not support the theory. In fact, the theory has already evolved since early tests showed that high-power partners used more control attempts than low-power partners, suggesting the curvilinear pattern predicted by the theory is actually an asymmetrical curve. Although the theory itself is testable and falsifiable, a variety of methodological issues can influence the feasibility of testing it. For example, participants may inaccurately self-report that they hold equal power in their relationship, perhaps due to misperceptions or to try to enhance their social desirability in reporting that their relationship fits within the context of societal norms that encourage individuals to value equity. This is despite the fact that couples who report equal power in their relationships are sometimes found by third-part coders to shown signs of inequality. A researcher must be aware of such issues before undertaking a study in this area (see Dunbar et al., 2016, for a review of methodological issues). Parsimony refers to the degree that a theory can be simply explained and reduced to its key components. Following the philosophical principle of Occam’s razor, all else being equal, the simplest explanation is the best. There are many theories that include power as a component (see Dunbar, 2015, for a review),

Dyadic Power Theory 129 and compared to others, DPT has an acceptable degree of parsimony. DPT can broadly be explained in terms of pre-interactional, interactional, and postinteractional factors, which allow the theory to be easily conceptualized and distilled. Nonetheless, the theory is detailed in 11 propositions and more could potentially be added as it evolves. In this way, a complexity exists in the theory that adds an additional layer of intricacy to how one approaches it. It is worth mentioning that human relationships and power dynamics are inherently complex. DPT seeks to explain and predict this complexity, thus a simpler version of the theory may be overly reductionist in a way that is not as useful as the theory is in its current form. Explanatory power refers to the extent that a theory accurately details why social phenomena function a certain way, and predictive power refers to the degree that a theory allows researchers to forecast the outcomes of communication. DPT is highly explanatory and predictive. Whereas earlier theories in this vein focused primarily on interactions and outcomes, DPT explains and predicts how pre-interactional factors, indeed, play a role in influencing the interaction and subsequent outcomes. In addition, the observed curvilinear relationship between power and control attempts is reliably supported across tests of DPT: low-power partners make the fewest control attempts, equal-power dyads use the most control attempts, and high-power partners fall somewhere in the middle. The reliability of this observation across several studies highlights DPT’s strength as a theory that can be used to predict relational outcomes. Scope refers to the extent to which a theory can illuminate a range of different types of phenomena, and heuristic value refers to a theory’s ability to generate new ideas for research and theory development. DPT was originally created to explain power dynamics in the context of dyads. Although it is largely used to examine communication in romantic relationships, it can also be used to explain communication in different types of dyads such as the parent-child, doctor-patient, teacher-student, and boss-employee dyads. As a dyadic theory, however, one shortcoming may be that it does not as easily explain how dyadic communication and power dynamics affect small groups such as an entire family unit. For example, it would likely be very complex to analyze all the dyadic relationships that are observed simultaneously when examining a family dinner table discussion. Additionally, because the theory is still new, some propositions of the theory have not yet been thoroughly tested. Though there is much promise in this area to widen the scope and the heuristic value may grow over time, emergent theories simply need more time, wider application, and testing.

Continuing the Conversation One of the recent innovations in the theory is that power may not be evenly distributed across a relationship. In fact, there may be certain domains in which one person has a great deal more power than another even when the relationship is relatively power-balanced overall. For example, having more expertise and knowledge in a certain subject area might give you expertise that makes the other

130

Dunbar & Adams

person defer to your judgment (Dunbar et al., 2016). Imagine a young child who knows more about how the family computer works than his or her parent. The parent might defer to the expertise of the child when shopping for a new computer or trying to use the computer even if the parent views him- or herself as more powerful than the child overall. This means that in the area of computer purchases or decisions, the child might have more power in that limited domain. Other contextual variables, such as culture or organizational norms, may have not been adequately represented by DPT. That is, the theory predicts equal power people will have the greatest chance of open conflict, but what if one lives in a culture where open conflict and confrontation are generally avoided? It might be the case that those situations will not conform to DPT’s predictions, but they have not yet been fully tested. Therefore, DPT is ideally situated for scholars to continue exploring and applying the theory to better predict and explain power in interpersonal relationships and family dynamics.

References Barnlund, D. C. (1970). A transactional model of communication. In K. K. Sereno & C. D. Mortenson (Eds.), Foundations of communication theory (pp. 83–102). New York, NY: Harper. Bevan, J. L. (2010). Serial argument goals and conflict strategies: A comparison between romantic partners and family members. Communication Reports, 23, 52–64. Bollen, J., & Bollen, A. (2014). Thinking about communication: Definitions, models, and ethics. In R. L. West & L. H. Turner (Eds.), Introduction to communication theory: Analysis and application (pp. 13–25). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Burgoon, J. K., & Dunbar, N. E. (2000). An interactionist perspective on dominancesubmission: Interpersonal dominance as a dynamic, situationally contingent social skill. Communication Monographs, 67, 96–121. Cloven, D. H., & Roloff, M. E. (1993). The chilling effect of aggressive potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships. Communication Monographs, 60, 199–219. Daniels, M., & Evans, L. (2014). Social exchange theory. In R. L. West & L. H. Turner (Eds.), Introduction to communication theory: Analysis and application (pp. 164–179). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Dunbar, N. E. (2000). Explication and initial test of dyadic power theory. Doctoral Dissertation. Available at http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/handle/10150/298725. Dunbar, N. E. (2004). Dyadic power theory: Constructing a communication-based theory of relational power. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 235–248. Dunbar, N. E. (2015). A review of theoretical approaches to interpersonal power. Review of Communication, 15, 1–18. Dunbar, N. E., & Abra, G. (2010). Observations of dyadic power in interpersonal interaction. Communication Monographs, 77, 657–684. Dunbar, N. E., Bippus, A. M., & Young, S. L. (2008). Interpersonal dominance in relational conflict: A view from dyadic power theory. Interpersona, 2, 1–33. Dunbar, N. E., & Burgoon, J. K. (2005). Perceptions of power and interactional dominance in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 207–233.

Dyadic Power Theory 131 Dunbar, N. E., Jensen, M. L., Bessarabova, E., Burgoon, J. K., Bernard, D. R., Harrison, K. J., . . . Eckstein, J. M. (2014). Empowered by persuasive deception: The effects of power and deception on interactional dominance, credibility, and decision-making. Communication Research, 41, 869–893. Dunbar, N. E., & Johnson, A. J. (2015). A test of dyadic power theory: Control attempts recalled from interpersonal interactions with romantic partners, family members, and friends. Journal of Argumentation in Context, 4, 42–62. Dunbar, N. E., Lane, B., & Abra, G. (2016). Power in close relationships: A dyadic power theory perspective. In J. A. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges and opportunities (pp. 75–92). New York, NY: Routledge. Dunbar, N. E., & Mejia, R. (2013). A qualitative analysis of power-based entrainment and interactional synchrony in couples. Personal Relationships, 20, 391–405. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335–362. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley. Laurin, K., Fitzsimons, G. M., Finkel, E. J., Carswell, K. L., vanDellen, M. R., Hofmann, W., . . . Brown, P. C. (2016). Power and the pursuit of a partner’s goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 840–868. Molm, L. D. (1997). Coercive power in social exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Morales, A., & Hanson, W. E. (2005). Language brokering: An integrative review of the literature. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 471–503. Recchia, H. E., Ross, H. S., & Vickar, M. (2010). Power and conflict resolution in sibling, parent-child, and spousal negotiations. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 605–615. Rollins, B. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1976). A theory of power relationships in marriage. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38, 619–627. Shoemaker, P. J., Tankard, J. W., Jr., & Lasorsa, D. L. (2004). How to build social science theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Van Willigen, M., & Drentea, P. (2001). Benefits of equitable relationships: The impact of sense of fairness, household division of labor, and decision making power on perceived social support. Sex Roles, 44, 571–597. Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 21–43. Worley, T. R., & Samp, J. (2016). Complaint avoidance and complaint-related appraisals in close relationships: A dyadic power theory perspective. Communication Research, 43, 391–413.

12 Facework Theory Performing Familial Roles in Everyday Interactions M. Chad McBride

The concept of face is of Chinese origin (see Ho, 1975), however, sociologist Erving Goffman (1955, 1967) was among the first in Western culture to articulate the theoretical perspective of facework. Goffman is perhaps best known for his foundational and award-winning book The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (1959), where he proposed a dramaturgical model of interactions in public. He argued that public interactions are a performance, much like that of actors on a stage. These public performances are in reaction to how others might perceive us in a given situation and have the primary goal of impression management, noting that people adapt their performances to a given audience or context. He furthered his dramaturgical metaphor by acknowledging that social actors also had a back stage area where they set aside their public role, could be private, and/or prepared for their next public performance. Additionally, Goffman acknowledged that these public performances are often done in a team. Just like actors in a stage production, people may work together to complete a performance as a group. For example, wait staff may support one other while serving customers in the front stage of a restaurant’s dining room and also complain about customers together back stage in the kitchen. Similarly, a family may put on a performance in a public setting such as church or a community event but let their guard down while at home by themselves. Although he laid out this metaphor for public interactions in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (and the dramaturgical metaphor presented in this volume is arguably related to his ideas on facework theory), his treatise “On Facework” was where he specifically used the language most tied to facework theory that scholars use today. This article first appeared in 1955 and was republished as part of his volume called Interaction Ritual in 1967.

Intellectual Tradition of Facework Theory Since Goffman was a sociologist and is credited with bringing concepts of face to Western scholarly culture, obviously the theory did not originate in the communication studies field. However, since his explanation of facework theory centered on how individuals managed impressions and identity in interactions, communication scholars soon took his ideas, expanded on them, and proposed

Facework Theory

133

variations of the theory. For example, Brown and Levinson (1987) built on Goffman’s notions of face to propose politeness theory (their specific contributions to this theory are discussed in the next section), and other communication scholars (e.g., Cupach & Metts, 1994; Dominici & Littlejohn, 2006; Lim & Bowers, 1991; Moore, 2016) have expanded the theory by developing additional terms and exploring different contexts where people do facework. Goffman argued that it was in these interactions that social actors make verbal and nonverbal communication choices that shape how others see them and construct the meaning of the situation. As such, facework theory is most consistent with the meta-theoretical underpinnings of the interpretive paradigm. Goffman further argued that to develop a repertoire of face-saving practices, individuals must be aware of how others perceive them while also checking their own perceptions about others in the interaction (Goffman, 1955). For example, when you enter a new classroom as a student for the first time, you are aware of how others may view you, and you may make a series of choices about what you wear, where you sit, with whom you talk, and how you interact with classmates. At the same time, you are monitoring how others in the classroom react to you, and you may adapt your communication behaviors based on your perceptions of them. This basic perspective of human interaction is closely tied to other social constructionist perspectives as discussed in Chapter 24 of this volume. In all of these social constructionist approaches, communication itself constructs the meaning of the interaction and the relationships at play, which is consistent with the underpinnings of the interpretive paradigm. Although there are researchers who have utilized post-positivist research methods to explore aspects of facework theory in interpersonal interactions (e.g., embarrassing predicaments, see Cupach & Metts, 1994), researchers in the subfield of family communication have used it as an interpretive theoretical framework to describe communicative choices that participants have made in specific relational interactions and contexts.

Main Goals and Features of Facework Theory As mentioned, Goffman first used language of facework theory in his article “On Facework”. He wrote, “the term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself [sic] by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact” (1967, p. 5). From this first definition, several salient characteristics emerge. First, face is how we want to be seen by others (“positive social value”). Second, we “claim” this face through interaction (“during a particular contact”), and finally, the role and perception of how others affect this interactive performance. Whereas some scholars sometimes refer to “face theory” rather than facework theory, Goffman underscored that face is the public mask or personae that one might have in a situation, and facework is the “actions taken by a person to make whatever he [sic] is doing consistent with face” (1967, p. 12) or to counteract incidents when this persona is threatened in some way. Since this volume deals with family communication

134

McBride

theory, I utilize facework theory as the name of this chapter to emphasize the communicative aspects of the theory. Similarly, others (e.g., Cupach & Metts, 1994; Domenici & Littlejohn, 2006; Tracy, 1990) have used the term facework in naming the theory to emphasize that protecting or threatening face is a social process constructed and maintained through a set of coordinated practices (or, to use Goffman’s word, interaction rituals). In these writings, Goffman also discussed what it meant “to be wrong in face” (or to “lose face” as we say in our common vernacular) and “to be out of face” (1967, p. 8), and he wrote much about the emotions that drive motivations for doing face. For example, embarrassment is an emotion that consistently emerges from face threats and often drives the need for facework. He also outlined two basic kinds of facework (corrective and preventive) based on the timing of each face strategy. Corrective facework occurs after a facethreatening situation in an effort to mediate the face threat. For example, if Peter says something embarrassing in an interaction with friends, he might try to make an excuse for the statement or play it off as a joke so as to mediate his embarrassment. Conversely, preventive facework takes place before a threat actually occurs to enact or support an individual’s desired personae. For example, Claire might know that someone is predisposed to challenging her ideas in the workplace so she may avoid interacting with particular coworkers. This performance of facework in interactions, however, is not limited to just one’s own individual face needs. Rather, Goffman suggested that we have both a defensive orientation of face (saving our own face) as well as a protective orientation of face (saving the others’ face). He highlighted the Chinese notion of “to give face” to others (1967, p. 9), claiming that to see someone lose face in public and to do nothing about it is “heartless” (1967, p. 11). Arguably, being seen as heartless would be a threat to one’s own face as a compassionate human being so “giving face” to another concomitantly saves face for oneself, highlighting the dynamic, complex layers of facework at play in one interaction. In developing politeness theory, Brown and Levinson (1987) added to these initial concepts to suggest that facework can be performed to manage the needs of two different aspects of face: positive and negative face. Our positive face needs center around our positive self-image or identity that we want to portray to others. We also have negative face needs, which focus on one’s desire to be autonomous and free from imposition. In other words, our negative face needs drive our desire to not have other people in our private space and business. They argued that negative face needs actually drive politeness in cultures around the world. Because a polite person does not want to be seen as threatening someone’s negative face, we say things such as, “Excuse me, are you busy right now? May I come in?” when we enter someone’s office so as to acknowledge (and not threaten) their needs for autonomy and privacy. Although the concepts of positive and negative face emerged as part of politeness theory, scholars who write about facework theory and use it is a theoretical framework often highlight the different aspects of face that were originally proposed in politeness theory. For instance, Lim and Bowers (1991) described these aspects of face in slightly

Facework Theory

135

different ways: (a) autonomy face (the need to set oneself apart from others and to have privacy), (b) fellowship face (the need to be included and have connections with others), and (c) competence face (the need to be seen as an able and recognized contributor to your community). These three aspects of face are related to Brown and Levinson’s original notions of positive and negative face, but emphasize the more communal, systemic nature of relationships and facework. Domenici and Littlejohn (2006) further argued that there are, in fact, two realms of practice of facework—the personal realm and the relational realm. Even though Goffman wrote about public interactions, his notions of facework primarily centered on the personal realm. In the personal realm, Domenici and Littlejohn suggested that communication acts focus on (a) presenting the self; (b) building the face of others (e.g., honoring, politeness); (c) protecting the face of others, (e.g., tact in delivery a negative message); (d) threatening the face of others; and (e) responding to face threats. In his original work, Goffman discussed each of these aspects in some way—he acknowledged that facework was something done for oneself as well as to and for other people in an interaction. Even facework in the personal realm is relationship specific and extends into the relational realm as described by Dominici and Littlejohn (2006). Gergen (2001) argued we consciously construct self in relation to a specific other in a given interaction, and Cupach and Metts (1994) suggested people have a relationship-specific face. In other words, a person’s behaviors that might be appropriate around close friends or family members may be threatening to his or her positive face in the workplace or around strangers. These adaptations in facework do not make people disingenuous; rather, they exhibit competent communication by adapting their facework to their relationship with the specific person in a given interaction. However, communication scholars have noted that facework has relational implications beyond just adapting personal facework in relationship-specific ways. In Domenici and Littlejohn’s (2006) relational realm, we have a mutual relational face, or our relationship itself has a face, and researchers have provided evidence for how concern for this joint relational face influences participants’ facework behaviors (e.g., McBride, 2010).

How Communication is Conceptualized in Facework Theory As I have described, communication is at the center of facework theory. The discipline of communication studies and interpersonal communication scholarship (and certainly the newer subfield of family communication research) did not exist in its current form when Goffman theorized about face. Whereas interpersonal communication as a field of study was emerging about the same time as Goffman’s writings, the field’s focus was primarily on the psychological aspects of interactions and the idea of communication was pretty synonymous with the term self-disclosure.

136

McBride

Goffman’s early ideas about interaction were more complex than this early view of communication in relationships. In the introduction to Interaction Ritual, he wrote: The study of face-to-face interaction in natural settings doesn’t yet have an adequate name. Moreover, the analytical boundaries of the field remain unclear . . . The subject matter, however, can be identified. It is that class of events which occurs during co-presence and by virtue of co-presence. The ultimate behaviors materials are the glances, gestures, positionings, and verbal statements that people continuously feed into the situation. (1967, p. 1) Even though he could not have known how communication studies would emerge as a field, he centered many of the same aspects of communication we explore today from his sociological perspective of interaction, ritual, and public performance. From the onset, he acknowledged that a “person’s face is clearly not something lodged in or on his [sic] body, but rather something that is diffusely located in the flow of events in the encounter and becomes manifest only when these events are read and interpreted for the appraisals expressed in them” (1967, pp. 6–7). Here Goffman directly acknowledged that face is not a psychological construct—it is communicatively constructed through facework. Further, this construction is not something that one person does on his/her own; it is something that interactants co-construct together. In fact, his use of the word “co-presence” highlights newer definitions of relational communication where individuals maximize the presence of the personal in interpersonal interactions to share aspects that make them unique. For example, sibling relationships are different within the same family. Interactions between different pairs of sisters in the same family are different depending on the specific relationships sisters have to one another. Because facework theory emphasizes this same uniqueness, it places communication at the center of the theory.

Research and Practical Applications of Facework Theory Facework theory was not featured in the first edition of this collection of Family Communication Theories, however, since then, several researchers have utilized the theory to: (a) explain how people manage role identities within families and (b) describe interactions within families (and social networks) in different relational situations. These studies have contributed to and expanded facework theory in a variety of ways. First, facework theory has been utilized to explain how people manage their identities in various familial roles, primarily as parents. For example, Heisler and Ellis (2008) explored the ways that mothers receive messages about what it means to be a mother and use facework theory to explain reasons why women felt the need to communicate the image of a good mom (e.g., seeking approval

Facework Theory

137

from others, personal feelings of guilt and insecurity) and the strategies the mothers used for communicating this positive image (e.g., via interactions with their children in public). Moore (2016) also examined face and motherhood, but specifically used facework theory to explore how women who had previously stated that they never wanted to have children discussed their choice to bear a child. Miller (2009) examined the face threats of parents postdivorce and found that participants felt the need to do facework about their role as a parent due to perceptions that they were bad parents or that they had abandoned their families postdivorce. Similarly, McBride and Toller (2011) found that parents also felt their parental identity threatened after the death of a child, and their social network members performed facework to help these parents fight negative self-perceptions about their ability to parent. Additionally, these bereaved parents performed facework on behalf of others to make sure that their partners, their family members and friends, and their surviving children still felt positive about their own roles within the family and social network after the death. Together, these studies highlight the contributions that facework theory can play in understanding how people perform their own roles within the family as well as co-construct the other familial roles within family systems. Second, facework theory has been used to describe interactions between family members in different conversational contexts and situations. In their study about parents dealing with the death of a child, McBride and Toller (2011) found an overall theme of protection that infiltrated the communication in this situation. Parents made communicative choices to protect their own positive and negative face needs. For example, they found that participants talked about wearing a (metaphorical) mask in public because of fears of appearing overly emotional (a threat to positive face) and they also set conversational boundaries, chose silence, and created physical space barriers as a way to protect their negative face needs. At the same time, their family and social network members wanted to protect the bereaved parents from threats to positive and negative face. These network members reinforced the positive self-images of these parents but also tried to give the parents space/autonomy and served as an intermediary in situations where they thought the parent might be too emotional or threatened in some way. For example, participants reported that their family members wanted to give them space to mourn but also would run interference and make an excuse for the bereaved parent if there was an event, such as another child’s birthday party, that would be too emotional for the bereaved parent to attend. Facework helped these parents and network members navigate the emotions surrounding the death of a child and the often-difficult interactions after such a loss. McBride (2010) examined the interactions within a family after a family member had a serious problem with a romantic relationship partner and decided to reconcile with the romantic partner and integrate him/her back into the family. He found that facework theory was insightful in explaining the active and passive ways that these participants managed their interactions through

138

McBride

corrective facework. For example, some participants felt the need to update family about their romantic relationship status (e.g., getting back together) so their family members felt in the loop on the situation (as a way to reinforce their family members positive face as good parents or good siblings). However, to protect their own negative face and the positive face of their romantic relationship, participants set up conversational rules about the details of what could be discussed or hedged about the status of their romantic relationship. He also found that participants used excuses to manage their romantic partner’s positive face needs and justifications to manage their own, their partner’s, and their relationship’s positive face. Other times, participants used passive corrective facework as a way to avoid awkward interactions about their reconciliation, often when they perceived an account as unnecessary (if they perceived their family supported the reconciliation) or if they thought their account was unfeasible (if they perceived that their account of their reconciliation to their family would not be successful). Similarly, in her study on postdivorce couples, Miller (2009) found that participants avoided talking about particular topics (such as new dating partners) and used emails (rather than face-to-face communication) in attempting to do preventive facework to avoid potential face-threatening interactions. All three of these studies highlight how facework serves as an illuminating theoretical framework to understand the communicative choices that participants make in what are often difficult conversations between family members. In addition to providing insight into the motivations of participants in these familial interactions and contexts, these studies also extended facework theory in a variety of ways. For example, Goffman wrote about preventive and corrective facework as wholly unique phenomena dependent upon the timing of facework in relation to the face-threatening act, but McBride (2010) highlighted that when studying facework in ongoing relationships (where ongoing conversations occur over time), preventive and corrective facework strategies often become blurred and work together to correct face after a face-threatening act while also setting up boundaries for future communication to prevent future face threats. Additionally, although scholars had theorized about our relationships themselves as having a face (and thereby needing facework), several of these projects provided specific examples of participants being acutely aware of their relational face and describing the facework strategies they used to maintain or remediate their relational face. For example, when reconciling with their partner, McBride (2010) found that participants were worried that family members had a negative impression of their romantic relationship and that the participants actively used justifications as a way to remediate the positive face (positive impression) of the relationship itself. Finally, as Dominici and Littlejohn (2006) suggest, people focus facework attention on three levels: individual, relationships, and community/systems. In their framing, Dominici and Littlejohn wrote about community/systems on a macrolevel, but McBride and Toller (2011) argued that it also includes a community of relationships, including family, friends, and strangers.

Facework Theory

139

All four of these articles highlight the practical applications of facework theory. It can help scholars understand and explain the actions of individuals in framing their identity as a family member as well as their communicative choices in difficult situations, such as talking with family members: (a) about serious romantic relationships problems, (b) postdivorce, or (c) after the death of a child. Like much family communication research, this scholarship is inherently applied. However, there are many more ways that facework theory could be applied to family communication. For example, although Goffman wrote about The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life in the 1960s, this concept takes on a whole new meaning in a world of social media. How we present ourselves and do facework is much more complicated now that we not only have our face-to-face interactions in our public (as Goffman described) and private, familial and relational lives (as evidenced in the communication scholarship discussed), but we also present ourselves publicly (and subsequently do facework) on multiple social media platforms. This is an area where family communication scholars have the opportunity to explore the boundaries of facework in new and emergent ways.

Evaluation of Facework Theory As with any theory, Facework has its strengths and limitations. Facework has a large scope and can be used to explain a wide variety of communication behaviors, from public life to private conversations within families. Further, it has the potential to have a strong descriptive value. It can be used to understand and explain the complex interactions of others. As McBride (2010) found, facework behaviors that had previously been framed as preventive, such as hedging, were used as both a preventive facework strategy (to manage future, possibly embarrassing interactions) and corrective facework (to remediate an embarrassing predicament). Facework as a theoretical framework sheds light on the complexities of interactions in ongoing relationships rather than in onetime isolated interactions. Additionally, there are some parsimonious aspects of facework theory, meaning in places the theory provides the simplest theoretical explanation for phenomenon, but it lacks in simplicity in other ways. We can understand and see major terms and ideas related to facework in our everyday lives and interactions. However, Goffman did not have a simple, clear articulation of concepts in his theory, and major aspects of the theory have been flushed out and expanded on over time by other scholars. The ways that different scholars have utilized the theory and its concepts have not necessarily been consistent, making it harder to compare findings from study to study or to make overall claims about the theory itself. Finally, facework theory does have strong heuristic value, meaning the theory generates additional questions and research. Even after 60 plus years, facework still proves to be a theory that explains phenomenon in the world where we interact and relate with others in much different ways than when Goffman wrote

140

McBride

about his ideas. The scholarship cited in this chapter highlights just some of the ways that facework theory can explain complex interactions in family systems, and this work also opens up the door for future scholarship further exploring the ways in which family members use facework to navigate family interactions in a variety of relational situations.

Continuing the Conversation It is from this heuristic value that we can then explore the wide variety of familial contexts and everyday interactions where facework theory can provide insight into familial interactions. For example, I am currently working on a project with colleagues where we are looking at the experiences of men whose wives/partners have had a miscarriage. McBride and Toller’s (2011) work highlights how facework theory can explain interactions after the loss of a child, but we have found in our initial interviews that a miscarriage is a complicated loss for men as they do not have the opportunity to have a physical connection with a child (since they cannot carry the child during pregnancy) and the physical loss associated with miscarriages is most often connected with the mother. From our initial analysis, facework theory is fruitful in explaining how men want to honor the unique loss their wife has experienced and also want to protect her from self-blame for the pregnancy loss. Additionally, the theory provides a lens for understanding how men frame themselves as fathers, especially if they do not yet have living children. This is just one context for possible extension of facework theory, but the possibilities are almost as limitless as the topics of inquiry in all of family communication because, as Tracy (1990) noted, facework is performed in nearly every daily interaction. Moreover, as I have suggested, facework theory provides a unique lens for new contexts of exploration, especially in a world of social media. For example, scholars could examine how people use (or do not use) privacy settings to maintain relationship-specific faces with the wide variety of different family members. In addition to these different contexts, I argue that the study of family communication provides a unique opportunity to expand the bounds of facework theory. In addition to the ways that family communication scholars have already expanded notions of face and facework as described above, Moore (2016) proposed a new performative face theory, which extends Goffman’s notions of face and facework by integrating them with Judith Butler’s (1990) theory of performativity, which suggests that our identities are performances that are enabled and constrained by cultural discourses that dictate what those performances should look like. Moore contends that this newest iteration of facework theory strengthens Goffman’s notions of face by focusing attention on how discourse, history, and power inform analyses of face negotiation. In doing so, family communication scholars can maintain their focus on everyday communication interactions while also examining how face both resists and reinscribes power in relational communication.

Facework Theory

141

References Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Cupach, W. R., & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Domenici, K., & Littlejohn, S. (2006). Facework: Bridging theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gergen, K. (2001). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Goffman, E. (1955). On facework: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. Psychiatry, 18, 213–231. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin. Heisler, J. M., & Ellis, J. B. (2008). Motherhood and the construction of “mommy identity”: Messages about motherhood and face negotiation. Communication Quarterly, 56, 445–467. Ho, D. Y. (1975). On the concept of face. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 867–884. Lim, T. S., & Bowers, J. W. (1991). Facework: Solidarity, approbation, and tact. Human Communication Research, 17, 415–450. McBride, M. C. (2010). Saving face with family members: Corrective facework after reconciling with a romantic partner. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 215–235. McBride, M. C., & Toller, P. W. (2011). Negotiation of face between bereaved parents and their social networks. Southern Journal of Communication, 76, 210–229. Moore, J. (2016). From childless by choice to mother: Performative and subversive negotiations of face in relational communication about (never) having children (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 1781232685) Miller, A. E. (2009). Face concerns and facework strategies in maintaining postdivorce and coparenting relationships. Southern Communication Journal, 74, 157–173. Tracy, K. (1990). The many faces of facework. In H. Giles & P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 209–226). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

13 Family Communication Patterns Theory A Grand Theory of Family Communication Ascan F. Koerner, Paul Schrodt, and Mary Anne Fitzpatrick

Family Communication Patterns Theory is a general theory of family communication that focuses on parent-child communication concerned with establishing a shared social reality. It identifies basic processes of coming to a shared agreement that impact not only concurrent communication behaviors, but long-term information processing, psychosocial, and behavioral outcomes as well.

Intellectual Tradition of Family Communication Patterns Theory Family communication patterns theory (FCPT) is firmly rooted in what Pavitt (1999) called “scientific realism,” which the current volume refers to as postpositivism. It is based on the assumption that behavior can be observed objectively—or at least that the biases that researchers bring to their research cancel each other out in the long run—and, more important, that the cognitive processes underlying communicative behavior are universal and law governed. As such, one fundamental assumption of FCPT is that family communication is also law governed and predictable and that the validity of FCPT can be established by rigorous empirical testing of hypotheses deduced from the theory. Consequently, FCPT is neither interpretive nor critical; it claims to describe what family communication is and how it functions, not how it might be interpreted within a given context or what it ought to be based on a particular ideological perspective. This does not mean that FCPT is reductionist or strictly deterministic in regard to communication behavior. Although the cognitive processes underlying family communication are law governed, the content with which cognition operates is largely symbolic. It is the result of social construction and is affected by social forces and conventions. Thus, family communication patterns (FCPs) are situated in, and bound by, sociohistorical and cultural contexts. It reflects how concepts such as family, power, gender, race, and class are defined by a speech community. It can be used to understand how family communication operates in a specific social context and how families are affected by and affect

Family Communication Patterns 143 society, although the theory itself is neutral as to the meaning and value of concepts and contexts. Consequently, the theory has universal applicability regarding the aspects of family communication that are investigated or the cultural context in which they occur, whether it is how military families deal with deployment (Wilson, Chernichky, Wilkum, & Owlett, 2014), how parenting affects adopted children’s adjustment (Rueter & Koerner, 2008), or how children respond to their parents’ divorce (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007). This is true whether we study American, Chinese (Zhang, 2007), or Iranian (Noorafshan, Jowkar, & Hosseini, 2013) families. Only the hypotheses that are tested to validate FCPT are specific to the context in which families operate and are studied. History of Family Communication Patterns Theory FCPT grew from cognitive theories that emerged after World War II in contrast to the behaviorism that had previously dominated psychology. Based on Heider’s (1958) and Newcomb’s (1953) research, McLeod and Chaffee (1972, 1973) developed the original model of FCPs specifically to explain how families process mass-media messages. Central to their model was the concept of coorientation, which describes the process of two or more persons focusing on and evaluating the same object in their environment and achieving shared social reality, that is, agreement over its meaning. According to McLeod and Chaffee (1972, 1973), dyads and family members can achieve shared social reality in two distinct ways. First, family members can focus on other family members’ evaluations of an object and adopt that evaluation; in other words, they can conform to another family member. Because this process emphasizes the relationships between family members, McLeod and Chaffee called this process socio-orientation. The other way to achieve agreement is for families to focus on the object and, by discussing it and its attributes, arrive at a shared perception of the object. Because this process emphasizes how family members conceptualize the object, McLeod and Chaffee called this process concept-orientation. McLeod and Chaffee (1972) proposed that families vary in their preferences for, and uses of, these two strategies to achieve agreement and, consequently, that families and particularly children differ in their processing of media messages. Children of families that tend to use socio-orientation rely on others (usually their parents) to interpret media messages for them. Conversely, children of families that tend to use concept-orientation elaborate on the concepts and ideas contained in the messages to determine their meanings. These differences mean that the two strategies to achieve shared social reality are associated with different communication behaviors. McLeod and Chaffee realized that the processes families use to share social reality affect the communication behaviors of families, and they used this insight to construct a behavioral measurement of the underlying cognitive strategies. The instrument they developed, the Family Communication Patterns (FCP) instrument, has

144

Koerner, Schrodt, & Fitzpatrick

been widely used in media effects research. Its relevance to family communication more generally, however, went largely unnoticed until Fitzpatrick and her colleagues started using the instrument in the late 1980s and early 1990s in their research of family communication.

Main Goals and Features of Family Communication Patterns Theory Although social reality resides in the cognitions of individual family members, the behavioral strategies of socio-orientation and concept-orientation directly affect their communication behaviors. Also, sharing social reality is an ongoing process; one that is not limited to the processing of mass-media messages. Recognizing this, Fitzpatrick and Ritchie (1994; Ritchie, 1991; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990) reconceptualized McLeod and Chaffee’s (1972) original model as a general theory of family communication. A further reconceptualization by Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002a) made additional claims about the schematic representation of declarative and procedural knowledge related to family relationships and communication in cognition. Most relevant to the current FCPT, they argued that conversation and conformity orientation are part of enduring family relationship schemas that give meaning to the family itself, rather than being mere tactical choices about how to make sense of external information. Specifically, they argued that FCPs are integral to how families understand their family relationships, develop behavioral expectations, and interpret and evaluate their own behavior and that of other family members (Korner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a). With the reconceptualization of FCPs came a new set of goals for FCPT. No longer limited to information processing in families, the goal of FCPT is now to give a comprehensive account of how family and family relationships are represented in the cognition of family members, as well as how these representations relate to habitual and situation-specific communication behaviors. Also of interest are the behavioral, psychological, and social consequences of family communication. Thus, FCPT has evolved from a specialized theory of family message processing to a comprehensive theory of family communication and family relationships that can be used to investigate a wide range of communication behaviors and outcomes for family members, including those related to the socialization of children. The most important features of the current version of FCPT are still the underlying sense-making strategies. However, they are now understood to be habitual ways of communicating, rather than specific sense-making behaviors. Thus, socio-orientation was reconceptualized as conformity orientation because the communication behaviors that characterize socio-orientation are ones that emphasize conformity, particularly that of children to parents. Likewise, conceptorientation was reconceptualized as conversation orientation because the communication behaviors that characterize concept-orientation are lengthy and involve family discussion. These patterns of behavior are assumed to be employed

Family Communication Patterns 145 across all kinds of communication situations, including those that ostensibly are not about sense making, but are perceived as routine, ordinary, and unremarkable day-to-day interaction. Another important feature of FCPT is that the two orientations are conceptualized as orthogonal. That is, rather than being mutually exclusive, conversation and conformity orientation are independent from each other, and a family’s preference for one orientation does not predict its preference for the other. Thus, although there are families that have strong preferences for one orientation over the other, other families employ both strategies equally often or rarely. Conversation orientation is defined as the degree to which families create a climate wherein all family members are encouraged to participate in unrestrained interactions about a wide array of topics. In families high on this dimension, family members freely, frequently, and spontaneously interact with each other without many limitations in regard to time spent or topics discussed (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b). Family members share their individual activities, thoughts, and feelings and tend to make family decisions together. Conversely, in families low in conversation orientation, members interact infrequently and discuss few topics openly. There is less exchange of private thoughts and feelings and decisions are made individually rather than as a family (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b). Associated with high conversation orientation is the belief that open and frequent communication is essential to an enjoyable and rewarding family life. These families value exchanging ideas, and parents see frequent communication with their children as the main means to educate and socialize them. Conversely, families low in conversation orientation do not believe that open and frequent exchanges of ideas, opinions, and values are necessary for families to function or to educate and socialize their children (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a). The second dimension of family communication, conformity orientation, is defined as the extent to which families stress a climate of homogeneity of attitudes, values, and beliefs. Families high in conformity have interactions that emphasize uniformity of beliefs and attitudes and focus on harmony, conflict avoidance, and interdependence (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b). In intergenerational exchanges, communication reflects obedience to parents and other adults. Families low in conformity have interactions that focus on heterogeneous attitudes and beliefs, as well as on the individuality of family members and their independence. In intergenerational exchanges, communication reflects the equality of family members, and children are usually involved in decisionmaking (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b). Associated with conformity orientation is a belief in the traditional family structure. In this view, families are cohesive and hierarchical. Family members favor their family relationships over other relationships and they share resources with family members. Parents in such families expect to make family decisions and children are expected to obey. Conversely, families low in conformity believe in less cohesive and hierarchically organized families. These families

146

Koerner, Schrodt, & Fitzpatrick

believe that relationships outside the family are as important as family relationships, and they encourage personal growth and individuality of family members. They value independence, personal space, and often subordinate family interests to personal interests (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b). The effects that these two communication orientations have on actual family communication are often dependent on each other. That is, these two dimensions often interact with each other such that the effect of conversation orientation on family outcomes is moderated by the degree of conformity orientation, and vice versa. Therefore, to assess the influence of FCPs on family outcomes, it is rarely sufficient to measure one dimension without assessing the other dimension as well (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b, 2004). Because the two dimensions of conversation and conformity orientation interact consistently with one another, they create four family types that are qualitatively distinct: consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire families.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Family Communication Patterns Theory FCPs are conceptualized cognitively as procedural and declarative knowledge stored in family relationship schemas that determine how families communicate habitually based on the two underlying dimensions of conversation and conformity orientation. Behaviorally, the two dimensions define four family types that differ in how they communicate, and consequently, in how various family members are affected by their families. Families high in both conversation and conformity orientation are labeled consensual. Their communication is characterized by a tension between pressure to agree and to preserve family hierarchy, on the one hand, and an interest in open communication and in exploring new ideas, on the other hand. Parents are interested in their children and what they have to say, and yet, they also believe that they should be the final decision makers. They resolve this tension by listening to their children and by spending time and energy explaining their decisions, values, and beliefs to persuade their children to adopt the parents’ belief system. Children in these families learn to value family conversations and tend to adopt their parents’ values and beliefs. Volatile conflict is regarded as negative and harmful, but these families also value and engage in constructive problem solving and conflict resolution (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Families high in conversation orientation and low in conformity orientation are labeled pluralistic. Communication in pluralistic families is characterized by open, unconstrained discussions that involve all family members and a wide range of topics. Parents are comfortable with not being in control of their children or disagreeing with their children’s decisions. This leads to family discussions in which opinions are evaluated based on their merits rather than on who espouses them. Parents are willing to accept their children’s opinions and allow them to participate in family decision-making. Because of their emphasis on the free exchange of ideas and the absence of overt pressure to conform,

Family Communication Patterns 147 these families openly address their conflicts, engage in positive conflict resolution strategies, and usually are able to resolve their conflicts. Children of these families learn to value family conversations and to be independent and autonomous, which fosters their communication competence and their confidence in their ability to make their own decisions (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Families low on conversation orientation and high on conformity orientation are labeled protective. Communication in protective families is characterized by an emphasis on obedience to parental authority and little concern for conceptual matters or open communication within families. Parents believe that they should be family decision makers and see little value in explaining themselves to their children. Conflict is perceived as threatening; protective families avoid open conflict and expect behavior that is in line with family interests and norms. Because communication is neither valued nor practiced much, these families often lack conflict resolution skills. Children in protective families learn that there is little value in family conversations, and learn to distrust their own decision-making ability (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997). Families low in both conversation orientation and conformity orientation are labeled laissez-faire. Their communication is characterized by few and often lifeless interactions involving only a limited number of topics. Parents in laissezfaire families believe that children should make their own decisions, but unlike parents in pluralistic families, they have little interest in their children’s decisions or in discussing their decisions. Members of laissez-faire families are often emotionally divorced from their families and value neither conformity nor communication. As a result, they do not experience their families as constraining and colliding interests. Conflicts are rare, and if they occur, they tend to be avoided. Children learn that there is little value in family conversation and that they must make their own decisions. Because they do not receive much support from their parents, however, they question their decision-making ability (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 1997).

Research and Practical Applications of Family Communication Patterns Theory FCPT has spawned a large body of research that can be loosely organized into two generations of scholarship. The “first generation” of FCP research focused primarily on the unique and combined associations between conversation and conformity orientation and a wide variety of information-processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes (Schrodt, Witt, & Messersmith, 2008). In terms of information processing, for example, researchers have found that both orientations are predictive of young adult children’s cognitive flexibility (Koesten, Schrodt, & Ford, 2009), listening anxiety (Ledbetter & Schrodt, 2008), privacy orientations (Bridge & Schrodt, 2013), and rules for healthy lifestyle choices (Baxter, Bylund, Imes, & Schieve, 2005). When examining communication behaviors, both orientations are associated with individual speech acts (Koerner & Cvancara, 2002), conflict tactics such as avoidance,

148

Koerner, Schrodt, & Fitzpatrick

analytic discussion, physical and symbolic aggression, and demand/withdraw patterns (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b; Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007; Sillars et al., 2014), and prosocial parenting behaviors such as confirmation and affection (Schrodt, Ledbetter, & Ohrt, 2007; Young & Schrodt, 2016). Finally, both orientations are predictive of individual and relational health outcomes for family members, but particularly for children, including their physical and mental health symptoms (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007), self-esteem, and depression (Hamon & Schrodt, 2012). Building from the first generation of FCP research, scholars are now moving toward more complex and sophisticated explanations of how FCPs facilitate family functioning (cf. Schrodt, 2005) and relationships by considering mediating and moderating factors that may be involved in such processes. This “second generation” of FCP scholarship has expanded our understanding of how conversation and conformity orientation, as relational schemas, may guide the enactment of communication behaviors that enhance (or inhibit) the relational and mental well-being of family members. For instance, researchers have identified parental confirmation and affection (Schrodt et al., 2007), parental demand/withdraw patterns (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007), relational maintenance behaviors (Ledbetter & Beck, 2014), and joint family storytelling (Thompson & Schrodt, 2015) as explanatory mechanisms linking FCPs to young adults’ relational and mental health outcomes. Researchers have also continued to expand such efforts beyond parent-child relationships by considering how FCPs affect sibling relationships. For example, Schrodt and Phillips (2016) found that conversation orientation indirectly predicts adult siblings’ satisfaction and closeness in three distinct ways: (a) by increasing siblings’ self-disclosure, (b) by reducing their relational uncertainty, and (c) through a combined process of reducing their relational uncertainty by increasing their self-disclosure. Although less common, scholars are also examining the boundary conditions within which their theoretical explanations of FCPT apply by considering such moderating factors as the biological sex of parents and children (e.g., Schrodt et al., 2009; Young & Schrodt, 2016) and the divorce status of families (e.g., Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007). In addition to ongoing efforts to test and refine FCPT, many of the contexts in which FCPs are examined offer socially meaningful and practical implications. In military families, for example, Wilson et al. (2014) found that the conversation-oriented behavior of deployed parents operated as a protective factor in the context of returning from military deployment. Specifically, children of deployed parents who reported high conversation orientation displayed fewer total difficulties and more prosocial behaviors than children of deployed parents who reported lower conversation orientation. Similarly, Rueter and Koerner (2008) found that adoptive children in families that emphasized conformity over conversation orientation (i.e., protective families) or that enacted neither conformity nor conversation orientation (i.e., laissez-faire families) were significantly more likely to be maladjusted than adopted children from other family types. When examining family finances, Thorson and

Family Communication Patterns 149 Horstman (2014) reported that emerging adults from families with moderate to high conversation orientations were more open with their parents about their credit card behaviors, although this association varied somewhat as a function of who paid the credit card bill and the age of the emerging adult child. These are but a handful of studies that demonstrate the practical applications of FCPT to meaningful questions about family interaction.

Evaluation of Family Communication Patterns Theory As with other family communication theories, FCPT possesses both strengths and limitations. One strength is that FCPT provides a parsimonious explanation of how family members co-orient through social interaction to create shared social reality. It identifies two orientations to communication that combine to create four different types of families, with each type creating its own distinct communication environment. A second strength of FCPT is that scholars are able to deduce empirically testable hypotheses about family communication. Clearly, two generations of FCP research spanning more than 40 years of systematic inquiry have demonstrated the validity of the theory. Perhaps the greatest strength of FCPT, however, can be found in its scope, as evidenced by the tremendous breadth of outcomes associated with conversation and conformity orientations (Schrodt et al., 2008). FCPT is one of only a handful of theories of family communication that might be considered a “grand theory,” in that it applies to the widest possible range of communication behaviors within families (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014). Given its grounding in basic cognitive processes underlying communication, it applies to virtually all family interactions (Koerner, 2007) and all contexts. Although these processes are influenced by culture, they do not originate with culture, and therefore FCPT is not as bound to Western culture as most other current theories of family communication are. Despite these strengths, FCPT is not without its limitations. One point of criticism is the practical utility of the theory, which, to this point, is far more implicitly assumed than explicitly stated. Earlier FCP research relied heavily on the four family types and was more descriptive in nature, limiting researchers to examining differences between the family types. As the theory evolved and researchers moved away from typology-based work to dimension-based work, changes to the conceptualization of the theory and to the primary instrument to measure them (i.e., the RFCP) helped improve the practical usefulness of the theory. Nevertheless, in its current form, the theory positions communication behaviors as reflective of conversation and conformity orientations rather than as prescriptive actions that parents and children can take to create healthier (or better functioning) families. Some may also question the heuristic value of FCPT. In one sense, the large body of FCP scholarship might suggest that the theory’s claims are thought provoking and that its empirical results prompt new questions about how families create shared social realities. Upon closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that researchers have used FCPs primarily as predictors of other

150

Koerner, Schrodt, & Fitzpatrick

communication processes without seeking to refine and expand FCPT itself. Two notable exceptions are Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002a) articulation of a general theory of family communication schemata that extends the original tenets of FCP theory, and “second generation” research identifying the explanatory mechanisms through which a family’s shared social reality affects the individual and relational health of family members. Nevertheless, some scholars might consider heuristic value to be a weakness rather than a strength of FCPT.

Continuing the Conversation Overall, FCPT is a well-developed theory that can be fruitfully applied to an almost unlimited range of family communication phenomena. Given its rich history and recent trends in empirical applications, we suspect that researchers will continue to use FCPT and increase the power of its theoretical explanations. To further this aim, however, we believe that it will be necessary to re-examine and revise how conformity orientation is being measured. Although the RFCP instrument represents both a theoretical and psychometric enhancement of McLeod and Chaffee’s (1972) original FCP scale, it is still based on behavioral manifestations of conversation and conformity orientation that are culturally and historically bound. This is problematic given the theoretically universal nature of the underlying psychological processes. For example, items such as “My parents often say things like ‘A child should not argue with adults’” reflect largely outdated cultural norms that have fallen out of use in contemporary families. Moreover, the current conformity orientation measure appears to measure primarily coercive or dictatorial conformity and neglect more supportive or “tough love” forms of conformity (Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007). Consequently, we believe future research is needed to revise the conformity orientation measure so that it captures more fully the subtle nuances associated with creating a homogeneity of attitudes, beliefs, and values within a family. Beyond methodological improvements, there are also theoretical advancements awaiting future research. For example, we see a tremendous opportunity in examining why some families develop preferences of one orientation over the other, whereas others prefer both orientations equally and still others develop no proclivity for either orientation. Researchers can also extend our understanding of family communication patterns by conducting longitudinal research that explores the intergenerational transmission of conversation and conformity orientations. Indeed, one indictment of FCP research is the relative dearth of longitudinal research. Although FCPT and empirical evidence (e.g., Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b; Young & Schrodt, 2016) suggest that relational schemas formed through family interaction guide how family members communicate with others outside of the home, what is missing is direct evidence to suggest that conversation and conformity orientations transcend time and guide and direct the interactions that emerge in new generations of family. To what extent do both orientations change over time as families move across

Family Communication Patterns 151 the developmental life cycle? What type of family emerges when someone from a consensual family marries someone from a laissez-faire family (or from one of the other family types)? And what degrees of conversation and conformity orientation emerge if, and when, partners from different family types decide to have children? These are but a handful of the theoretical questions prompted by FCPT, questions that should continue the conversation of how communication processes create and sustain a family’s shared social reality.

References Baxter, L. A., Bylund, C. L., Imes, R. S., & Scheive, D. M. (2005). Family communication environments and rule-based social control of adolescents’ healthy lifestyle choices. Journal of Family Communication, 5, 209–227. Bridge, M. C., & Schrodt, P. (2013). Privacy orientations as a function of family communication patterns. Communication Reports, 26, 1–12. Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 275–301. Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (2009). Communication theory and the family. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods (pp. 565–589). New York, NY: Plenum. Hamon, J. D., & Schrodt, P. (2012). Do parenting styles moderate the association between family conformity orientation and young adults’ mental well-being? Journal of Family Communication, 12, 151–166. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley. Koerner, A. F. (2007). Social cognition and family communication: Family communication patterns theory. In D. Roskos-Ewoldsen & J. Monahan (Eds.), Communication and social cognition: Theory and methods (pp. 197–216). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Koerner, A. F., & Cvancara, K. E. (2002). The influence of conformity orientation on communication patterns in family conversations. Journal of Family Communication, 2, 133–152. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48, 59–75. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002a). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70–91. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002b). You never leave your family in a fight: The impact of family of origin on conflict-behavior in romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 53, 234–251. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A., (2004). Communication in intact families. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The handbook of family communication (pp. 177–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Koerner, A. F., & Schrodt, P. (2014). An introduction to the special issue on family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 1–15. Koesten, J., Schrodt, P., & Ford, D. J. (2009). Cognitive flexibility as a mediator of family communication environments and young adults’ well-being. Health Communication, 24, 82–94.

152

Koerner, Schrodt, & Fitzpatrick

Ledbetter, A. M., & Beck, S. J. (2014). A theoretical comparison of relational maintenance and closeness as mediators of family communication patterns in parentchild relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 230–252. Ledbetter, A. M., & Schrodt, P. (2008). Family communication patterns and cognitive processing: Conversation and conformity orientations as predictors of informational reception apprehension. Communication Studies, 59, 388–401. McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The social construction of reality. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 50–59). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton. McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 469–499. Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393–404. Noorafshan, L., Jowkar, B., & Hosseini, F. S. (2013). Effect of family communication patterns of resilience among Iranian adolescents. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 84, 900–904. Pavitt, C. (2000). Philosophy of science and communication theory. Huntington, NY: Nova Science. Ritchie, L. D. (1991). Family communication patterns: An epistemic analysis and conceptual reinterpretation. Communication Research, 18, 548–565. Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring interpersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523–544. Rueter, M. A., & Koerner, A. F. (2008). The effect of family communication patterns on adopted adolescent adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 715–727. Schrodt, P. (2005). Family communication schemata and the circumplex model of family functioning. Western Journal of Communication, 69, 361–378. Schrodt, P., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2007). Communication processes that mediate family communication patterns and mental well-being: A mean and covariance structures analysis of young adults from divorced and nondivorced families. Human Communication Research, 33, 330–356. Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., & Ohrt, J. K. (2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators of family communication patterns and children’s mental well-being. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 23–46. Schrodt, P., & Phillips, K. E. (2016). Self-disclosure and relational uncertainty as mediators of family communication patterns and relational outcomes in sibling relationships. Communication Monographs, 83, 486–504. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Messersmith, A. S. (2008). A meta-analytical review of family communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavior, and psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, 75, 248–269. Sillars, A., Holman, A. J., Richards, A., Jacobs, K. A., Koerner, A., & Reynolds-Dyk, A. (2014). Conversation and conformity orientations as predictors of observed conflict tactics in parent-adolescent discussions. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 16–31. Thompson, P. A., & Schrodt, P. (2015). Perceptions of joint family storytelling as mediators of family communication patterns and family strengths. Communication Quarterly, 63, 405–426. Thorson, A. R., & Horstman, H. A. K. (2014). Buy now, pay later: Family communication patterns theory, parental financial support, and emerging adults’ openness about credit card behaviors. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 53–71.

Family Communication Patterns 153 Wilson, S. R., Chernichky, S. M., Wilkum, K., & Owlett, J. S. (2014). Do family communication patterns buffer children from difficulties associated with a parent’s military deployment? Examining deployed and at-home parents’ perspectives. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 32–52. Young, J. E., & Schrodt, P. (2016). Family communication patterns, parental modeling, and confirmation in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 64, 454–475. Zhang, Q. (2007). Family communication patterns and conflict styles in Chinese parentchild relationships. Communication Quarterly, 55, 113–128.

14 Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse A Framework for Understanding Family Conflict Loreen N. Olson and Annalisa Donahey

Conflict is an inevitable part of life with intimates. Disagreements between family members, more specifically, are as ubiquitous as cirrus clouds on a summer day. Because conflict is unavoidable, researchers and practitioners have explored how it can be managed. Scholars across disciplines have studied conflict styles and patterns. Additionally, they have examined how individuals in certain family structures, such as blended families, divorced, or single-parent households, manage conflict. Moreover, researchers have focused on how different family dyads, such as parent-child, sibling, and romantic relationships, negotiate conflictual interactions. It is the conflict experienced by the romantic couple that is of particular import to this chapter—namely, a marital process cascade known as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Intellectual Tradition of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse One scholar, clinical psychologist John Gottman (1994a), has devoted his entire career to understanding the anatomy of couple conflict. Gottman’s “social psychophysiological approach” to the topic is firmly grounded in the postpositivist tradition of inquiry. He and his colleagues’ variable-analytic methods have produced much insight into the relationship between conflict management, physiological arousal, relationship satisfaction, and relational longevity. Throughout the years, they have developed and fine-tuned observational coding systems, such as the Specific Affect Coding System (SPAFF) and the Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System (RCISS), to measure key behaviors identified in the longitudinal collection of couples’ video-recorded laboratory and home discussions. Findings from the observational studies were also supported with survey data. Advanced statistical methods, such as time-series analysis (Gottman, 1981), sequential analysis (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986; Gottman & Roy, 1990), and dynamic nonlinear models (Gottman, Murray, Swanson, Tyson, & Swanson, 2002), have afforded the team the ability to identify very specific behaviors that are predictive of relational demise. In general terms, Gottman (1994a) notes that “behavior, physiology, and the perception

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

155

of behavior all [are] related, and related to longitudinal change in marriages” (p. xiii). More specifically, after a series of laboratory observations and oral history interviews with 52 couples in the early 1990s, the teams identified a set of corrosive communication behaviors that worked together to form a cascading effect characterized by increasing negativity (Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992; Gottman, 1993). These behaviors differentiated functional (regulated) couples from non-functional (non-regulated) couples and were labeled the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (4HoA). The purpose of this chapter is to provide details, applications, and critique of the 4HoA.

Main Goals and Features of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Before reviewing the 4HoA model, it is first important to understand the proper relational context from which it emerged. In his book, What Predicts Divorce, Gottman (1994a) describes the results of the numerous experiments he and his colleagues conducted, which eventually led to the identification of two couple types labeled regulated and nonregulated. The most distinguishable characteristic between the two types of couples is the 5:1 ratio of positive to negative interactional processes (Holman & Jarvis, 2003), with regulated couples characterized by more positive interactions and constructive forms of conflict management than the non-regulated. Regulated and stable couples were further distinguished as three types: validating, volatile, and conflict-avoidant. The degree and timing of partners’ influence attempts is the key variable distinguishing these couples from one another. Individuals in conflict-avoiding (also called conflict minimizing) relationships are described as emotionally flat and distant from one another. Those in volatile couples, in contrast, are very emotionally expressive, passionate, “thrive on combat, and they try to influence one another about most everything” (Gottman, 1994a, p. 136). Spouses who attempt to influence each other sparingly are emotionally close, but less emotionally passionate than those volatile couples; these comprise validating couples. Spouses in volatile couples were found to begin their persuasion in the first third of an interaction and maintain a high level throughout; conversely, those in conflict-avoiding couples never made any influence attempts. Validating spouses’ influence attempts peaked in the middle third of the discussion (see Gottman, 1993). Gottman (1994a) also originally identified two types of unstable, nonregulated couples: hostile and hostile-detached. However, as noted by Holman and Jarvis (2003), there has been little research testing the difference between these two, so many scholars collapse all non-regulated couples into the “hostile” category. According to Gottman, whether one or two groups, the non-regulated couples differ from the three regulated types most notably on the nature of their conflict. In addition, when compared to regulated couples, spouses in nonregulated hostile couples report lower relational satisfaction, a higher likelihood of becoming emotionally flooded (overwhelmed by partner’s negative affect),

156

Olson & Donahey

less able to soothe the self or partner, and more likely to use destructive conflict behaviors that are known as the 4HoA. According to Gottman (1994a), the 4HoA are predictive of one another and “integral in powering the cascade toward marital dissolution” (p. 110). Each horseman lays down the pathway for its successors, as they slowly appear and severely cloud relational problem solving and satisfaction over time. They are labeled as follows in order of least to most destructive: Criticism/Complaints ➝ Contempt ➝ Defensiveness ➝ Stonewalling Criticism and Complaints Criticism entails personal blaming in a relationship and may appear even in healthy relationships (Gottman, 1994b). Yet, this first horseman comes from habitual complaining, which eventually evolves into criticism (Olson, BaiocchiWagner, Kratzer, & Symonds, 2012). Whereas Gottman (1994b) argues that complaining in a relationship can be healthy and make the relationship stronger, it can quickly turn into criticism if overlooked or disregarded. Gottman (1994b) asserts that criticisms are composed of generalizations against the other person (e.g., “you never” do this; “you always” do that). As such, criticism takes the act of complaining to a deeper level, a slow shift that occurs commonly and is more “global” than specific complaints (Gottman, 1994b, p. 75). Instead of complaining about a specific action a partner performed, the other partner begins to shift the blame back to the other as a general personal attack of betrayal or distrust. For example, one might complain that “we don’t go out as much as I’d like to.” The same idea becomes an act of criticism when one says instead “you never take me anywhere” (Gottman, 1994b, pp. 75–76). It is crucial to understand the juxtaposition between criticism and complaining; whereas complaining attacks the behavior or action (or lack thereof), criticism attacks the actual person, his or her personality, or his or her character, typically with blame (Gottman, 1994b). Additionally, being critical occasionally can be innocent and unintentional—but when it begins to occur frequently, the relationship is at risk of the next horsemen’s appearance. Contempt The key component that distinguishes contempt, the second horseman, from criticism is the “intention to insult and psychologically abuse your partner” (Gottman, 1994b, p. 79). These intentions originate in negative thoughts about the partner, such as “he or she is stupid, disgusting, incompetent, a fool . . . ” (p. 79). These negative thoughts and feelings can be relayed to a partner either verbally or nonverbally, such as giving someone the cold shoulder, “rolling one’s eyes” (p. 18) or other nonverbal “expressions of disgust” (p. 18) intended to cause pain (Fowler & Dillow, 2011). The contempt in a relationship, therefore, overshadows positive elements relationally and furthers the destabilization of the union. Feelings of seeing a spouse as “inferior or undesirable” (Lamanna,

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

157

Riedman, & Stewart, 2015, p. 287) are included with this stage of 4HoA, and may even be illustrated through name-calling and other directly contemptuous behaviors. As relational issues remain unresolved, contempt is expressed through insults and name-calling, hostile humor, mockery, and body language (Gottman, 1994b). It becomes more difficult for some to remember the positive aspects of their partner or what made them excited about being with him or her. At this point, the relationship becomes clouded with criticisms and contempt. When this second horsemen stabilizes itself in a relationship, an evident wedge is created between partners. Partners at this stage in a relationship may “rarely compliment each other anymore or express mutual admiration or attraction” (Gottman, 1994b, p. 79). This deterioration of admiration or attraction is immediate and likely lethal for the relationship. In fact, findings from the Levenson and Gottman labs (for summaries, see Gottman, 1993; Gottman, 1994a) report that wives’ facial expressions of disgust/contempt at in a conflict conversation predicted marital separation within four years. Furthermore, husbands’ nonverbal, facial expression of contempt predicted wives’ reported physical illness at a later time. Defensiveness After contempt, the third horseman, defensiveness, makes an appearance (Gottman, 1994b). Gottman (1994b) asserts that contempt/disgust and defensiveness are the two most negative relational behaviors. If both parties displayed contemptuous behavior, “now they both feel victimized by the other—and neither [is] willing to take responsibility for setting things right” (p. 84). In many ways, defensiveness seems understandable, yet Gottman argues that this is what makes this third horseman so destructive as it depends on one’s perception. If defensiveness is “preparing to defend oneself against what one presumes is an upcoming attack” (Lamanna et al., 2015, p. 287) and is constantly illustrated through defensive phrases and attitude, this “tends to escalate a conflict rather than resolve anything” (Gottman, 1994b, p. 85). Gottman (1994b) notes specific symptoms of defensiveness to be wary of in relationships: denying responsibility, making excuses, disagreeing with negative mind reading, cross-complaining, rubber-man/rubber-woman, yes-butting, repeating yourself, whining, and portraying closed-off body language. As such, when verbal defensiveness settles into a relationship, it ultimately barricades appropriate conflict management. Gottman (1994b) argues that this obstruction is a key problem with defensiveness, and asserts that “if you are being defensive (even if you feel completely righteous in your stance), you are adding to your marital troubles” (p. 85). Stonewalling The fourth and final horseman of this communicative process is stonewalling, or withdrawing from the other person. Studies have shown that stonewalling

158

Olson & Donahey

is particularly characteristic of men and is related to physiological arousal in both spouses (see Gottman, 1993, 1994a) Stonewalling may be seen through mundane, monosyllabic answers or most commonly through failing to respond to the other person. Stonewalling occurs when a reaction to the other person is essentially nonexistent, as if to say, I can’t get anywhere with you anyway. Gottman (1994b) writes that, ironically, stonewalling may take relationships from “being marred by poor communication [as seen within the previous horsemen] to being virtually destroyed by none” (p. 93). When stonewalling occurs, the other person may feel a conveyance of “disapproval, icy distance, and smugness. It is very upsetting speaking to a stonewalling listener” (p. 94). If there is no feedback, the other person may react more strongly, which leads to more stonewalling, continuing the cyclically deteriorating nature of stonewalling. If either party in the relationship develops this behavior consistently (which Gottman calls habitually), the already stretched rubber band of the relationship will likely snap. The existence of the fourth horseman does not necessarily guarantee relational termination. If a relationship gets to this deteriorative juncture, however, Gottman (1994b) argues it takes a “good deal of hard work and soul searching” (p. 95) to save it.

How Communication is Conceptualized in the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Although not created by a communication scholar per se, the basic components of 4HoA are clearly communicative in nature. Verbal and nonverbal characteristics associated with each horseman have been identified at both global and molecular levels. For example, the observational coding systems used in the laboratory studies conducted by Gottman and others allow for the coding of emotion on the face, down to the specific eyebrow position. A specific affect coding system (SPAFF) also allows for molecular-level analyses of the physical displays of emotion, including an analysis of the face, voice, gestures, paralanguage, and the autonomic nervous system. More specifically, the SPAFF 1.0 codes include neutral speech, humor, affection/caring, interest/curiosity, joy, anger, disgust/scorn/contempt, whining, sadness, and fear. Gottman’s measurement techniques (e.g., the Marital Interaction Coding System and the Rapid Couples Interaction Scoring System) also account for more global interactive patterns that are communication based. Problem solving, conflict engagement, stubbornness, defensiveness, withdrawal, listening behaviors, and repair and maintenance behaviors are several of these communication interaction patterns. Each horseman also is based on communicative behaviors (Gottman, 1994a). First, complaints and criticisms are verbal expressions of unhappiness and dissatisfaction. Likewise, contemptuous behaviors verbally and nonverbally convey disgust, disapproval, derision, and exasperation toward a partner, implying that the partner is absurd or incompetent. Hostile humor, mockery, and sarcasm are three verbal forms of contempt. According to Gottman (1994a),

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

159

disgust is nonverbally communicated by raising the upper lip or wrinkling one’s nose. Contempt is nonverbally displayed by a pulling up one side of the mouth (known as the dimpler muscle) and sometimes adding an eye roll. Defensiveness involves attempts to verbally ward off a personal attack from one’s partner. Denials of responsibility, whining, counter-blaming, and negative mindreading (“You never do the dishes”) are all verbal indicators of defensiveness. Affect expressed via punitive vocal tone exacerbates the negativity associated with defensiveness. Finally, communication plays a large part in stonewalling, most clearly characterized by the lack of any communication. The stonewalling partner provides no verbal or nonverbal feedback to tell the speaker that he or she is listening. Instead, the listener nonverbally presents a “stone wall” to the other.

Research and Practical Applications of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Gottman’s groundbreaking work on relational conflict has made a significant and long-lasting contribution not only to what we know about conflict and its effects but also to how we study it. Numerous studies have found support for the three couple types, including in young adults’ relationships in which one partner has ADHD (Canu, Tabor, Michael, Bazzini, & Elmore, 2014), among a sample of French-speaking Swiss couples (Bodenmann, Gottman, & Backman, 1997), and a comparison of married and unmarried U.S. couples (Holman & Jarvis, 2003). More specifically, Holman and Jarvis (2003) confirmed and expanded Gottman’s work by using survey methods, asking participants to determine their own conflict-management interaction styles, compared to the direct laboratory observations employed by Gottman and his teams. Their study did, in fact, reveal couple types similar to Gottman’s. A bit less common is empirical work testing the 4HoA. Instead, scholarship reporting the 4HoA is typically clinical in nature. In other words, the articles or chapters published reveal how communication skills training and clinical interventions help couples reduce the use of the 4HoA and increase relational satisfaction. Importantly, however, the clinical work is very much evidencebased and guided by research testing the hypotheses proposed by the Gottman teams as well as others. One study by Backhaus and colleagues (2016) revealed how individuals with brain injury were able to improve their relationship satisfaction and communication following a 16-week relationship skills training grounded in the clinical application of the 4HoA. In a book edited by Julie Schwartz Gottman, 13 Gottman Institute-trained experts present specific cases demonstrating how specific marital therapy techniques, including addressing the use of 4HoA, has helped couples and families. For example, Sackey (2004) helped couples and family members from stepfamilies create a “Sound Relationship House” by learning, among other therapeutic techniques, how to diminish the 4HoA and create a healthier family. Another case study by Feutz (2004) revealed how an emotionally distant couple was able to grow closer by

160

Olson & Donahey

learning how to build conflict skills and to limit the 4HoA. Saks (2004) helped an older couple suffering sexual difficulties restore healthy relational functioning by working on the 4HoA and re-building dreams, passion, and peace into the couple’s world once again. The Gottman Institute (https://www.gottman.com), founded by Drs. Julie and John Gottman in 1996, provides a vehicle for delivering the research and clinical knowledge gleaned from decades of research to professionals, couples, and families. The Institute’s mission is to reach out to families in order to help create and maintain greater love and health in relationships. [It is also] committed to an ongoing program of research that increases the understanding of relationships and adds to the development of interventions that have been carefully evaluated.

Evaluation of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse As suggested in the above review, Gottman’s research on couple types and the 4HoA has been very reliable, methodologically rigorous, parsimonious, practical, and heuristic, generating much additional theorizing. The observational techniques and longitudinal tracking elevate the findings and reinforce the predictions made as well. The knowledge gleaned also has real-life value, helping people learn the communication profile of healthy, regulated couples compared to non-regulated ones and intervention tools to assist those individuals in charting healthier relational pathways. With that said, the research is not without its weaknesses. For example, some have argued that the predictive capacity of the 4HoA is not all that surprising given that the participants studied come from a clinical sample of distressed couples. Those seeking couple counseling are already well into stages of decline, so it cannot be determined with high degrees of accuracy if couples who use the 4HoA are more likely to separate than those with no evidence of the horsemen. Another potential limitation is the degree to which the couple types and 4HoA exist among couples other than heterosexual married couple types. Lamanna et al. (2015) questioned this heteronormativity bias in the research, asserting that since heterosexually married couples have been studied almost exclusively, it is unclear how the findings apply to same-sex married and committed couples. In addition, Kim, Capaldi, and Crosby (2007) aimed to replicate Gottman’s findings by testing them with cohabitating couples as opposed to married couples. Their results were inconclusive, and the researchers argued that Gottman’s theory should be applied as a recommendation for therapy in young couples, and not as a general rule. Similarly, limited knowledge exists on how race and ethnicity may affect the patterns and their predictive abilities. In a global world, we must also recognize the Westernized bias present in the research and question whether the findings apply to couples of different faiths (e.g., Islam, Hindu) and from more Eastern regions of the world (e.g., Asia, Africa, Middle East).

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

161

Finally, we cannot ignore the fact that communication skills training is not a panacea and can, in fact, be a harmful therapeutic intervention for couples characterized by domestic violence. Teaching an abusive partner better communication skills can teach him or her to be a better abuser, not a better partner. Furthermore, power and control are central features to these types of abusive relationships and are not accounted for in this body of research

Continuing the Conversation To address these concerns, we posit that a socio-ecological model similar to that advanced by Olson and colleagues (Olson et al., 2012; Olson & Fine, 2016) can be a heuristic device for considering the future of couple and family conflict, in general, and the 4HoA, specifically. It also allows us to position the relational patterns into the larger family context, which is germane to the focus of this book. First, we must examine the individual. What individual behaviors, traits, and characteristics are associated with the use of the horsemen? How do particular personality traits such as narcissism correlate with an individual’s use of the 4HoA? What about addictive behaviors? We know a fair amount about how emotionality and physiology are expressed during the cascading process, but have limited understanding about other individual-level factors. The dyad is the next level of the model (Olson et al., 2012; Olson & Fine, 2016). In its current form, the 4HoA is heavily grounded in the patterns of the romantic couple dyad. Other important pairings exist within the family, such as parent-child, sibling, and grandparent-grandchild pairs. Are the 4HoA behaviors evident within these other relationships? If so, how do they function? Unlike with a spouse, one cannot divorce a sibling or a parent. What happens if the 4HoA pattern exists within a sibling relationship? What effect on the relationship does that have when legal termination is not an option? Similar to the normalization of sibling rivalry/aggression, is it possible that the 4HoA exists behaviorally within a sibling pairing but has become psychologically normalized and thereby irrelevant to the same negative outcomes as found within the romantic couples? What influence does the 4HoA between the romantic couple have on the larger family system? Research has demonstrated a positive correlation between children who live in high conflict families and observe frequent unhealthy parental conflict and low self-esteem, poorer school performance, and more behavioral problems. Questions that focus our attention on the patterns in the larger family system refer to the familial level of analysis (Olson et al., 2012; Olson & Fine, 2016). Focus on the family system prompts us to consider questions such as how the family communication environment correlates with the use of the 4HoA by any family members. Are there certain toxic families that are fertile training grounds for learning the 4HoA? Are these learned behaviors transmitted generationally? Conversely, can the 4HoA exist within certain families not otherwise characterized by relational dissatisfaction?

162

Olson & Donahey

How do various cultural family norms both influence the presence of or perception of the 4HoA? Gottman’s research is highly devoid of context. Questions such as these would provide important advances to our understanding of this body of scholarship. Finally, the socio-cultural level of analysis (Olson et al., 2012; Olson & Fine, 2016) is also unaccounted for within Gottman’s work, but, we argue, is essential to gaining a more holistic understanding of the 4HoA and its influence on relational and familial functioning. For example, what types of cultural norms exist that normalize or problematize the unhealthy conflict styles known as the 4HoA? How do structuralized gender norms reinforce the pattern? How are power and control effectuated via cultural domination enacted or minimized in this pattern and to what varied effect? Questions such as these allow for scholars and practitioners to advance our understanding of the 4HoA as well as family conflict more generally. While conflict may be inevitable, we as humans are motivated to manage it constructively in order to live healthier relational lives. Gottman and colleagues’ scholarship has afforded us with the knowledge and tools necessary to create such a world.

References Backhaus, S., Neumann, D., Parrot, D., Hammond, F., Brownson, C., & Malec, J. (2016). Examination of an intervention to enhance relationship satisfaction after brain injury: A feasibility study. Brain Injury, 30, 975–985. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bodenmann, G., Gottman, J. M., & Backman, H. (1997). A Swiss replication of Gottman’s couple typology. Swiss Journal of Psychology / Schweizerische Zeitschrift Für Psychologie / Revue Suisse De Psychologie, 56, 205–216. Buehlman, K. T., Gottman, J., & Katz, L. F. (1992). How a couple views their past predicts their future: Predicting divorce from an oral history interview. Journal of Family Psychology, 5, 295–318. Canu, W. H., Tabor, L. S., Michael, K. D., Bazzini, D. G., & Elmore, A. L. (2014). Young adult romantic couples’ conflict resolution and satisfaction varies with partner’s attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder type. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 40, 509–524. Feutz, C. (2004). The emotionally distant couple: Creating new bridges. In J. S. Gottman (Ed.), The marriage clinic casebook (pp. 109–130). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Fowler, C., & Dillow, M. (2011). Attachment dimensions and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. Communication Research Reports, 28, 16–26. Gottman, J. M. (1981). Time-series analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gottman, J. M. (1993). A theory of marital dissolution and stability. Journal of Family Psychology, 7, 57–75. Gottman, J. M. (1994a). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital processes and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

163

Gottman, J. M. (1994b) Why marriages succeed or fail: And how you can make yours last. New York, NY: Simon & Shuster. Gottman, J. M., Murray, J., Swanson, C., Tyson, R., & Swanson, K. (2002). The mathematics of marriage. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gottman, J. M., & Roy, A. K. (1990). Sequential analysis: A guide for behavioral researchers. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Holman, T. B., & Jarvis, M. O. (2003). Hostile, volatile, avoiding, and validating couple-conflict types: An investigation of Gottman’s couple-conflict types. Personal Relationships, 10, 267–282. Kim, H. K., Capaldi, D. M., & Crosby, L. (2007). Generalizability of Gottman and colleagues’ affective process models of couples’ relationship outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 69, 55–72. Lamanna, M. A., Riedmann, A., & Stewart, S. (2015). Marriages, families and relationships: Making choices in a diverse society. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning. Olson, L. N., Baiochhi-Wagner, E., Kratzer, J., & Symonds, S. (2012). The dark side of family communication. Malden, MA: Polity. Olson, L. N., & Fine, M. A. (2016). Shining light on the darkness: A prologue. In. L. N. Olson & M. A. Fine (Eds.), The darker side of family communication: The harmful, the morally suspect, and the socially inappropriate (pp. xiii-xviii). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Sackey, T. (2004). Stepfamily issues and the sound relationship house. In J. S. Gottman (Ed.), The marriage clinic casebook (pp. 131–154). New York, NY: W. W. Norton. Saks, R. (2004). Sexual dysfunction. In J. S. Gottman (Ed.), The marriage clinic casebook (pp. 101–108). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

15 General Systems Theory A Compelling View of Family Life Christina G. Yoshimura and Kathleen M. Galvin

This chapter addresses systems theory as applied to families and their interaction patterns. Since the 1930s, general systems theory (GST) has influenced a wide range of disciplines, such as medical and health sciences, agriculture, computer and information studies, and the social sciences. Scholars from many applied fields that address family functioning (including psychology, family therapy, and sociology) use and adapt GST to understand interaction patterns within human systems. Despite the persistent mention of systems concepts in classrooms, family communication scholars rarely publish research relying on GST as their theoretical framework. Indeed, as the authors of this chapter, we have found throughout our discussions that much of our own sustained interest and utilization of systems theory reflects the fact that we both have spent years balancing a dual practice as both mental health therapists and family communication scholars. Simply put, GST is utilized more outside of communication studies than within. It is not our goal to persuade readers of this chapter to become devout systems theorists. We do, however, endeavor to introduce the theoretical perspective in such a way that the concepts intrinsic to this approach become, perhaps more centrally, part of the way that family communication is conceptualized and studied.

Intellectual Tradition of General Systems Theory GST is rooted in an organismic worldview that privileges holism, integration, and emergence (Pepper, 1942). Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1950, 1968) is primarily credited with developing GST (as it is often used in the social sciences today), by extrapolating concepts from physics to biology and then to all open systems. Von Bertalanffy sought to find “models, principles, and laws that apply to generalized systems or their subclasses, irrespective of their particular kind, and the nature of their component elements, or the relation of ‘forces’ between them” (von Bertalanffy, 1975, p. 7). This piece focuses on family-oriented systems theories. Family scholars have developed several varying threads of von Bertalanffy’s theory over time, each focused on their disciplinary norms or phenomena of

General Systems Theory 165 study. For instance, the Palo Alto Group was composed of several scholars who popularized systems theory concepts in their work with families. They were particularly focused upon the systems concept of “family homeostasis” and a view of all family interaction patterns as maintaining the status quo (regardless of whether that status quo is functional or dysfunctional). Gregory Bateson, Don D. Jackson, Jay Haley, and John Weakland were members of this group who published a 1956 piece titled “Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia” that introduced the “double bind” as a critical family communication pattern that uses family rules to maintain unhealthy family systems. Bateson and other members of the Palo Alto group focused on family interaction patterns as key ways to understand the rules and functioning of family systems. Virginia Satir, renowned family therapist and fellow Palo Alto group member, similarly endorsed the view that family members who were identified with mental health symptoms may be functioning in many ways to maintain the status quo in the family. Yet her view of family systems is decidedly different than Bateson’s. In her book, Peoplemaking (1972), she claimed “All the ingredients in a family that count are changeable and correctable” (p. xi). These ingredients included communication, self-worth rules, and links to society. She believed that engaging with the emotional experience of each individual (not simply their rules or interaction patterns) was the way to induce change in a family system. Her writings are often credited with bringing systems concepts to therapists and to the public at large. Another early family therapist, Murray Bowen, developed his (aptly named) Family Systems Theory independently of any of the members of the Palo Alto Group, yet his view nonetheless can be seen as a hybrid of the emotional focus of Satir and the interaction focus of the rest of the Palo Alto Group. Bowen envisioned the family as an emotional unit enacting complex interactions. His systemic approach to understanding troubled families focused on issues such as relational triangles, differentiation of self, nuclear family emotions systems, family projection processes, multigenerational transmission processes, emotional cutoffs, and sibling positions (Bowen, 1978). Bowen focused extensively on the generational transmission process as an indicator of how communication patterns pass through generations and how interpersonal triangles serve as the bedrock of family systems.

Main Goals and Features of General Systems Theory Regardless of the particular thread of systems theory being employed, understanding families as systems means using a lens that brings the interactivity and influence of family members into view. Individuals who join together in marriage, create committed partnerships, and/or become parents create a family system, within which they create ongoing patterns of communication that become a hallmark of their family identity. Systems theory recognizes that all systems, including families, are characterized by several important characteristics: interdependence, wholeness, self-regulating patterns, openness, feedback,

166

Yoshimura & Galvin

hierarchy/complex subgroups, interactive complexity and equifinality (Galvin, Braithwaite, & Bylund, 2015; White & Klein, 2002). Interdependence Interdependence addresses family members’ interconnections. It asserts that a change in one family member influences all family members, to some extent. Whether the change involves a couple’s adoption of twins or a parental divorce, all family members and their communication patterns are affected. Wholeness Wholeness asserts that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Family interactions create and/or display certain characteristics of each dyadic relational tie and of each unit’s overall set of connections. Family descriptors might include “tight with money” or “athletic;” although all individuals may not fit the description, they are painted by the same brush. Patterns/Self-Regulation Various rules and messages are used by family members to routinely or strategically regulate their family system. Family members coordinate their interactions within established and emerging patterns, such as maintaining cohesion in the family system through brothers jointly tell family stories or a parent hugging each child leaving for school. The regulating process includes family communication rules such as, “Do not swear in front of your grandparents.” Stepchildren often confront challenges if their new stepparent’s communication rules differ from their first family. Openness Contrary to how mechanical systems (such as car engines) function, family systems are necessarily at least somewhat “open” systems, as they are influenced by societal conditions and norms outside of the family system. Negotiation of change is involved as new ideas, people, and experiences move across the family boundary as family members engage with multiple people outside of the family. Yet families operate at different points on a continuum from more closed to entirely open depending on their system norms and patterns for managing how people and information enters or exits the family system. Feedback Family systems generate predictable maintenance and change promoting feedback. Maintenance feedback indicates that members are interacting in acceptable ways, following family rules. Since systems are geared towards homeostasis,

General Systems Theory 167 much of the feedback in family life maintains existing family patterns. When change-promoting feedback occurs, others in the system can resist or endorse the influence of that feedback on the status quo. For instance, if a stepmother hugs her standoffish stepdaughter and the child (finally) hugs her back, change feedback has occurred. Yet, change feedback need not imply desirable feedback in all cases. A couple may have an implicit rule that their conflicts may involve yelling and name calling but never physically touching the other in anger. However, if one partner violates the rule and the other does not condemn the behavior, the system can become re-calibrated to include physical contact. Hierarchy/Subgroups Families are organized in various interpersonal subsystems, such as dyads and triads; commonly studied subsystems include couple, parental, and sibling subsystems. Each of these groupings can be viewed at once as their own system and also as components of the larger family system, which reflects the concept of hierarchy. Similar to focusing in or out when using a microscope, those interested in family life can focus in on how smaller subsystems within the family function, or they can broaden the focus to look at how an entire generation of a family is functioning. The organization and membership of family subsystems shift as members age, as individuals leave and/or return, or in response to outside forces. Boundaries (both literal and metaphoric) are drawn through family communication to establish in-group and out-group status at various levels within the hierarchy of family subsystems. Interactive Complexity Within the study of open systems, recognizing interaction patterns trumps searching for the “cause” because established interaction patterns render causeeffect analysis useless. After years of communicative interactions, it becomes dysfunctional to try to identify who “caused” the problem. After years together, it is unrealistic for one partner to say “If you didn’t start drinking eight years ago our relationship would not be dysfunctional” or for the partner to say, “If you ever came home before nine o’clock every night, we would have a good marriage.” Even if one could identify the spouse who made the first “wrong” move years ago, that information does not change the ongoing patterns. Only working together to create new communication patterns would make a difference. Equifinality Families are goal-oriented entities. In familial contexts, equifinality refers to how different life experiences can lead to similar outcomes or “a particular final state may be accomplished in different ways from different starting points”

168

Yoshimura & Galvin

(Littlejohn, 2002, p. 41). Different childhood experiences might lead to a similar outcome, such as entering a helping profession. Growing up with a sibling with cystic fibrosis or experiencing a painful parental divorce can lead to similar outcomes, such as choosing a career in counseling.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Family Systems Theory In a living testament to the theory’s concept of equifinality, we recognize that families are formed through many paths, including blood, law and discourse (Galvin, 2006; 2014). According to Baxter (2014) “‘Family’ . . . is not a natural state of social bonding but a cultural creation” (p. 4). Communication serves as a way family members create their collective identity within a family system. Family members rely increasingly on language to attribute kinship or make the case for their family configuration. When a fourteen-year-old’s single mother becomes mentally ill and a friend’s mother provides constant support, this teenager may forever consider her a second mother. Essentially their familial bond is formed through constitutive communication. Family systems rely on members’ discourse to create, maintain, and, on occasion, terminate a family identity. Communication serves as connective tissue among members of family systems, providing a creative force for developing and maintaining a family identity. Communication scholar Janet Yerby (1995) argued that systems theory helped communication scholars understand how family members’ behaviors are interrelated. She asserted that (a) ongoing interaction patterns influence a family more than the actions of one individual, (b) ongoing relationship struggles belong to the dyad rather than being the “fault” of one person, and (c) some problems are best understood by examining the intergenerational legacy of family experiences. From a systems perspective, the ongoing process of creating family identity depends upon both the communication patterns that identify individuals as members and participation in ongoing life experiences within an identifiable long-term interpersonal system.

Research and Practical Applications of Family Systems Theory Although systems theory is rarely used as a driving force in research on family communication, numerous communication scholars have included the idea of family systems in their work. According to Schrodt (2014) “most of the communication research on triangulation and loyalty binds in stepfamilies has relied on the general principles of systems theory” (p. 164). Baxter, Braithwaite, Bryant, and Wagner’s (2004) work on stepfamily subsystems address stepfamily complexities at the dyadic level, whereas Schrodt et al. (2007) extended understandings of everyday talk in stepfamily systems from the dyadic to the triadic level. Moreover, Galvin and Young (2010) addressed the role of systems theory in providing a lens for health-care practitioners to anticipate and address the issues faced by families.

General Systems Theory 169 These few examples illustrate the way systems theory has been invoked more predominantly in communication studies as a meta-theory or “systems thinking” paradigm (Ruben & Kim, 1975), but this is not to say that it cannot be directly applied to empirical research on families. Reviewing a few studies that have directly utilized systems theory may illustrate some of the strengths and constraints of the theory in practice. Gottman, Ryan, Swanson, and Swanson (2005) conducted experiments designed to identify family interventions that best predicted improvement in couples’ conflict. The researchers worked to increase and stabilize positivity within the couple system (a hallmark of stable, satisfied couples, according to Gottman’s line of research). Gottman et al. referred to von Bertalanffy’s (1968) original proposal that elements of all systems can be mathematically modeled using values that change over time. Using nonlinear differential equations to track and explain family systems was a proposition of von Bertalanffy’s theory of systems realized in Gottman et al.’s execution of experiments within the family system. Through a process of building parameters, defining attractors related to system states, and developing equations, Gottman et al. built a mathematically based causal language to specifically address changes to marital systems over time. Using this language, the researchers were able to identify the effects that specific interventions (e.g., improving friendship within the couple, teaching the couple how to manage conflict effectively, bibliotherapy, and psychotherapy) had on system-level changes for the couple. Although the study of intervention efficacy itself is laudable (the researchers found that positive attractors to the couple system were most significant when the improving friendship or managing conflict interventions were involved), the most notable outcomes of this study for systems theorists are the realization of von Bertalanffy’s mathematical language for living systems, and Gottman et al.’s step-by-step elucidation of how this language can be created. A second example comes from Nadeau’s (2008) work with families on meaning-making during the bereavement process. Nadeau paired symbolic interaction theory (to get at what families do to create and maintain meaning through their communication) with systems theory (to get at how this process is executed within families). Nadeau’s specific focus during interviews on family roles, family rules, and the boundaries between the family system and the environment allowed her to ask participants questions that addressed meaningmaking at individual, dyadic, small group, and full-family levels. This recognition of hierarchy within the system, and Nadeau’s active attempts to involve as many members of the family system as possible in her interviews, whether directly or indirectly, were closely tied to her systems standpoint. The two contrasting families that Nadeau presents vary significantly in family structure, system-wide rules and norms, and interaction of roles within the family system. Nadeau is able to illustrate the systems components of each family through the meaningmaking process each family engages surrounding death, as well as the actual meaning of the death that each family creates.

170

Yoshimura & Galvin

Evaluation of Family Systems Theory An early (and persistent) critique of systems theory is that it is not truly a theory at all, that, instead, it is a world-view, philosophy, or language (e.g., Buck, 1956). Adams and Manning (2015) have concluded that the lack of a singular construct, supporting axioms or propositions renders it incomplete as a theory. It is also the case that there are many conceptualizations of systems that are grouped together as one theory. Adams, Hester, Meyers, and Keating (2014), among others, have called across disciplines for a unification of systems concepts and propositions to improve the rigor, consistency, and practicality of the theory for use across the various fields of science. Additionally, the direct application of the theory in research is often limited by practical constraints. Although any level (or multiple levels) of a system may be investigated from a systemic perspective, it is contraindicated within a systems perspective to focus extensively and exclusively on one individual. That is, because elements within a system are presumed to have mutual influence, and because elements exist in hierarchy (such that all systems are part of something smaller than themselves as subsystems and something larger than themselves as suprasystems), there is no one level of inquiry within a system that deserves singular focus. Yet, the study of family communication has a long history of discussing the family as a whole and then going on to investigate the individual in particular. Schrodt (2015) offers several reasons for this focus, ranging from limited financial and time resources to study families more broadly to the constraints of many statistical tests. Indeed, one of the very hallmarks of systems theory—the interdependence of elements within the system—flies in the face of one of the hallmarks of many statistical tests, presumed independence (or the lack of relationship between data collected from two different people). Whereas Schrodt offers dyadic designs and encouragement intended to overcome family communication scholars’ seeming reluctance to engage in research beyond the individual level of analysis, the impediments he notes are still significant barriers to overcome when studying at the dyadic, small group, or full-family level. Finally, systems theory is sometimes critiqued for the way it frames families. Some scholars and clinical practitioners have challenged the use of systems theory in certain circumstances when there is a significant power differential or when a member of a group is dysfunctional. For example, when a heterosexual couple comes to therapy but the male exerts unfair power in the relationship due to cultural norms, or when one partner is an alcoholic or seriously depressed, the assumptions about mutual influence are called into question on pragmatic and ethical grounds. Systems theory encourages a focus on what is created through overall patterns; causality and/or individual responsibility are not often pinpointed. However, there is some concern that the focus on overall patterns may not do enough to destabilize unhealthy or dangerous systems.

General Systems Theory 171

Continuing the Conversation As we have mentioned, one future direction for systems theory in the study of family communication is to render the theory more practically applicable. Suggestions have been made for clarifying constructs and establishing propositions (Adams et al., 2014) and strategies have been offered for engaging research that includes more than individual-level data (Schrodt, 2015). Moreover, mathematical calculations that have been empirically tested for studying change in system states (Gottman et al., 2005) have been shared with other systems researchers. Taken individually or together, these attempts to make systems theory more utilitarian for relationship research may lead to a surge in momentum for this theoretical framework in future studies of family communication. We are currently utilizing systems theory within our own work in a number of ways. One of us (Christina Yoshimura) is currently looking at how systems teachings can be used to help primary and secondary education systems build on the vital work they are doing to connect with families. Researchers and administrators in education have identified many outcomes for students (such as grades, high school completion, and consistent engagement with homework) that are heavily influenced in direct and indirect ways by family life. There is an ongoing movement in education to forge connections between schools and families to help children succeed, and in an effort to aid this movement, Yoshimura is using Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological systems theory. This branch of systems theory conceives of hierarchy in a unique way, positioning the individual as a member of several different microsystems (i.e., each with its own participants, roles, and rules) that are distinct, yet overlapping. The space of that overlap is termed the “mesosystem,” and represents what is happening, for example, in the sometimes uncomfortably familiar situation where one runs into a teacher at a grocery store. What is the appropriate way to act when boundaries between microsystems are blurred and different communicative rules or roles are simultaneously invoked? Importantly, how can joint messages or values be created between families and schools that meet at that mesosystemic level? Investigating the communication that constitutes the mesosystemic, overlapping space experienced by children and understanding how individuals navigate that space may yield insight into approaches that families and schools could use together to promote student well-being and success. Students experiencing low levels of dissonance between messages from family and from school are likely to experience emotional well-being and instrumental success as they move through levels of the family/school system. In keeping with her interest in family systems and health, one of us (Kathleen Galvin) has explored how the health/medical community utilizes systems theory to address patient care. One example is a chapter on family systems theory (Galvin & Young, 2010) that addresses how family systems theory provides a valuable lens for health practitioners, particularly genetic counselors. Another example involves family management of child and/or young adult diabetes.

172

Yoshimura & Galvin

Studies have addressed how management of diabetes care shifts from parents to children as offspring age. In 2008, Wysocki et al. undertook a trial of behavioral family systems therapy for diabetes, which revealed favorable changes in negative and positive communication that were associated with treatment adherence and diabetic control. Considering additional ways that the family system and the medical system may benefit from explicit recognition of their interdependence is a compelling and pragmatic area for future study. Turning away from our own research interests, we shift the focus to the readers of this chapter, urging them to consider their own access points within systems theory. In the twenty-first century, we recognize more complex family forms than ever before, and the landscape of family functioning is ripe for new investigations using systems theory. For instance, how can system development and change be tracked when grandparents raise grandchildren due to an imprisoned or addicted parent? What might systems theory help scholars understand about the overlapping and complex systems within a family headed by a single mother parenting children fathered by multiple men? How do committed and child-free couples navigate rules, roles, and boundaries within their system as they face physical and mental health challenges? Readers of this chapter might also consider how attuning themselves to systems theory concepts may be useful in their own relational lives. How might avoiding the tendency to punctuate interactions in relationships by invoking the systems concept of interactive complexity help lift some of the blame and defensiveness from day-to-day relationships, opening up room for mutual problem-solving? How might viewing our own family lives as an interdependent and whole systems (no greater or less than the system of a perennial honeysuckle, a finely tuned car, or the universe itself) bring some wonder and appreciation to the power of the systems in which we live? The system approach is perhaps uniquely situated in this text as it has not emerged from the field of communication studies, has a multitude of versions and iterations, and is not necessarily even a “true” theory. Yet we believe that von Bertalanffy himself put it well in his response to the question: “What is, really, general systems theory?” He stated: “I do not mind whether you call the trend in question ‘system theory’ ‘the systems approach’—or ‘crepe suzette’” (1972, p. 186). Bertalanffy’s aim, and the legacy of systems theory, is a paradigm that brings the richness, complexity, and interconnectedness of family life explicitly to the fore. It is our hope that communication scholars join with the researchers, therapists, scientists, and others across disciplines to bring insights from this perspective to the continually developing understanding of family communication.

References Adams, K. M., Hester, P. H., Meyers, T. J., & Keating, C. B. (2014). Systems theory as the foundation for understanding systems. Systems Engineering, 17, 112–123. Adams, T. E. & Manning, J. (2015). Autoethnography & family research. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 7, 350–366.

General Systems Theory 173 Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, H., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1, 251–254. Baxter, L. A. (2014). Introduction to the volume. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 3–16). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Bryant, L., & Wagner, A. (2004). Stepchildren’s perceptions of the contradictions with stepparents. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 21, 447–469. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York, NY: Jason Aronson. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buck, R. C. (1956). On the logic of general behavior systems theory. In H. Feigel & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (pp. 223–238). MN: University of Minnesota Press. Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family: Discourse-dependence and identity. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA. Sage. Galvin, K. M. (2014). Blood, law, and discourse: Constructing and managing family identity. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 17–32). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Galvin, K. M., Braithwaite, D. O., & Bylund, C. L. (2014). Family communication: Cohesion and change (9th ed.). New York, NY. Routledge. Galvin, K. M., & Young, M. A. (2010) Family communication. In C. L. Gaff & C. L. Bylund (Eds.), Family communication about genetics (pp. 3–17). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gottman, J. M., Ryan, K., Swanson, C., & Swanson, K. (2005). Proximal change experiments with couples: A methodology for empirically building a science of effective interventions of changing couples’ interaction. Journal of Family Communication, 5, 163–190. Littlejohn, S. W. (2002). Theories of human communication (10th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland. Nadeau, J. W. (2008). Meaning-making in bereaved families: Assessment, intervention, and future research. In M. S. Stroebe, R. O. Hansson, H. Schut, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Handbook of bereavement research and practice: Advances in theory and intervention ( pp. 511–530). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Pepper, S. C. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ruben, B. D., & Kim, J. Y. (1975). General systems theory and human communication. Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden. Schrodt, P. (2014). Discourse dependence, relational ambivalence, and the social construction of stepfamily relationships. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.). Remaking “family” communicatively. (pp. 157–174). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Schrodt, P. (2015). Quantitative approaches to dyadic data analysis in family communication research: An invited essay. Journal of Family Communication, 15, 175–184. Schrodt, P., Braithwaite, D. O., Soliz, J., Tye-Williams, S., Miller, A., Normand, E. L., & Harrigan, M. M. (2007). An examination of everyday talk in stepfamily systems. Western Journal of Communication, 71, 216–234. Satir, V. (1972). Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books. von Bertalanffy, L. (1950). An outline of general system theory. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1, 134–165.

174

Yoshimura & Galvin

von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory: Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY: G. Brazillier. von Bertalanffy, L. (1975). General systems theory. In B. D. Ruben, & J. Y. Kim (Eds.), General systems, theory and human communication (pp. 6–20). Rochelle Park, NJ: Hayden. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2002). Family theories (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wysocki, T., Harris, M. A., Buckloh, L. M., Mertlich, D., Lochrie, A. S., Taylor, A., . . . White, N.H. (2007). Randomized controlled trial of behavioral family systems therapy for diabetes: Maintenance and generalization of effects on parent-adolescent communication. Behavioral Therapy, 39, 33–46. Yerby, J. (1995). Family systems theory reconsidered: Integrating social construction theory and dialectical processes. Communication Theory, 5, 339–365

16 Intersectionality (Re)Considering Family Communication from Within the Margins April L. Few-Demo, Julia Moore, and Shadee Abdi

Inspired by Kimberlé Crenshaw and many other feminist scholars, we define intersectionality as a critical theoretical framework that emphasizes the fluidity, variability, and temporality of interactive processes that occur between, within, and among social groups, institutions, cultural ideologies, and social practices and the resulting outcomes of these interactions in terms of power and privilege (Crenshaw, 1991; Few-Demo, 2014). We propose that intersectionality is a theoretical framework that calls for researchers to consider how individuals and groups—who are situated by multiple social locations and whose social identities may overlap or conflict in specific contexts—negotiate systems of privilege, oppression, opportunity, conflict and change across the life course and geography (Collins, 1991; Few-Demo, Lloyd, & Allen, 2014). We further argue that intersectionality can be conceived of as a methodological paradigm that guides methodological considerations and data interpretation (Hancock, 2007b; McCall, 2005).

Intellectual Tradition of Intersectionality Theory Emerging from the work of Black feminists, the concept of intersectionality was initially articulated as the simultaneous intersection of various social locations— race, gender, and class—and how that intersection produces social identities (Collins, 1991; Combahee River Collective, 1977/1995; King, 1988). Influenced by Black feminist theory, critical race feminists, notably Kimberlé Crenshaw (1989), began to delineate intersectionality as an examination of how the interaction of social identities and social structural forces (e.g., criminal justice system) generate systems of oppression and privilege. When asked to reflect upon her 1989 landmark article, Crenshaw (2015) wrote that intersectionality: was my attempt to make feminism, anti-racist activism, and anti-discrimination law do what I thought they should—highlight the multiple avenues through which racial and gender oppression were experienced so that the problems would be easier to discuss and understand. (para. 5)

176

Few-Demo, Moore, & Abdi

Intersectionality allowed researchers to analyze how an individual is affected by structural forces differentially due to his or her social position. McCall (2005) suggested that intersectionality has been “the most important contribution that women’s studies, in conjunction with related fields, has made so far” (p. 1771). Given that intersectionality theory emerged from Black feminist theory, its philosophical underpinnings can be traced to the intellectual tradition of critical theory. Critical theorists seek to incite transformations in the social order in order to foment knowledge that is historical, structural, and functional in its ability to produce praxis and action (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994). Transformation is possible through raising political consciousness (hooks, 1990) and through the process of emancipatory historiography (West, 1982). Transformational progress is determined by evidence and permanency of restitution and emancipation (e.g., policy changes). Critical theory is concerned with empowering people to rise above discriminatory constraints. As critical theorists, intersectional scholars actively critique notions of essentialism and discriminatory epistemologies and discourses.

Main Goals and Features of Intersectionality Theory Intersectionality theory is simultaneously political, symbolic, categorical, relational, locational, and critical (Few-Demo, 2014). To comprehend this postulation, one must understand basic tenets, concepts, typologies, and analytical approaches. Theoretical Tenets The tenets of intersectionality theory capture “the relationships among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relationships and subject formations” (McCall, 2005, p. 1771). Greenwood (2008) outlined four tenets of intersectionality. First, the concept of intersectionality assumes that social identities are complex, contingent, and temporal, which leads to possible conflicts between differing identities (Crenshaw, 1989). Second, social identities are grounded in ideological and symbolic domains (Crenshaw, 1989). Third, social identities and how they are understood and embodied are socio-historically situated (Crenshaw, 1989). Finally, although social identities are embodied, they are influenced by systemic structures of power (Greenwood, 2008). We argue that these social identities are inextricable and that individuals’ experience of power, manifested through oppression and privilege, is multiplicative. Important Concepts There are several shared and basic concepts in intersectionality theory that are sometimes used interchangeably, and term usage varies by academic discipline.

Intersectionality 177 Social location and/or Social Category. Social categories such as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, ability, and age determine one’s social location, that is, one’s “place” or position in society. Social Identity. Social identity is a part of one’s self-concept, derived from perceived membership in a relevant social group. Social identities are multifaceted, self-defined, and/or group-affiliated by the interaction of race, ethnicity, gender, class, sexuality, ability, and age. They are contingent, inextricable, harmonious, and conflictive (Crenshaw, 1989; Few-Demo et al., 2014). Politics of Location. Politics of location involves how individuals negotiate those historical, geographical, cultural, psychic, and imaginative axes of selfdefinition intrapsychically and interpersonally (De Reus, Few, & Blume, 2005). The politics of location results in establishing a standpoint that is simultaneously personal and group referential. Privilege. A privilege is a special right and/or advantage that is accessible to a specified group of people which is visible or made invisible within the matrix of domination (McIntosh, 1999). Oppression. Social oppression is the structural relationship of dominance and subordination between different social groups in which one social group benefits from the systematic abuse, exploitation, degradation, marginalization, and discrimination waged against other social groups. Empowerment and Power. Empowerment is a feeling of autonomy, self-determination, and power. Gutiérrez, Oh, and Gillmore (2000) described empowerment in terms of power in three dimensions: (a) personal power; (b) interpersonal power; and (c) political power. Political power also is demonstrated by the ability to effect social change at institutional levels. Matrix of Domination. Collins (1991) argued that interlocking systems of oppression—racism, sexism, and classism—configure to form an overarching structure of domination that shapes life for specific individuals, groups, and communities. It is important to note that individuals often experience oppression in different ways. Black feminists reject additive notions of gender, racial, and class oppression because the lived experience of intersectionality is the simultaneous and multiplicative interaction of race, class, and gender. Intersectionality Matrix. An intersectionality matrix is a lived space where multiple systems of oppression simultaneously corroborate to subjugate “Otherness” (Few, 2007, p. 454). Resistance. Resistance involves the strategies that individuals use to politicize their specific situatedness (i.e., politics of location) through education, consciousness-raising, and action to combat unjust hierarchal social relationality.

178 Few-Demo, Moore, & Abdi Emancipatory Historiography. Emancipatory historiography is the process in which the oppressed becomes aware of how history has been recorded and social practices have been institutionalized to reflect and privilege majority culture’s interpretation of social events and discourses at the expense of minorities and their subjugated discourses. Emancipation occurs once those who are oppressed revise history in a way that is inclusive of minority experiences, dispels biased stereotypes, and eradicates the marginalization of minority discourses. An outcome of emancipatory historiography is a feeling of empowerment. Typologies of Intersectionality Different feminist scholars have attempted to typologize various facets of intersectionality theory. For instance, Crenshaw (1989, 1991) identified three types of intersectionality: structural intersectionality, political intersectionality, and representational intersectionality. Structural intersectionality refers to the connectedness of systems and structures in society and how those systems interact with individuals and groups differently. It is the (re)production, implementation, and maintenance of specific institutional practices and policies that preserve dominance and privilege over individuals and groups. Political intersectionality refers to how traditional feminist and antiracist politics have contributed to the marginalization of racial and ethnic minority women. In other words, African American women are socially situated within at least two subordinated groups who have conflicting political agendas that do not prioritize African American women’s needs. This premise reflects Cho, Crenshaw, and McCall’s (2013) argument that antidiscrimination doctrine and political discourses predicated on feminism and antiracism do not exhaust the terrain of intersectional erasure, marginalization, and contestation (p. 791). Finally, representational intersectionality refers to the ways in which the cultural representation of specific intersecting social categories informs the construction of unique narratives that are used to either empower or disparage the historical experience of specific groups in popular culture, policy, law, and institutions. An example of representational intersectionality would include the examination of how racial and ethnic minority women are stereotypically portrayed as hypersexual, desiring only men, and disposable in popular music videos. Ferree (2010) envisioned intersectionality theory as typifying two approaches: relational intersectionality and locational intersectionality. In the relational intersectionality approach, scholars focus on the politics of location and on how individuals and social groups negotiate and confront social practices and social institutions. In locational intersectionality, scholars focus on the process by which unique standpoints of marginalized groups develop by investigating how these intersecting marginalized social categories and the resulting social positioning are influenced by their interaction with multiple forms of oppression that are simultaneously occurring.

Intersectionality 179 Analytical Approaches McCall (2005) identified three main analytical approaches to “the study of multiple, intersecting, and complex social relations” that are based on “how [researchers chose . . . to] use analytical categories to explore the complexity of intersectionality in social life” (pp. 1772–1173). These three analytical approaches were anticategorical, intracategorical, and intercategorical complexity. An anticategorical approach questions the validity of using social categories because social categories, often imposed rather than self-ascribed, have no foundation in reality. Social categories are created through discourses, which artificially define power relations between social categories and social structures. Scholars who use an intracategorical approach analyze how a single social group is situated within a specific social setting and how specific symbolic representations influence the construction of social identities for this group. This type of intersectional research seeks to examine how a single social group negotiates both context and symbolism simultaneously. Scholars who use an intercategorical approach are interested in “the nature of relationships among social groups and, more importantly, how they are changing, rather than with the definition or representation of such groups per se” (McCall, 2005, p. 1785). This analytical approach requires multi-group-level analysis and is comparative in its emphasis, arguing that all imaginable dimensions of multiple categories should be considered. McCall was careful to note that not all intersectional research could not be tightly fitted nor classified into one these approaches. Some intersectional research consists of one or more approaches.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Intersectionality Theory Communication is central to the intersectional framework because communication creates, sustains, and transforms both identity categories and their relations to power and privilege. Specifically, the conceptualization of communication in intersectional theory can be demonstrated via Suter’s (2016) four features of critical family communication research: (a) attention to issues of power; (b) collapse of the public–private familial binary; (c) critique, resistance, and/or transformation of the status quo; and (d) author reflexivity. First, power operates through both discursive and material avenues, which are shaped by communication about what a family is or ought to be (Baxter & Asbury, 2015; Moore, 2017), and which is informed by and constitutes intersections of identities. Second, the public-private binary restricts who can speak about which issues in what contexts, even though family issues that have traditionally been understood as “private” (e.g., domestic violence and corporal punishment) are inseparable from the sociocultural. Third, critique, resistance, and transformation are always communicated, performed, and/or embodied practices, often by scholars and activists who themselves embody oppressed intersections of identities. Finally, author reflexivity, or deconstructing the social location of

180

Few-Demo, Moore, & Abdi

the self in the research process, requires a commitment to communicate how one’s own intersections of identity inform analyses and interpretations. Additionally, family communication scholars are particularly well suited to employ an intersectional framework to analyze how communication practices constitute and negotiate specific identities and power relations across multiple levels. At the individual level, people make sense of their own and others’ marginalized and privileged intersecting identity categories. At the relational level, people navigate difference when doing identity work and co-creating meaning. At the institutional level, in families, organizations, and mediated representations, meanings and practices associated with intersectional identities are cultivated and sometimes transformed. These levels are always inseparable, interacting with one another to sustain privilege and oppression. Thus, the power relations that inform intersections of identities are always inextricably intertwined with multiple, simultaneous communication processes.

Research and Practical Applications of Intersectionality Theory Intersectionality theory outlines a pathway for those interested in unraveling the interactions of identity and socially constructed macrosystemic entities and the resulting allocation, (re)production, and maintenance of power. Intersectionality theory may not be a method in and of itself, but it can be used as a methodological paradigm, or framework, to determine sampling, analytic, and interpretation strategies (Few-Demo, 2014). Cho et al. (2013) stated the best practical application of intersectionality was to think of it as providing “analytic sensibility” (p. 795). To provide exemplars of intersectional family communication research, we consider work from scholars across the communication field rather than exclusively self-identified “family communication” scholars. Suter (2016) wrote that “work in other areas [of the communication field] offers a widening of perspectives and a diversification of representations of families; disciplinary cross-fertilizations invite muted voices and bodies into the family communication conversation” (p. 6). Thus, communication scholars should draw upon both intra- and interdisciplinary works from across the social sciences and humanities about communication within and about families. Multiple social scientific communication scholars have applied intersectional theory to qualitatively analyze identity in family contexts (e.g., Buzzanell, Berkelaar, & Kisselburgh, 2011; Canary, 2008). For example, Buzzanell et al. (2011) interviewed children age four to 10 from China, Lebanon, Belgium, and the United States to analyze their meanings of career and work. The researchers exemplified an intercategorical approach (McCall, 2005) to analyze how intersections of children’s nationality, class, gender, and age informed their socialization, and in turn sensemaking about meaningful work. They found that children from more affluent backgrounds in the United States and China, who had more access to institutional support such as schools affiliated with local universities or geared toward STEM careers, talked more about medical, engineering, or computer careers than children from low-income households.

Intersectionality 181 When viewed through Crenshaw’s (1989, 1991) intersectionality typology, these results illustrate the interplay between structural intersectionality (i.e., the institution of school) and family messages in children’s communication about their future careers. Buzzanell et al. also noted that older children tended to rely more on family members’ encouragement to pursue specific career paths, in contrast to younger children who relied more on their activities and interests (e.g., art or sports). Thus, family members’ communication about work, and intersections of identities within families, institutions, and cultures, contributed to children’s career socialization, and the theoretical lens of intersectionality allowed Buzzanell et al. to “to present social and material realities that shape and are shaped by power relations in career decisions” (p. 150). Humanist scholars, including rhetoricians and critical cultural researchers in communication studies have also made important contributions to intersectional research (see Abdi, 2014; Abdi & Van Gilder, 2016; LeMaster, 2014; Moon, 2010). For critical cultural communication scholars in particular, intersectionality enhances understandings of how power and privilege operate to create and sustain structural inequality and social hierarchy. For example, LeMaster used self-reflexivity and personal narrative to reflect upon the intersectional ways that queer and multiracial identity further complicate the coming out process. LeMaster used a relational intersectional approach to writing about the closet as a contextual space, arguing that no one is ever fully out of the closet. Rather, coming out is a process that is contingent upon our social locations and our interpersonal relationships, and “we are all relationally out and dependent upon the context that draws out the nuances of our queer lives” (LeMaster, 2014, p. 192). LeMaster maintains that one’s relationship to the closet is a privileged one, which is dependent upon the interplay of one’s multiple identity locations in relation to broader institutional, structural, familial, and social discourses. Importantly, LeMaster’s written embodiment of multiraciality does not privilege one identity over the other, but rather is an articulation of what it is like to live within and between them. With intersectionality theory, scholars of family communication can address multiple identity vectors by contextualizing minority lived experiences not in relation to Whiteness or the status quo, but rather through an engagement of the broader systems of power that works to (re)shape the identities of those whose life experiences are often ignored.

Evaluation of Intersectionality Theory There are potential strengths and challenges to applying intersectionality theory to family communication research. We postulate that intersectionality theory grants scholars five strengths for the study of the human condition, interpersonal relationships, and how power influences human interactions differentially. First, intersectionality allows for a sociohistorical examination of how multidimensionality and variation are expressed in identity negotiation processes. Studying the processes through which individuals come to embrace social identities has implications for how they form self-concepts, self-identify

182

Few-Demo, Moore, & Abdi

(and de-identify) with socially relevant groups, and make decisions that determine life trajectories. Identity is contingent upon one’s understanding of interpersonal and institutional interactions. With this focus, intersectionality theory provides a second strength: the connection of intrapersonal and interpersonal microsystemic processes to macrosystemic processes (e.g., colonialism). Third, intersectionality theory centers analysis of power as a fluid, multidimensional, and contingent force, operating as an oppressive and/or privileging structure in people’s daily lives through social practices, law, cultural symbolism, and communication. The fourth strength is that intersectionality theory provides an intellectual space to contemplate and highlight the lived experiences of those who have been marginalized and/or rendered invisible by problematic practices within scientific inquiry. Such practices include the selection bias of whom and what are deemed important enough to research, the common practice of sample aggregation (e.g., lumping all ethnic Asian groups under the monolithic category of “Asian” or oversampling a particular constituency of a larger group) in comparative research, biases in the creation and prioritization of which research questions will be utilized, biases in the analytic strategies followed, and the cultural lens, which is most often informed by a White heteronormative middle class standard, that is used to interpret implicit and explicit intersectional data. Finally, intersectionality theory, in its traditional sense, connects social justice to empirical inquiry. Intersectionality theory is about praxis—that process that connects theory to practice, the application of social science to lived experience, the agency created through emancipatory historiography, and the possible reality of invoking social change. Critical theory forces engagement in a dialogic process that promotes the creation of symbolic forms and discourses that expose, challenge, and eradicate oppressive ideologies and practices. We postulate that there are three challenges to applying intersectionality theory to family communication research. First, there is a disconnect between intersectionality scholarship and the conceptualization of research questions and designs (Hancock, 2007a). The overarching methodological concern lies in the theoretical proposition that social identities and social inequality based on social categories are interdependent and mutually constitutive entities (Collins, 1991; Crenshaw, 1989), rather than being independent and unidimensional in nature, a statistical premise. A goal of intersectional research is to consider identity and processes of discrimination as inextricably “multiplicative” (e.g., race x gender x sexual orientation; racism x sexism x ageism) and not as additive (e.g., race + gender + sexual orientation + age; racism + sexism + homophobia + ageism). A multiplicative approach suggests that there is simultaneous bidirectional and/or multidirectional interaction and identity is variegated, dynamic, and contingent. An individual is simultaneously a racialized and gendered body within a specific sociohistorical context. An additive approach also suggests that individuals can rank their experience of oppressions or social identities and that social inequality must increase with each additional stigmatized identity. Generally, an individual (or a social group) experiences the oppression of racism and sexism simultaneously and not each oppression one at a time. This premise raises the

Intersectionality 183 second challenge: How do we determine whether all possible intersections of social categories, and their resulting social locations, might be relevant at all times, or when only some of these interactions might be most salient? In other words, are all intersectional positions of equal value and/or sufficient value to study? Nash (2008) questioned whether all identities were intersectional, or only those of multiply marginalized subjects. Hancock (2007b) proposed that all intersectional positions should be of equal interest to researchers, for this inclusion offered researchers an opportunity to examine how groups experience varying levels of oppression and privilege. The third challenge is how to identify researcher bias throughout the research process. Hankivsky and Christoffersen (2008) feared that researchers may find it difficult to interrogate their theoretical and methodological “blind spots” when facing the complexity, fluidity, temporality, and density of multiple differences.

Continuing the Conversation We contend that intersectionality offers an additional critical family communication theory, distinct from existing critical family communication theories such as RDT 2.0, narrative performance theory, feminist theories, and queer and poststructural theories (Baxter & Asbury, 2015; Moore,2017; Suter, 2016). We delineate two overlapping ways in which intersectionality can inform future inquiry into family communication. First, scholars can examine intersectionality at the individual level by focusing on the negotiation of individual difference within larger, culturally diverse familial contexts. For example, family communication scholars might analyze transnational cultural differences for firstgeneration immigrants negotiating conflicting intersectional identities. Mitra (2012) wrote about his performance of foreignness as layered with queer identity, nationality, gender, color, and profession to discuss the complexities of family tradition and his relationship with his White Catholic partner, and exemplifies an intracategorical approach to intersections of his individual social locations. Second, scholars can examine intersectionality at the familial level, where family members construct and negotiate a culture, or “the distinctiveness of the specific family” (Ballard & Ballard, 2011, p. 77). For example, using autoethnography, spouses Ballard and Ballard analyzed the construction of their unique family identity and culture through narrative inheritance within their own international adoptive families-of-origin and family-of-creation. Joint storytelling in families contributes to an ongoing process of both sensemaking about family histories and recreating shared family identity. Therefore, the analytical focus was not an individual’s intersections of identities within a family context, but on the constitution of family identity, “a complicated, complex confluence of a variety of factors, behaviors, relationships, tasks, and roles that construct, resist, negotiate, balance, and mutually influence the family’s liminal position between individual and society” (Ballard & Ballard, 2011, p. 77). Although the authors did not frame their analysis explicitly within intersectionality theory, the role of narrative inheritance in creating their unique international adoptive

184

Few-Demo, Moore, & Abdi

family identity provides one example of how scholars can study intersectionality intracategorically at the familial level. To meet the challenges of applying intersectionality theory to family communication research and take advantage of what this theory has to offer, Cho et al. (2013) argued that researchers should focus on how power operates in dispersive and differentiated ways through the active (re)creation, negotiation, and enactment of overlapping identity categories. Otherwise, an uncritical intersectional approach can result in reifying and flattening identity categories. For example, Yep (2016) critiqued how “the race/class/gender/sexuality mantra [was] conceived and treated in [communication and related] research” (p. 93). He argued that by focusing “primarily on marked identities, [we leave] out nation and the body as significant aspects of social identity, and . . . ignore spatial relations in the production and constitution of identity in a neoliberal global world” (p. 96). We believe that intersectional researchers must acknowledge that separating out and analyzing the individual and shared meaning of each social identity and structural inequality as well as simultaneously examining both levels are essential methodological steps to comprehensively capturing intersectionality (Cuadraz & Uttal, 1999). Therefore, in order to do rigorous, reflexive intersectional research, we must link the personal to power and those political, institutionalized processes that oppress and privilege specific social groups over the course of time. Beyond the scholarly potential for family communication research, intersectionality potentiates practical transformational strategies for those interested in pedagogy, social justice, and community research. Pedagogically, intersectionality expands the scope through which we address power, oppression, and privilege. By decentering the nuclear family as the dominant intersectional norm, instructors are better able to examine privilege from across/within/ between differences as experienced in students’ everyday lives. Similarly, when considering social justice aims, intersectionality directly challenges the misconception that issues of identity are separate. The maintenance of dominant systems of oppression relies on the inability to recognize that our lived realities are contingent upon the simultaneity of our compounded identities. Thus, intersectionality offers a frame of understanding through which we make sense of the seeming paradoxes of our individual, community, and familial lives. Finally, we acknowledge Suter’s (2016) call for critical, intersectional family communication research that works toward the critique, resistance, and/or transformation of the status quo. Accordingly, as scholars look to relay realworld familial experiences through our research, we must remain steadfast in our pursuit of questioning, challenging, and destabilizing what has often been uncritically understood as normalcy, in turn addressing the social, legal, and political implications (Floyd, Mikkelson, & Judd, 2006). In other words, if we are to assume that families are complex and are made up of varying intersectional realities, then the conversations about families need to start at those distinctions. In sum, we encourage scholars engaging in intersectionality to (re)consider what families look like when marginality is moved toward the center.

Intersectionality 185

References Abdi, S. (2014). Staying I(ra)n: Narrating queer identity from within the Persian closet. Liminalities: A Journal of Performance Studies, 10, 1–20. Retrieved from http:// liminalities.net/10–2/staying.pdf Abdi, S., & Van Gilder, B. (2016). Cultural (in)visibility and identity dissonance: Queer Iranian-American women and their negotiation of existence. Journal of International & Intercultural Communication, 9, 69–86. Ballard, R. L., & Ballard, S. J. (2011). From narrative inheritance to narrative momentum: Past, present, and future stories in an international adoptive family. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 69–84. Baxter, L. A., & Asbury, B. (2015). Critical approaches to interpersonal communication: Charting a future. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 185–197). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Buzzanell, P. M., Berkelaar, B. L., & Kisselburgh, L. (2011). From the mouths of babes: Exploring families’ career socialization of young children in China, Lebanon, Belgium, and the United States. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 148–164. Canary, H. E. (2008). Negotiating dis/ability in families: Constructions and contradictions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 437–458. Cho, S., Crenshaw, K. W., & McCall, L. (2013). Toward a field of intersectionality studies: Theory, applications, and praxis. Signs, 38, 785–810. Collins, P. H. (1991). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. London, England: Routledge. Combahee River Collective. (1995). Combahee River Collective statement. In B. GuySheftall (Ed.), Words of fire: An anthology of African American feminist thought (pp. 232–240). New York, NY: New Press. (Original work published 1977). Crenshaw, K. W. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989, 139–167. Crenshaw, K. W. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. Crenshaw, K. W. (2015, September 24). Why intersectionality can’t wait. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/09/24/whyintersectionality-cant-wait Cuadraz, G. H., & Uttal, L. (1999). Intersectionality and in-depth interviews: Methodological strategies for analyzing race, class, and gender. Race, Gender & Class, 6, 156–186. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. De Reus, L., Few, A. L., & Blume, L. B. (2005). Multicultural and critical race feminisms: Theorizing families in the third wave. In V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory and research (pp. 447–468). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ferree, M. M. (2010). Filling the glass: Gender perspectives on families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 420–439. Few, A. L. (2007). Integrating Black consciousness and critical race feminism into family studies research. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 452–473.

186

Few-Demo, Moore, & Abdi

Few-Demo, A. L. (2014). Intersectionality as the “new” critical approach in feminist family studies: Evolving racial/ethnic feminisms and critical race theories. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 169–183. Few-Demo, A. L., Lloyd, S., & Allen, K. R. (2014). It’s all about power: Integrating feminist family studies and family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 85–94. Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Judd, J. (2006). Defining the family through relationships. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 21–41). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Greenwood, R. M. (2008). Intersectional political consciousness: Appreciation for intragroup differences and solidarity in diverse groups. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 36–47. Gutiérrez, L., Oh, J. H., & Gillmore, M. R. (2000). Toward an understanding of (em)power(ment) for HIV/AIDS prevention with adolescent women. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 42, 581–611. Hancock, A. M. (2007a). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics and Gender, 3, 248–253. Hancock, A. M. (2007b). When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition. Perspectives on Politics, 5, 63–79. Hankivsky, O., & Christoffersen, A. (2008). Intersectionality and the determinants of health: A Canadian perspective. Critical Public Health, 18, 1–13. hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston, MA: South End. King, D. (1988). Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousnesses: The context of a Black feminist ideology. Signs, 14, 42–72. LeMaster, B. (2014). Relationally out: A case for and against the closet. QED: A Journal in GLBTQ Worldmaking, 1, 188–192. McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30, 1771–1800. McIntosh, P. (1999). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In M. McGoldrick (Ed.), Re-visioning family therapy: Race, culture, and gender in clinical practice (pp. 147–152). New York, NY: Guilford. Mitra, R. (2012). Living foreignness/community: Potentiality and “ordinary” performances of being/non-being. Text and Performance Quarterly, 32, 286–307. Moore, J. (in press). Where is the critical empirical interpersonal communication research? A roadmap for future inquiry into discourse and power. Communication Theory. Moon, D. (2010). Critical reflections on culture and critical intercultural communication. In T. K. Nakayama & R. T. Halualani (Eds.), The handbook of critical intercultural communication (pp. 34–52). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Nash, J. C. (2008). Re-thinking intersectionality. Feminist Review, 89, 1–15. Suter, E. A. (2016). Introduction: Critical approaches to family communication research: Representation, critique, and praxis. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 1–8. West, C. (1982). Prophesy deliverance! An Afro-American revolutionary Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Yep, G. A. (2016). Toward thick(er) intersectionalities: Theorizing, researching, and activating the complexities of communication and identities. In K. Sorrells & S. Sekimoto (Eds.), Globalizing intercultural communication: A reader (pp. 86–94). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17 Language Convergence/Meaning Divergence Theory Creating Conflict Through Misunderstandings Debbie S. Dougherty Language Convergence/Meaning Divergence (LC/MD) emerged from a grounded theory study of social sexual behavior in the workplace (Dougherty, Kramer, Klatzke, & Rogers, 2009). Specifically, during a qualitative study exploring the differences between sexual harassment and flirting, it was discovered that people often use the same language to express different meanings. The misunderstandings created by the divergence of meanings created destructive conflict and othering. The emergence of LC/MD allowed me to put a name on meaning divergence processes I had discovered during previous studies on the social construction and discursive enactment of sexual harassment in organizations. In this chapter, I describe the intellectual tradition, main goals and features, how communication is conceptualized, the applied and practical applications, and a critique of LC/MD.

Intellectual Tradition of Language Convergence/Meaning Divergence Theory LC/MD is rooted in the intellectual traditions emerging from both the interpretive and critical traditions. The foundational assumptions of interpretive traditions are that reality is constantly evolving, there are multiple meanings at play during any human interaction, and the researcher’s history and assumption influences the interpretation of findings (Putnam, 1983). Because we believe reality is constantly evolving, interpretive scholars are less concerned with generalizability and more concerned with transferability—the notion that findings from qualitative research can be used to inform actions and findings in other social spaces. Critical scholars tend to assume power imbalances shape human meaning systems. Specifically, although two people may have different meanings that have emerged from their different life experiences and material conditions, meanings derived from the person with greater discursive power is going to be given greater primacy than meanings derived from the person with lower social power (Deetz, 1992). Some of the theories that informed the creation of LC/MD include feminist standpoint theory (Allen, 2000; Dougherty, 2001; Hartsock, 1997), Weick’s (1995)

188

Dougherty

theory of sensemaking, and the ethnography of communication (Philipsen, 1976). Each of these theories focuses on communicative processes, and each theory is deeply contextually bound. Feminist standpoint theory gives LC/MD its critical roots, embedding notions of marginalized positions, material reality, and intersecting moments of shared experience into the foundation of the theory. Sensemaking theory contributes to LC/MD by providing the underlying assumptions that humans create their social environment through patterns of behavior and that how we see unexpected events is both influenced by our history and influences how we make sense of the unexpected. Perhaps the most important contribution of Karl Weick’s theory of sensemaking to LC/MD is the claim that shared experience, and not shared meaning, provides the foundation of sensemaking activities. In other words, even though it is unlikely that all meanings will be shared, the act of engaging in a shared activity creates the social environment and is the foundation of how humans make sense of their worlds. Philipson’s ethnography of communication provides foundational assumptions about the primacy of context in both the enactment and meaning of speech acts. In particular, Philipsen (1976) describes a time when he was a social worker in a place he calls “Teamsterville.” He was taking a group of children on a trip to a local city, a place many in Teamsterville viewed as dangerous. When the children asked what he would do if he was confronted by a stranger, Philipsen told them that he would talk to the person. When the children asked if he would fight the stranger, Philipsen told them “no.” Suddenly the children all wanted to go home because they believed that mere talk would not protect them in this dangerous place. In this working class community, language was viewed as a sign of weakness that threatened the well-being of the community. Context and history shapes meaning, not only the meaning of words, but the meta-meaning of language as action.

Main Goals and Features of Language Convergence/Meaning Divergence Theory The central assumption of LC/MD is that individuals in a communication situation use the same language and words, thereby assuming shared meaning has been created. However, because of language convergence, divergent meanings may be camouflaged. There are three primary components of LC/MD: language convergence, meaning divergence, and the illusion of shared meaning (Dougherty et al., 2009). Language convergence is the use of common labels to engage in meaning making activities. Meaning divergence occurs when people use the same labels to identify different meanings. The combination of language convergence/meaning divergence can create the potential for the illusion of shared meaning, that is, the tendency for shared language to create the impression of agreement when it does not exist. Each of these components will be discussed.

Language Converge/Meaning Diverge

189

Language Convergence LC/MD begins with the assumption that communication typically involves a common set of linguistic symbols (Dougherty et al., 2009). By using convergent language, communicators attempt to share or exchange information, create meaning, engage in conflict, and manage relationships, among other functions. Sometimes language converges around shared meanings. However, language can also converge around divergent meanings. Most people can appreciate this distinction. For example, think about a conflict you may have had with a sibling where you seem to have a strong difference of opinion around a topic that should be pretty straightforward. Perhaps you begin to think your sibling has a character flaw. If you are a careful communicator, you may then realize that you are using the same word to talk about different things. For example, the meanings of family, family values, and friendship, can have different meanings to different people. I once had an argument with a male relational partner, who I will call “Fred,” about a valued, long term, friendship I had with a man. Fred argued that I was not friends with the man, although I knew that I was. I was beginning to think “Fred is an idiot. He does not listen. He does not respect me. He does not respect women.” After digging a bit deeper, I realized that Fred believed friendships could only exist within male/male and female/female relationships. All other pairings were tainted by relational possibilities (note also Fred’s seeming assumption that relationships were heterosexual and friendships were homosocial). When focusing on language convergence, the notion of communication shortcuts becomes important. A common language provides a communication shortcut. By using common symbols with an assumed common meaning, communicators avoid having to define and negotiate the meanings of key terms. Consequently, communication shortcuts are not only efficient, but they are necessary. For example, imagine if you had to define the word “family” every time you talked about your family. The pace of conversation would be agonizingly slow and the ability to complete projects or share experiences would be a real challenge. Although communication shortcuts are necessary in our everyday interactions, they become problematic when meanings are divergent. In LC/MD, communication shortcuts tend to obscure important meaning centered differences. Meaning Divergence Meaning divergences explore the ways meaning diverges around a common set of symbols (Dougherty et al., 2009). Central to LC/MD is the notion of meaning clusters. Meaning clusters comprise a person or group of people’s holistic meaning for a concept or phenomenon. Meaning fragments are smaller meaning bits that when put together comprise a meaning cluster. A total cluster divergence (see Figure 17.1) occurs when meaning systems around a shared term vary widely with minimal overlap. This radical level of meaning

190

Dougherty

divergence is probably a product of differential life experiences. Feminist standpoint scholars argue that different experiences, particularly experiences with oppression, create different lived experiences for different groups of people (Allen, 2000). A total cluster divergence likely results in little if any meaningful interactions. Dougherty, Mobley, and Smith (2010, p. 178) use the mass suicide of Heaven’s Gate cult members to illustrate the ways in which language can be deliberately manipulated to create a total cluster divergence. To most people who come from the Christian faith, suicide is defined as the sin of killing oneself: Heaven’s Gate defines suicide differently from that of the mainstream. According to Heaven’s Gate’s own webpage titled Our Position against Suicide, “the true meaning of ‘suicide’ is to turn against the Next Level when it is being offered“ (Heaven’s Gate.com, n.d., p. 5). In fact, the organization refers to suicide (as the mainstream would recognize it) as “willful exit of the body” only as a last resort to escape threat to their community (Heaven’s Gate.com, n.d.). For Heaven’s Gate members, it is the failure to leave their bodies that is an act of suicide. Failure to “exit” their bodies appears to be an act against God and a sure path to eternal damnation. This meaning cluster is almost fully divergent from the cluster of meanings that surround the term “suicide” for mainstream Christians. To further illustrate total cluster divergence, Dougherty et al. (2009) identify ways in which meanings clusters around the term “flirting” can diverge in radical ways for different people. For example, in their study, one woman defined flirting as nonsexual, generalized, fun behavior. The illustration she provided was of a character on a children’s show who would ask the television audience silly questions. A second woman defined flirting as sexually aggressive, targeted at an individual, and as something that happened all the time in her workplace. To illustrate, she provided a story of a time when her boss grabbed the participant’s butt, pushed her against a wall, and made racial and sexual comments. The meanings that emerged from these descriptions are so different that, other than the shared term “flirting,” it would be difficult for these women to have a meaningful conversation about flirting in the workplace. A subtle cluster divergence (see Figure 17.2) is characterized by small differences in which people espouse similar meaning clusters with a few different meaning fragments. These differences may be so slight that they are easy to miss or dismiss as unimportant. This divergent meaning may be somewhat subtle, but it may, nevertheless, be quite important. In fact, it is likely that a large number of interpersonal and social conflicts are a product of subtle cluster meaning divergence. Take the word “family communication” as an example. Two individuals may have very similar meaning clusters surrounding this word, varying only in the formality of communication. One person may define family communication as characterized by quiet and formal interactions. One person may characterize family communication as loud and informal. This, in

Language Converge/Meaning Diverge

Meaning cluster group A

191

Meaning cluster group B

Figure 17.1 Total Cluster Divergence

Meaning cluster group A

Meaning cluster group B

Figure 17.2 Subtle Cluster Divergence

fact, is a subtle cluster divergence between my husband and myself. My family is loud and rambunctious. My husband’s family is quiet and polite. This subtle but important difference created some uncomfortable in-law interactions. My husband was overwhelmed by my family’s communicative enthusiasm, most likely interpreting the open interactions as aggressive and angry. On the other hand, my initial experiences with his family were uncomfortable as a result of long silences and highly formalized interactions. I felt that there was underlying anger and tension. Other subtle differences identified in the literature include people who include pets in the definition of family and those who include only human agents as family members (Dixon & Dougherty, 2014). The word “democracy” has also been noted for subtle meaning differences between cultures (Dougherty et al., 2010). There is general agreement that a democratically selected government is elected by the citizens of a nation. Following the Iraq war, U.S. citizens were outraged at the possibility that another country would democratically select a theocrat who advocated for a theocracy that excluded some citizens from voting in the future. In the United

192

Dougherty

States, democracy means liberal democracy in which members are elected who promote a more-or-less egalitarian notion of democracy. Of course, this meaning has evolved over time. Historically less than half of U.S. citizens were allowed to vote (White males), suggesting that meanings can evolve over time. At this point in the theory development, little is known about how meaning diverges. It is recognized that cultural assumptions can create differences in meanings, producing hidden conflict (Dougherty et al., 2010) and that deeply imbedded meaning systems, such as assumed meanings of “family” can simultaneously obscure differences and create a hyper focus on people who are different (Dixon & Dougherty, 2014). The Illusion of Shared Meaning It is in the combined analysis of convergence and divergence where the illusion of shared meaning becomes apparent (Dougherty et al., 2009). The use of shared language, while maintaining divergent meanings, creates an illusion of shared meaning that can be difficult to notice or penetrate. Because language convergence is often a communication shortcut without elaboration, divergent meaning can go largely unnoticed and unchallenged. When the differences are subtle, the meaning divergence is even more likely to go undetected. The illusion of shared meaning is never fully complete. At times, any illusion can develop fissures. These fissures in the illusion allow communicators to acknowledge that there are differences. However, most people fail to acknowledge differences in underlying meanings because it simply does not occur to them that their meanings could be different from reasonable others using the same word. As a result, despite the opportunity presented by these fissures to develop an understanding of divergent meanings, previous research suggests that people develop a number of communication strategies to evade this type of understanding (Dougherty et al., 2009). Collectively, these strategies are called othering (Bach, 2005). Othering is characterized by a highly developed tendency to construct others in negative ways. For example, in a study exploring meaning systems around flirting and sexual harassment, those with diverging meanings of sexual harassment and/or flirting were often described as immoral, psychotic, or psychologically unstable (Dougherty et al., 2009). In international contexts, othering can create heightened nationalism and a sense of moral superiority. For those with alternative families trying to balance work and life, othering can create worker isolation and shunt child free family members into undesirable working hours (Dixon & Dougherty, 2014). Othering by cult members is used in a deliberate way to isolate members from their family and outside social network, in much the same way as abusers isolate their targets from family and friends. Ultimately, othering creates a stigmatized space for those who are perceived as different. The illusion of shared meaning is in no way power neutral. It is critically important to note that the failure to acknowledge different meanings disproportionately benefits members of the dominant culture. For example, my current

Language Converge/Meaning Diverge

193

research exploring stigmas of unemployment suggests that both upper class and lower class people engage in mutual othering. It is the lower class people, however, who are most likely to face negative consequences of the othering by being shunted into lower wage jobs and isolated in higher crime living areas. Othering as an outcome of the illusion of shared meanings can be utterly destructive. Dougherty et al. (2010) describe the total meaning divergence around the word “morality” that ultimately contributed to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and the ongoing wars that are a product of those attacks. Whereas the United States views freedom of religion and equal rights as a moral stance, Islamic radicals viewed these positions as irredeemably immoral. These differences provided key justification for the formation of the terrorism that shapes our world in deadly ways.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Language Convergence/Meaning Divergence Theory LC/MD takes a meaning centered approach to communication. Although other theories may focus more on messages or information exchange, LC/MD explores the ongoing production of meaning, in particular how language creates and obscures meanings during interactions. Conceptualizing communication as meaning production is an outcome of the discursive turn taken in communication. Originally, interpretive research assumed that communication creates shared meanings (Putnam, 1983). However, feminist and critical research has made it clear that what appears to be shared meanings is simply an illusion created through shared language. LC/MD takes as its core assumption that meaning both converges and diverges and that communication shortcuts are the key means through which the illusion of shared meaning occurs.

Research and Practical Applications of Language Convergence/Meaning Divergence Theory Language convergence/meaning divergence seems to resonate strongly with scholars who study the relationship between identity and communication. Upon reflection, an identity-based focus on LC/MD seems intuitive. I admit however, that it was not the direction I initially expected for LC/MD scholarship. Given the emerging recognition that identity is not something we have, but a process that is constantly being negotiated (e.g., Compton, 2016), it makes sense that language could converge while meanings diverge. Two studies illustrate research exploring LC/MD around issues of identity. First, Dixon and Dougherty (2014) explored the multiple meanings surrounding the limited meanings of “family” in the workplace. In their study, they demonstrate how the term family in workplace contexts has narrow meaning clusters. Specifically, family in organizational contexts generally refers to heterosexual relationships, particularly heterosexual marital relationships, with a particular focus on children. Those study participants who were single, not heterosexual, and/or without

194

Dougherty

children were assumed to be without family. There were significant consequences to the narrow meaning of family. First, those without family felt invisible. They had very little to talk about with coworkers, had no pictures to display, and had no one to bring with them to organizational functions. These individuals also often obscured their families by changing the subject and by choosing not to talk about the people and animals they regarded as their family. This choice was usually self-protective because it helped them avoid unwanted attention. Second, when diverse and alternative families became marked in the workplace, those workers often became hyper visible. For example, one man who was single spent a considerable amount of energy fending off well-meaning colleagues attempting to set him up with single women. Another participant did not have children and found herself spending energy explaining why she did not have children and when she planned to have them. Not only does this type of hypervisibility push a dominant form of family on people who lie outside of that meaning system, but it caused coworkers to focus on issues that were private and personal. It constituted an invasion of privacy at a very personal level. A second study also utilized LC/MD to help explore how group identity is formed and reformed over time. Zanin, Hoelscher, and Kramer (2016) used symbolic convergence theory, and in particular the notion of fantasy theme analysis, to understand how the identity of a women’s rugby team was produced, maintained, and contested across time. Women’s rugby is known as a safe community for women who identify outside of the limited mainstream gendered expectations. The authors analyzed a complex array of qualitative data to explore the creation of fantasy themes. Symbolic convergence theory suggests that fantasy themes are one mechanism through which groups create a shared sense of self. However, as Olufowote (2006) has noted, this rigid focus on shared meanings has made the theory somewhat difficult to use in a sustained way. Specifically, people rarely create a fully sutured shared identity. Group members may use the same symbols, but attach different meanings. Hence, LC/MD becomes salient in addressing the shortcomings of symbolic convergence theory. In their study, Zanin et al. (2016) explore two forms of meaning divergence. First, members did not universally agree with other team members’ symbolic representation of the fantasy themes. For example, as part of a fantasy theme tied to a core value of competition, one team member made an online post about hitting a player from another team because of a rule violation. This comment places heroic value on the team member’s violence, contributing to the fantasy theme of extreme competitiveness. Some members of the group clearly disagreed with this heroic representation by claiming that the behavior was immature and unethical. The second area of divergence was between dominant fantasy themes of friendly and competitive. Different members identified with different themes at different times. As explained by the authors, “Members had to discursively reinterpret or temporarily ignore violations of one fantasy theme to enact another. The presence of multiple concurrent,

Language Converge/Meaning Diverge

195

and possibly conflicting, fantasies—each reifying a specific identity claim—is especially problematic for creating a cohesive group identity” (Zanin et al., 2016, p. 461). This complex meaning divergence resulted in a weakened sense of team cohesion for this women’s rugby team. LC/MD also has clear practical implications. I have always believed that its most important contribution may be managing conflict, especially socially entrenched conflict between people with widely different experiences. From a family perspective, childcare represents a frequent source of conflict for parents. I recall a conflict with my partner that occurred when our first child was less than a year old. We had a boisterous argument over whether or not he was engaging in childcare when it was his turn to be home with the baby. I discovered that for him childcare meant watching and playing with the baby. For me, childcare meant not only watching the baby, but also taking care of the environment in which the baby lived (e.g., cleaning the dishes, doing laundry). Our gendered experiences and expectations undoubtedly contributed to my larger meaning cluster for childcare. As a result of our different meanings, he othered me by thinking that I was unreasonable and nagging. I othered him by viewing him as irresponsible and lazy. Luckily for our relationship, we realized that we had different meaning systems. We were able to reframe the conflict by talking about what constitutes childcare. This reframing was a far more productive conflict. When engaging in conflict, especially when gender, race, age, sexuality, social class, or dis/ability has created different lived experiences, it may be helpful to make sure the conflict is not centered on hidden differences in meanings.

Evaluation of Language Convergence/Meaning Divergence Theory There are two strengths to LC/MD. First, current theorizing about communication tends to be oriented around convergence in some way (Dougherty et al. 2009). Although scholars recognize the potential for various forms of communication divergence, the theoretical and scholarly focus tends to be on how meaning and language converges. For example, symbolic convergence theory (Bormann, 1985; Bormann, 1996) tends to focus on shared visions. Sensemaking (Weick, 1995) tends to focus on shared language processes that produce a shared social environment. The ethnography of communication (Philipsen, 1976) explores how people imbedded in particular cultures use shared language to create a shared group identity. Although each of these theories suggests the possibility that meanings diverge, none of them take up meaning divergence as a central feature of their project. LC/MD extends current thinking about communication by theorizing one form of communication divergence. A second strength of LC/MD is that it adds another interpretive/critical theory that can be used by qualitative communication scholars. There has been

196

Dougherty

a call by interpersonal and family communication scholars to create more qualitative research (LaRossa, 2012). This call is made challenging not only because of the strong tendency toward quantitative research by family and interpersonal communication scholars, but also by the dearth of theories that can be used to interpret qualitative findings. LC/MD faces three important challenges. First, it challenges common assumptions that shared language equals shared meanings. As a result, scholars have to step outside of their own assumptions about language and meaning in order to effectively utilize LC/MD in both designing and analyzing qualitative research. Second, LC/MD asks scholars to step outside of basic thematic qualitative research training. Thematic analysis tends to explore commonalities among participant’s experiences. LC/MD analysis requires scholars to look at both common and diverging meanings that are shaped by and help shape participants’ experiences. Accomplishing this type of analysis requires researchers to not only understand basic methods of interviewing and thematic analysis, but requires researchers to understand methodological issues surrounding qualitative research design, as well as analytical processes that move beyond simple thematic analysis. For example, from a design perspective, understanding the distinctions between grounded theory, phenomenology, case study, and narrative methodologies will help researchers create a more productive study of qualitative phenomenon. In terms of analysis, I have observed that researchers often use analytical techniques that do not match their methodologies. For example, open coding is a process used to begin analysis of grounded theory studies. Open coding pulls apart the data into small bits or units (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Narrative analysis is distinct from grounded theory in that the data is kept together and analyzed in a more holistic fashion. When scholars use open coding to analyze narrative they pull the narrative apart into bits and units, distorting the possibility of understanding how meanings emerge, diverge, and reconverge within a narrative. LC/MD analysis can be conducted within a number of methodologies, but it must be conceptualized in complex and rich ways that move beyond simplistic notions of qualitative analysis. Third, LC/MD is relatively underdeveloped. As a result, we do not yet understand how divergent meanings are negotiated and navigated, how meanings change over time, and how meanings may be unstable within and across people. For example, an individual’s meaning cluster for the term “friendship” may change depending on to whom the individual is speaking. Perhaps one reason for the undertheorized nature of the theory is because of the hidden pressure from the peer review process. I have been informed on more than one occasion by reviewers that I am utilizing the theory incorrectly or that it was never intended to do “X.” Whereas I appreciate reviewers’ efforts, it would be useful for readers to recognize that as a critical/interpretive theory, LC/MD will need to be utilized in a fluid way. Over policing will inhibit its useful development in the field.

Language Converge/Meaning Diverge

197

Continuing the Conversation In the future, I would like to see LC/MD used to explore an array of entrenched conflicts. I am particularly interested in how racial injustice is exacerbated by the use of converging language with diverging meaning. A few weeks ago on my academic campus, a White woman called Black women the “n” word. In response, Black men called a group of White observers “crackers.” Better understanding how meanings both converge and diverge around these words would be potentially valuable. For example, although some say that the term “cracker” is an ugly word, they argue that it does not have underlying social asymmetry associated with it. However, social class is a deeply embedded stigmatized concept in White culture. To question class standing for White people in the United States is highly stigmatizing and face threatening, particularly since most White folks view themselves as middle class (Dougherty, 2011). It is possible (and I am purely speculating here) that while the Black men were using the term “cracker” to refer to a particular type of Southern racist, the White male targets may have viewed the term as a threat to their social class standing. Although we think of social class in terms of access to resources, I am increasingly convinced that access to resources is an outcome of social class processes. I am further convinced that communication is central to social class processes that privilege some people over others (Dougherty, 2011). It would be useful to explore how language convergence/meaning divergence influences classed interactions. Terms such as leadership, politeness, and art have already been demonstrated to mean something different between blue collar and white collar people. How these differences create othering, and how that othering reinforces access to material goods and services have yet to be explored by communication scholars.

References Allen, B. J. (2000). “Learning the ropes”: A Black feminist critique. In: P. Buzzanell (Ed.), Rethinking organizational & managerial communication from feminist perspectives (pp. 177–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bach, B. W. (2005). The organizational tension of othering. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 258–268. Bormann, E. G. (1985). Symbolic convergence theory: A communication formulation. Journal of Communication, 35, 128–138. Bormann, E. G. (1996). Symbolic convergence theory and communication in group decision making. In R. Y. Hirokawa & M. S. Poole (Eds.), Communication and group decision making (2nd ed., pp. 81–113). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Compton, C. A. (2016). Managing mixed messages: Sexual identity management in a changing U.S. workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 30, 415–430 Deetz, S. (1992). Democracy in an age of corporate colonization: Developments in communication and the politics of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

198

Dougherty

Dixon, J., & Dougherty, D. S. (2014). A language convergence/meaning divergence analysis exploring how LGBTQ and single employees manage traditional family expectations in the workplace. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 42, 1–19. Dougherty, D. S. (2001) Sexual harassment as [dys]functional process: A feminist standpoint analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 29, 372–402. Dougherty, D. S. (2011). The reluctant farmer: An exploration of work, social class, & the production of food. Leicestershire, England: Troubador. Dougherty, D. S., Mobley, S., & Smith, S. (2010). Language convergence and meaning divergence: A theory of intercultural communication. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 3,164–186. Dougherty, D. S., Kramer, M. W., Klatzke, S. R., & Rogers, T. K. K. (2009). Language convergence and meaning divergence: A meaning centered communication theory. Communication Monographs, 76, 20–46. Hartsock, N. C. M. (1997). Standpoint theories for the next century. Women and Politics, 18, 93–101. LaRossa, R. (2012). Thinking about the nature and scope of qualitative research. Journal of Marriage and Family, 7, 678–687. Olufowote, J. O. (2006). Rousing and redirecting a sleeping giant: Symbolic convergence theory and complexities in the communicative constitution of collective action. Management Communication Quarterly, 19, 451–492. Philipsen, G. (1976). Places for speaking in Teamsterville. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 62, 15–25. Putnam, L. L. (1983) The interpretive perspective: An alternative to functionalism. In L. L. Putnam & M. E. Pacanowsky (Eds.), Communication and organizations: An interpretive approach (pp. 31–54). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zanin, A., Hoelscher, C. S., & Kramer, M. W. (2016). Extending symbolic convergence theory: A shared identity perspective of a team’s culture. Small Group Research, 47, 438–472.

18 Multiple Goals Theories Motivations for Family Interactions and Relationships Steven R. Wilson and John P. Caughlin

One of the authors of this chapter, Steve, has been talking with his mother (who is in her mid-80s) about how long she will continue driving. His mom lives 150 miles away from him, in a small Midwestern U.S. town that lacks public transportation. Steve’s dad passed away when he was in high school, and his mom might not be able to stay in her own home if she were unable to drive. As an adult son, Steve feels odd worrying about his mother’s safety—after all, parents typically worry about their children’s safety. Steve worries that his mother may persist in driving beyond when it is reasonable for her to do so, but saying this directly could imply that he understands his mother’s capabilities better than she herself does. So Steve raises the topic occasionally but treads lightly, asking about when his mother feels comfortable driving as well as what her plans are for when the time comes that she can no longer drive. Multiple goals theories help explain why conversations such as this one can seem difficult. “Goals” are desired end states we want to attain or maintain; they become “interaction goals” when we must communicate and coordinate with others to achieve them (Wilson, 2002). Steve wants his mom to reflect on whether, and under what conditions, she currently is able to drive, as well as to stop driving when she is no longer able to do so safely. Although important, these are by no means Steve’s only goals—he also wants to honor his mother’s right to make her own decisions, avoid upsetting her, and convey love and caring. Multiple goals theories point our attention to questions, such as: Why does Steve think carefully about what to say to his mom in this situation? How does what he says, over time, reflect how he prioritizes multiple goals? How may his mother’s response depend, in part, on what she infers his goals to be when he raises the topic? Why do some things Steve might say in this situation seem more appropriate than others? “Multiple goals” refers to a family of related theories that share key assumptions (Caughlin, 2010). In this chapter, we discuss three specific multiple goal theories that offer insights about family communication: (a) Dillard’s (2015) Goals-Plans-Action model, (b) Caughlin’s Multiple Goals Theory of Personal Relationships, and (c) Goldsmith’s (2004) Normative Theory. Although these theories were created to answer broader questions about communication, they have special relevance to families for two reasons. First, family members are

200

Wilson & Caughlin

interdependent, and hence often can facilitate and/or interfere with one another’s goals (see Chapter 23 on relational turbulence theory). Second, family members sometimes adopt one another’s goals as their own—in ways that may be helpful (e.g., when an individual diagnosed with cancer asks his/her spouse to share health updates with their larger network) or dysfunctional (e.g., when “helicopter parents” define their own success based on their children’s goals).

Intellectual Tradition of Multiple Goals Theories Clark and Delia (1979) were among the first scholars to propose that any conversation could be analyzed in terms of how participants oriented to three types of goals (a) instrumental objectives, in which a response is required from one’s listener(s) regarding a specific obstacle or problem defining the task of the communicative situation, (b) interpersonal objectives, involving the establishment or maintenance of a relationship with the other, and (c) identity objectives, in which there is a management of the communicative situation to the end of presenting a desired self-image for the speaker and creating or maintaining a particular sense of self for the other(s) (p. 200). In the situation involving Steve and his mom, Steve’s instrumental objectives include his desire to have his mom evaluate her driving, interpersonal objectives involve maintaining positive rapport, and identity objectives include appearing to be a caring son and not casting his mom as a “child.” Clark and Delia (1979) argued that (a) communicative situations could be analyzed in terms of these underlying goals, (b) some messages were more “sophisticated” than others in how they addressed multiple goals, and (c) some persons were more skilled than others at creating sophisticated messages. Building on Clark and Delia’s (1979) ideas, communication scholars over time have used the term “goal” in two interrelated, yet distinct, senses (Wilson, 2014). First, goals can be thought of as describing a person’s mental state. For example, to say that Steve has the goal of wanting to “encourage his mom to reflect on her driving” is to describe what he as an individual desires. We refer to this first usage as personal goals. Second, goals can be thought of as purposes that are “relevant” to a situation, in the sense that speakers might be expected to pursue those goals and might be held accountable if they do not. This second usage refers to normative ideas about what types of goals participants in a conversation should attend to given the actions they are performing, cultural values they may share, etc. For example, Steve might be expected to treat his mother as an adult rather than a child while discussing the topic of driving; if he fails to do so, his mother and other family members may view what he says as inappropriate. We refer to this second usage as conventional goals. The three theories we discuss below differ in whether they focus on personal and/or conventional goals. Much of the research on multiple goal theories of family communication is “post-positivist.” Scholars in this tradition analyze goals to predict and explain why family members say what they do as well as how they evaluate one another’s

Multiple Goals Theories 201 messages. However, some of the scholarship we discuss is “interpretive” because it focuses on how families create or negotiate shared meanings. Finally, the multiple goals theories discussed here are all “home-grown” communication theories.

Main Goals and Features of Multiple Goals Theories Dillard’s Goals-Plans-Action (GPA) Model James Dillard (2015; Dillard, Segrin, & Harden, 1989) proposed the “goalsplans-action” (GPA) model to explain why individuals say what they do when they want to influence others. Central to the model is the distinction between a person’s primary and secondary goals (Dillard). The primary goal is a goal that, for the moment, defines “what is going on” in an interaction; it exerts a “push” force that motivates a person to speak. For example, imagine that your father recently has been diagnosed with high cholesterol. Your father’s doctor recommended that he exercise more and eat healthier, but you have seen little change in his behavior. If you say, “Dad, can we talk about something?” and explain that you are worried he is not following his doctor’s recommendations, then you both likely realize that the conversation for the moment is defined by your goal of encouraging your father to exercise and eat healthy. Influence episodes are common in families across the lifespan (Wilson, 2002), including during emerging adulthood. Research has asked college students to keep diaries about situations where they tried to change the behavior of someone they knew (Cody, Canary, & Smith, 1994). Students frequently reported instances in which they tried to influence their parents and siblings. Common influence goals with family included instances where young adults wanted to “seek assistance” (e.g., financial help, borrowing an object), “give advice” (e.g., about health or relationship issues), “obtain permission” (e.g., spring-break plans), and “change opinions” (e.g., about political issues). Secondary goals refer to other concerns that are raised by a person’s primary goal; secondary goals exert a “pull” force that shapes, and constrains, what a person says while trying to accomplish the primary goal. Dillard et al. (1989) proposed five types of secondary goals that could become salient if you tried to influence another member of your family (a) identity (e.g., wanting to act consistently with your core values), (b) conversation management (e.g., wanting to avoid embarrassing yourself or the family member you’re trying to influence), (c) relational resources (e.g., wanting to avoid damaging your relationship with that family member), (d) personal resources (e.g., wanting to avoid making that family member so angry that s/he attempts to retaliate in some way), and (e) affect management (e.g., wanting to avoid feeling nervous while talking with your family member). Exerting influence often leads to consideration of one or more secondary goals. According to the GPA model, individuals decide whether to engage in an influence attempt based on the relative importance of primary and secondary

202

Wilson & Caughlin

goals. For example, if you are very worried about your dad needing to lower his cholesterol level (primary goal) and believe you can raise the issue without making him defensive (secondary goal), then you are likely to broach the topic directly. If your dad’s health concerns do not seem that serious, and you fear that saying something may result in a big argument, then you might drop hints or decide not to say anything. If your primary goal and secondary goals both are important yet seem to conflict, you are likely to spend more time consciously planning what to say. “Plans” refer to people’s mental knowledge about means for accomplishing goals, whereas “planning” refers to the process of creating, revising, and enacting plans (Berger, 1997; Dillard, 2015). At an abstract level, you might plan to say that you love your dad and want him to be healthy, and hence that you want him to join a gym and stop eating junk food. “Action” refers to the specific verbal and nonverbal behaviors by which you actually carry out your plan. Depending on how your father reacts when you raise the topic, you might make small or larger adjustments to your initial goals and/or plans as your conversation unfolds or during subsequent conversations about his health. Caughlin’s Multiple Goals Theory of Personal Relationships (MGPR) Most multiple goals theories focus primarily on single messages or conversations. Caughlin’s (2010) Multiple Goals Theory of Personal Relationships (MGPR) takes a wider view, examining communication at the level of relationships. People’s evaluations of their relationships with other family members are based on a history of encounters. Over time, people form impressions of how family members communicate in general, and their sense of what interaction goals are pursued frequently is an important part of those impressions. According to the MGPR, individuals’ perceptions of their own and their family members’ communication—and their perceptions of the goals behind that communication—are important factors in their relationship satisfaction. Spouses may have many conflicts over the course of their marriage, for example, and the inferences they make about the kinds of goals each other typically has during conflicts shapes their overall relational experience. If a husband believes that his wife usually values the goal of winning an argument above other considerations, his evaluation of his relationship is likely to be more negative than if he believes his wife also is very concerned with negotiating solutions that are best for both people. The MGPR assumes that inferences about goals matter. Communication behaviors do not have inherent meanings; rather, people interpret the meaning of messages based (in part) on what they think each person’s goals are in a conversation. Imagine that a teenager is about to leave the house one evening, and her mother says, “Do you have your phone with you?” There are many possible intended purposes for this question, and the various possibilities have different meanings and relational implications (Palomares & Derman, 2016).

Multiple Goals Theories 203 Maybe the daughter assumes that her mother’s main goal is to look out for her by making sure she has what she needs. In that case, the daughter may appreciate the support. Or, maybe the daughter suspects that her mother wants to make sure she has her phone so her mother can track her whereabouts, which would give the question another meaning entirely. In addition to highlighting how perceived goals shape the meaning of messages, the MGPR notes that this particular encounter occurs within a history of encounters between the mother and daughter. This helps explain why the daughter might make some goal inferences rather than others. For instance, if she believes that her mother always wants to make sure she has everything she needs, she is likely to assume that her mother is looking out for her, but if she believes her mother frequently wants to track her whereabouts, she may interpret the question as a reminder that her mother constantly tries to control her. In addition, the judgments people make about typical goals influence their evaluation of the relationship; for example, a daughter who thinks her mother always looks out for her is probably going to be happier with her relationship than is a daughter who thinks her mother consistently tries to control her. Goldsmith’s Normative Theory Daena Goldsmith (2004) developed her normative approach to communication as a lens for understanding why communication is (or is not) viewed as effective and appropriate in particular circumstances. The normative approach focuses on conventional goals that are commonly understood to belong to certain kinds of communication situations (Goldsmith, 2004). For example, imagine you have a brother who was recently diagnosed with HIV, and now he discloses his diagnosis to you. Social expectations would make the goal of “comforting your brother” relevant, regardless of whether or not you personally wanted to provide such comfort (Caughlin et al., 2008). Young adults in the U.S. strongly endorse the ideal that family members should be able to count on each other for support in tough times (Caughlin, 2003). Hence, the normative understanding that having a sibling diagnosed with a serious disease constitutes a situation that calls for offering support provides a basis for evaluating the appropriateness of your response in such circumstances. For instance, if you failed to even attempt comforting your brother, then you likely would be viewed as cold. Another key assumption of Goldsmith’s normative model is that the specific situation is important for understanding the meaning of communication behaviors. For example, the meaning of a particular type of talk, such as advicegiving, or talk on a particular topic, such as HIV, is influenced by norms and expectations that differ across cultures (Goldsmith, 2004). Moreover, even within a given culture, the meaning of a specific situation is at least partly negotiated by the people communicating. Think about Steve and his mother talking on the phone. Maybe they are catching up on what has happened since they last talked. Yet at some point Steve says that he has been thinking

204

Wilson & Caughlin

a lot about it, and it is time that they talk about his mother’s driving. The tenor of the conversation likely would change, and most people would recognize this as a different type of communication event than catching up (Goldsmith & Baxter, 1996). Such changes in the communication event shape the meaning of subsequent talk and our understanding of what is appropriate and effective. Because of the situated nature of communication, the normative model does not attempt to document general lists of communication strategies that are good or bad (Goldsmith, 2004). Instead, the goal is to understand the particular challenges or “dilemmas” involved in communicating in specific kinds of situations and to evaluate the extent to which communication “practices” are well suited for addressing those challenges. A dilemma exists when a speaker’s attempt to pursue a communication task (e.g., offering advice) can be interpreted as communicating inconsistent meanings, and hence the speaker is faced with multiple, conflicting goals (Goldsmith). In the case of Steve and his mother, Steve may be concerned with his mother’s well-being, but whatever inclination he has to try to intervene with her driving would conflict with his desire to respect his mother’s autonomy. This could lead to Steve being heard as simultaneously saying “I am worried about your ability (to drive safely)”, but “I respect your ability (to make decisions)”. Moreover, even if he did not recognize how these competing goals could cause a dilemma, these goals still are conventionally relevant. For example, if Steve was completely unconcerned with his mother’s safety, people likely would think he is uncaring. Or, if he was completely unconcerned with respecting his mother’s right to make decisions for herself, people may think he is butting in. The objective of the normative approach is to identify (a) dilemmas that make situations complex, and (b) communication practices that can help address dilemmas as successfully as possible. Even though each situation is different, learning what is helpful can be useful for others dealing with similar circumstances.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Multiple Goals Theories Within multiple goal theories, communication is conceptualized as both functional and constitutive. Functionally, communication is a process through which family members attempt to accomplish goals. Communication involves more than transmitting information or trying to achieve shared meaning. As Burleson (2010) explains, “people do not produce and interpret messages as ends in themselves; rather, they engage in these activities to accomplish particular social goals—goals that in some way focus on, include, or require the participation of others” (p. 152). At the same time, communication is seen as constitutive; that is, communication is the process by which situations and relationships constantly are co-created (Burleson, p. 158). According to Goldsmith’s (2004) Normative Theory, family members constantly negotiate

Multiple Goals Theories 205 what type of conversation they are engaged in (e.g., catching up, giving advice), and may use talk to re-negotiate situations in ways that help manage dilemmas. Communication also is viewed as highly contextual in multiple goal theories (Burleson, 2010). Although we talk about broad categories, such as “primary” and “secondary” goals, we can only understand the particular goals that will be salient as family members interact by analyzing relational, institutional, and cultural contexts. For example, to understand what makes the conversation between Steve and his mom about driving complex, we need to analyze the link between driving and living independently in a small Midwestern U.S. town, cultural expectations about how adult children should interact with their aging parents, and cultural ideas for “good” family communication (Caughlin, 2003). Finally, multiple goal theories highlight the “quality” rather than the “quantity” of family communication, where communication quality depends on the degree to which family members attend to multiple, situationally-relevant conventional goals (Scott & Caughlin, 2014). In situations that are complex, families too often are given overly-simplistic advice such as “just talk about it” or “be open” without being offered specific suggestions about more or less useful ways of talking. From a multiple goals viewpoint, high-quality family communication occurs when members are able to recognize and identify means for pursuing their instrumental goals in ways that sustain desired identities and relationships (Goldsmith, 2004).

Research and Practical Applications of Multiple Goals Theories Dillard’s Goals-Plans-Action Model One recent study applied the GPA model to understand conversations about help-seeking in military families (Wilson, Dorrance Hall, Gettings, & Pastor, 2015). Participants were family members (e.g., spouses, parents) of U.S. service members who had returned from being deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. Participants were asked to imagine that their service member was having serious difficulty readjusting to civilian life after being home several months. After writing out what they would say to encourage their service member to seek professional help, they rated the importance of their primary goal (encouraging help seeking), two secondary goals (maintaining their own and their service member’s “face”; not creating additional harm such as the service member refusing to talk), and steps in a plan for accomplishing the primary goal (e.g., getting service members to recognize they were having problems; convincing them that seeing a professional could help). One important finding was that family members sometimes seemed to get so focused on specific elements of their plan that they lost sight of their overall goals. For example, participants who placed more importance on encouraging service members to seek help as well as avoiding further harm, in turn, placed

206 Wilson & Caughlin greater importance on getting service members to recognize they were having problems readjusting. As participants placed greater importance on getting service members to recognize problems, however, they expressed less acceptance of service members in their written messages—which could undermine attempts to encourage help-seeking without creating additional harm. When spouses or parents see a loved one’s life seeming to fall apart, they may have trouble communicating in ways that effectively manage multiple goals. The U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs sponsors a telephone service called “Coaching into Care” that family members can call for advice about how to communicate effectively in situations such as this one. Caughlin’s Multiple Goals of Personal Relationships Theory Guntzviller (2015) used the MGPR in a study of 100 Spanish speaking mothers and their bilingual adolescents. Guntzviller was interested in language brokering, which involved the adolescents helping their mothers negotiate interactions in institutional settings that required English, such as visits to medical providers or parent-teacher conferences. Language brokering situations can be challenging, but from the MGPR perspective, the importance of language brokering to the mother-child relationship should be influenced by the goals that the mother and adolescent believe to be typical in such situations. The mothers and adolescents reported on a number of different goals that are relevant to such conversations, such as showing respect for the mother or trying to act in a way that is consistent with a particular cultural identity. One goal that was particularly important was the mother showing support for her adolescent during language brokering (e.g., whether mothers agreed with statements, such as: “I care about making my child feel good about himself or herself when he or she is translating” [Guntzviller, 2015, p. 12]). Mothers who valued this goal tended to be happier with their relationship than were those who were less concerned about support. Moreover, the extent to which adolescents believed that their mother had a goal of being supportive was positively related to the adolescents’ satisfaction. Such findings are consistent with the idea that people evaluate their family relationships based on their sense of what goals they and other family members typically pursue in conversations. Goldsmith’s Normative Theory One study that illustrates the normative approach was conducted by Goldsmith and her colleagues (Goldsmith, Bute, & Lindholm, 2012; Goldsmith, Lindholm, & Bute, 2006). This study involved in-depth interviews with (a) older adults who had experienced a serious cardiac event and (b) spouses of many of those heart patients. The researchers asked participants about challenges they had communicating about the cardiac events and subsequent lifestyle changes; they also probed participants’ perceptions about what made some conversations go well whereas others did not. A key finding was that certain communication

Multiple Goals Theories 207 dilemmas are common to the experience of coping with cardiac events. For example, the researchers labeled one dilemma ‘’I Don’t Want to Nag But . . .’’ (Goldsmith et al., 2006). This dilemma summarized how spouses often felt like they wanted to encourage healthy lifestyle changes, but recognized that attempting to change their partner’s behaviors could be viewed as controlling. Such findings are important because they can help couples “see they are not alone and to attribute the frustration they experience to the challenging situation in which they find themselves, rather than presuming that their relational partner is especially difficult or obstinate” (Goldsmith et al., 2006, p. 2088). This research also revealed strategies that can sometimes be helpful in ameliorating dilemmas; for instance, some couples are able to recast attempts to change the patient’s behaviors as joint problem-solving conversations (Goldsmith et al., 2012). When couples are able to reframe this situation as cooperation, it can allow them to discuss changes without the patient viewing their partner as nagging.

Evaluation of Multiple Goals Theories Multiple goal theories offer one useful framework for analyzing family interactions and relationships. Strengths of these theories include that they (a) offer insights about difficult family conversations, (b) help predict/explain what family members say or how they evaluate messages in not only particular situations, but also across situations over time, and (c) connect different levels of analysis (e.g., not only an individual family member’s goals, but also how goals are made relevant by institutional and cultural contexts). Multiple goal theories also have spurred quantitative and qualitative studies of diverse families. Ironically, multiple goal theories have been criticized by some scholars (e.g., Greene, 2000) for “not being psychological enough” (i.e., for not sufficiently specifying mental processes involved in goal formation and pursuit) but by others (e.g., Shepherd, 1998) for being “too psychological” (i.e., for being too focused on individual family member’s psychological processes, and losing sight of how goals are shaped by interactions between family members). Part of this apparent contradiction comes from different instantiations of multiple goals theories. The GPA model is focused more on the psychological processes associated with individuals’ communication behaviors than on sociocultural factors, whereas the normative theory is focused more on conventional understandings of situations and goals than on individuals’ goals. By specializing at different levels, each theory is incomplete on its own. In their pioneering article, Clark and Delia (1979) argued that a general understanding of human communication must include concepts related to language processes, cognition, sociocultural factors, lifespan development, and context. Although specific theories usually have not included all of these levels, taken together these theories offer a rich and multifaceted explanation of family communication within a larger multiple goals framework.

208

Wilson & Caughlin

Continuing the Conversation Two future directions seem particularly promising for multiple goal theories. First, research spurred by these theories needs to observe families as they actually engage in communication. Most studies we have discussed relied on surveys or interviews to gain insights about family members’ goals; very little research has analyzed goals as family members were interacting. One exception is Scott and Caughlin’s (2014) study of older parents talking with one of their adult children about their preferences regarding end-of-life care. Coders rated these conversations for how much each person attended to multiple conventionallyrelevant goals. Attention to various goals was related to the parent and child being satisfied with their conversation and feeling hopeful rather than hurt. Aside from face-to-face conversations, future research might explore family members’ goals as they are interacting online. Second, multiple goal theories need to expand beyond dyads to explore interactions involving three or more family members. Consider the example of Steve talking with his mother about driving. Steve’s initial conversation with his mother was spurred by an email exchange he had with his sister shortly after she had visited their mother. At some point, Steve and his sister may talk together with their mother, perhaps also including a cousin who lives nearby. When we are concerned about a family members’ health or safety, we may turn to third parties such as other family members for advice and/or assistance in pursuing our goals. Multiple goal theories will benefit from attending more to interdependent networks of family relationships.

References Berger, C. R. (1997). Planning strategic interactions: Attaining goals through communicative action. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Burleson, B. R. (2010). The nature of interpersonal communication: A messagecentered approach. In C. R. Berger, M. E. Roloff, & D. Roskos-Ewoldson (Eds.), The handbook of communication science (2nd ed., pp. 145–163). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Caughlin, J. P. (2010). A multiple goals theory of personal relationships: Conceptual foundation and program overview. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 824–848. Caughlin, J. P. (2003). Family communication standards: What counts as excellent family communication and how are such standards associated with family satisfaction. Human Communication Research, 29, 5–40. Caughlin, J. P., Brashers, D. E., Ramey, M. E., Kosenko, K. A., Donovan-Kicken, E., & Bute, J. J. (2008). The message design logics of responses to HIV disclosures. Human Communication Research, 34, 655–685. Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1979). Topoi and rhetorical competence. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 65, 187–206. Cody, M. J., Canary, D. J., & Smith, S. W. (1994). Compliance-gaining goals: An inductive analysis of actors’ goals types, strategies, and successes. In J. Daly & J. Weimann (Eds.), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. 33–90). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Multiple Goals Theories 209 Dillard, J. P. (2015). Goals-plans-action theory of message production: Making persuasive messages. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories of interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 63–74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dillard, J. P., Segrin, C., & Harden, J. M. (1989). Primary and secondary goals in the production of interpersonal influence messages. Communication Monographs, 56, 19–38. Goldsmith, D. J. (2004). Communicating social support. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Goldsmith, D. J., & Baxter, L. A. (1996). Constituting relationships in talk: A taxonomy of speech events in social and personal relationships. Human Communication Research, 23, 87–114. Goldsmith, D. J., Bute, J. J., & Lindholm, K. L. (2012). Patient and partner strategies for talking about lifestyle change following a cardiac event. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40, 65–86. Goldsmith, D. J., Lindholm, K. A., & Bute, J. J. (2006). Dilemmas of talking about lifestyle changes among couples coping with a cardiac event. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 2079–2090. Greene, J. O. (2000). Evanescent mentation: An ameliorative conceptual foundation for research and theory on message production. Communication Theory, 2, 139–155. Guntzviller, L. M. (2015). Testing multiple goals theory with low-income, mother-child Spanish-speakers: Language brokering interaction goals and relational satisfaction. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/009365021560 8238 Palomares, N. A., & Derman, D. (2016). Topic avoidance, goal understanding, and relational perceptions: Experimental evidence. Communication Research. Advanced online publication. doi: 10.1177/0093650216644649 Scott, A. M., & Caughlin, J. P. (2014). Enacted goal attention in family conversations about end-of-life decisions. Communication Monographs, 81, 261–284. Shepherd, G. J. (1998). The trouble with goals. Communication Studies, 49, 294–299. Wilson, S. R. (2002). Seeking and resisting compliance: Why people say what they do when trying to influence others. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wilson, S. R. (2014). Conventional and personal goals in conflict: A commentary. In N. Burrell, M. Allen, B. M. Gayle, & R. Preiss (Eds.), Managing interpersonal conflict: Advances through meta-analysis (pp. 59–73). New York, NY: Routledge. Wilson, S. R., Dorrance Hall, E., Gettings, P. E., & Pastor, R. G. (2015). A multiple goals analysis of families attempting to encourage U.S. service members to seek behavioral health care: Linking the GPA model and confirmation theory. Communication Research. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1177/0093650215617507

19 Narrative Performance Theory Making Stories, Doing Family Kristin M. Langellier and Eric E. Peterson

Families tell stories. “Tell about how you two met,” someone calls out over a family dinner. Such family storytelling is recognized as a routine and pervasive part of daily life throughout family communication scholarship. This observation captures the sense of family storytelling as something that happens in families: as a product of family interaction, as a way of making sense of experience, as a means to encode familial images and abstractions in stories, and as an ongoing struggle to create and maintain a coherent system of meanings through narrative. Certainly families do tell stories; they engage in storytelling. However, here we advance the reverse—and more comprehensive—claim. That is, not only do families tell stories, but making stories is one way of doing family.

Intellectual Tradition of Narrative Performance Theory Narrative performance theory is based in phenomenological and semiotic traditions of studying human communication (Lanigan, 1992). These traditions participate in a larger, cross-disciplinary movement, often called “the narrative turn,” away from positivistic social science to interpretive and critical alternatives in the early twentieth century. By the end of the century, the narrative turn is supplemented by performance (Peterson & Langellier, 2006). This “performance turn” is exemplified in the communication discipline by research in speech act theory, double-bind theory, ethnographies of speaking, cultural studies, and performance studies. Family communication scholars examine a range of phenomena, from the well-formed and oft-repeated stories for special occasions (e.g., funeral memorials, family classics) to the dispersed and ephemeral fragments—circumstantial, messy, often invisible—of family talk in daily life. This research tradition critiques the positivist assumption of family and family storytelling as commonsense phenomena or natural objects of analysis. Instead, narrative performance theory asks: how do communication practices, such as storytelling, emerge and function to constitute a small group as family? Our description of narrative performance theory draws upon the work of Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Michel Foucault, and Judith Butler (Langellier & Peterson, 2004, 2006). Narrative performance theory understands family as a

Narrative Performance Theory

211

small group culture constituted in the gaps between the family we live with and the family we live by: the intersection of experience and discourse, of the existential and the institutional, of lived bodies and culturally inscribed bodies. In family storytelling, participants order experience, relationships, and bodies in particular ways—this way and not that way. Storytelling is a way to perform—to constitute and construct—ourselves to ourselves and others, both as a unique family (my family or your family) and a powerful institution (The Family as discourse) every day and over generations. Just as families are not collections of individuals, neither is family storytelling a collection of stories and rituals. Rather, family storytelling is a bodily practice that occurs with others and within a field of other possible bodily practices. In storytelling, embodiment constitutes an intersubjective system of perception and expression as we take from experience (our own family experience and others’) and make it into a story for listeners. And in storytelling, embodiment constitutes a system of reciprocal and reflexive relations among participants who do family. Family storytelling is a socially embodied performance that makes bodies visible and audible, through gender and generation, as family bodies: as mothers and fathers, aunts and uncles, grandparents and children who make a circle of we.

Main Goals and Features of Narrative Performance Theory One goal of narrative performance theory is to take communication context seriously, that is, to locate how family storytelling is embodied and situated in history and culture. To be embodied is to assume the meanings of a particular material and social context. Narrative performance theory is empirical in its interest in locating the material conditions of what is possible. These material conditions both facilitate and restrict possibilities for who can tell or listen to stories (which generations? genders? outsiders?); what counts as a story (a family saying? a character trait?); what kinds of stories can be told (funny stories? family failures?); how they can be told and listened to (as telling teams? as compulsory listening?); and what meanings and identities matter (sacrificing mothers? faithful fathers? golden boys? dutiful daughters?). Habitual forms of family behavior and interaction as well as institutionalized practices and cultural formations around ethnicity and race, class, religion, sexuality and gender, and generation are resources for family storytelling (e.g., Black matriarchs, immigrant patriarchs, children’s antics, puppy loves, Irish tempers). Participants in storytelling mobilize these shared resources in order to create, recall, refashion, and discover possible narrative performances and possibilities for family. Family storytelling, embodied and constrained by material conditions, is known through the discursive practices in which it participates. Therefore, a second goal of narrative performance theory is to analyze how discourse operates according to rules of power and knowledge. External rules prohibit or exclude particular forms of discourse (e.g., stories about sex and sexuality), divide and reject some discourses as meaningful or meaningless (stories about religion), and attempt to fix truth and falsity (“that never happened,” family

212

Langellier & Peterson

secrets). To define family storytelling as the creative expression of an individual (“that Pauline is such a funny storyteller”), for example, attempts to separate it from an exercise of power by defining it as an entertaining fiction or artistic creation. Discursive practices also operate according to internal rules or regularities in repetition, in types of coherence, and in disciplinary actions. To define family storytelling according to types of major narratives (e.g., the family genesis story) or as ritualized forms of symbolic action (birth stories, wedding toasts) illustrates the operation of internal rules. Another rule concerns speaking subjects—both as a subject of discourse and as subject to discursive power—as regularities in discourse. These rules order who can speak and listen on a particular subject (girls and women only? no children?); how such roles are distributed (a “keeper of the kin”? competing tellers?); and the types of adherence demanded of subjects (storytelling consensus? arguments?). The analysis of these rules and regularities locates family as a narrative formation in discourse. Family is a narrative formation organized by discursive rules and regulations embodied in a particular material context. Thus, a third goal of narrative performance theory is an explicitly critical focus on relations of power. As a narrative formation, family storytelling recaptures, reproduces, and re-inscribes power relations. At the same time, this participation in power relations makes it possible to alter, thwart, or rupture them. Family storytelling functions to both legitimate and critique the normative and normalizing functions of narratives it performs—to struggle over meanings: the senses of a story, the sensibilities in its telling, and the definitions of family itself. The question is not what motivates an individual or an individual family to tell a story. Rather, the question is one of the efficacy of family storytelling, of how narrative functions strategically. What interests are served by this family storytelling and by family storytelling? How does family storytelling intervene in what stories, what bodies, and what meanings matter?

How Communication is Conceptualized in Narrative Performance Theory Narrative performance theory locates communication as family storytelling— how participants take family experiences and make them into stories for themselves and others, whether as family members, performance artists, or scholars. Our approach conceptualizes family communication as participation in making stories and doing families, as embodied and situated and discursive acts of performance carried out by multiple generations dispersed across space and time. Communication is constitutive; family storytelling forms bodies and identities into small group cultures of memories, sensibilities, and possibilities within, between, and over generations (McFeat, 1974). In storytelling, families imagine and re-imagine themselves in acts of sense-making and survival, holding onto and letting go of familiar-familial meanings and identities as new stories adapt to changing environments.

Narrative Performance Theory

213

Making stories and doing family in storytelling highlights embodied and situated communication: emotional, dynamic, and creative. Remaking and redoing stories and family in storytelling over time and space highlights discursive relations: ritualistic, habitual, and stabilizing. Narrative performance theory can ground both empirical research and critical analysis; it can access and examine how a specific family (your family or their family) produces and reproduces its cultural sensibilities in a storytelling performance; and how a generic Family (institution and ideology) is produced and reproduced as a cultural category of discursive power. To critique the discursive power of performative conventions and models of identity is to interrogate what defines the “good family story,” “good storytelling,” and the “good family.” Storytelling functions strategically to form and perform family as a smallgroup culture of we that survives within and over generations. Cultural survival depends on communicating lived-meanings of family by storing, retrieving, sharing, adapting, and innovating meanings because environments inside and outside family undergo continuous stress and change. This communicationcentered theory looks at how senses and sensibilities of family and Family are ordered in storytelling about family experiences. Narrative performance analysis considers three aspects of family storytelling: ordering content to make stories, ordering participation to tell stories, and ordering individual and group identities to form families. How is content ordered to make family stories and from where does it emerge? Content is constituted from ongoing streams of myriad family experiences— past memories, current interactions, future hopes. Participants make stories by ordering what happened/is happening/may happen and evaluating how it matters in terms of evolving family culture. Ordering content is a struggle over sensibilities and meanings for particular events, characters, and activities because a story can always be told in countless ways. Narrative performance analysis asks: how is the family experience made into the experience of the listener and why is it told in this way and not another way: why this detail, this word, this emotional emphasis? Why that soft-pedaling, that elision, and that omission; for storytelling leaves out almost everything in the stream of family experiences. Families make sense of experiences and innovate meanings; they remember and forget stories; they reinterpret and emphasize what has been marginal or muted; they relocate and reject what has been formative. Content-ordering works to promote transmission across generations, for example, by diffusing content among multiple participants through collective practices of remembering, by timing the distribution of content so that stories are told when they are most salient and likely to be perpetuated, by sedimenting content in family classics according to canonical or socially available genres, and by maintaining family secrets that preserve meanings through exclusionary practices. For example, how does content-ordering both reproduce and resist the regulative and normative Family found in narratives of romantic love, marriage, and children? How are the tasks of participation in storytelling ordered? Someone has to tell stories and someone has to listen if a family culture is to evolve. How are

214

Langellier & Peterson

these tasks defined and distributed so that participants take from family experience and make them the experience of others? Who tells family stories to whom under what conditions and with what consequences for family and Family survival? Task ordering is the communicational work that families do to create and maintain productive relations with each other and with an everchanging environment. Tasks of telling and listening may be divided by generation, for example, three-generational or two-generational structures; and by gender; for example, women may be responsible for the conversational and relational work that is required if storytelling is to happen at family gatherings. A family may generate a single storyteller who embodies its history and memory. Alternatively, storytelling may be distributed among many bodies who co-narrate: telling by couples, sides, siblings, in mother-lines, or patrimonial heritage. This distribution is regularized and routinized in particular patterns of collaboration, competition, and specialization among family members. In this allocation of storytelling tasks, families adapt to environmental changes, warding off threats and taking up opportunities. How does storytelling order identities of bodies as family? Group-ordering is the most complex and least general level in that it depends upon successful content- and task-ordering. A group culture innovates identities for itself and its members as it successfully adapts to an environment and passes along its culture to a new generation. Group-ordering constitutes identities and regulates interests that distinguish individuals and individual families, for example, “what makes us special” or “that is a toxic family,” “Antonio is a real Martinez” or “Uncle Al is a black sheep.” Families and family members become visible and audible to themselves and to others qua family as storytelling draws upon and distinguishes social and cultural resources, such as class, religion, sexuality, race, and ethnicity embodied in myths of, for example, individualism, progress and success (the American dream), motherhood, fatherhood, childhood, cultural heritage, religiosity, and nation (the “American” family). Families negotiate these identities in storytelling to adapt to conflicting internal and external demands from material threats (the decline of the economy) to moral threats (the decline of the family), as well as emergent opportunities, such as same-sex marriage and family leave policies. The fluctuating boundaries that define you and me, as well as our family and their family and families like us, evolve. In group-ordering, families articulate who they are: for themselves, for others, for the diverse communities they comprise, and for society as well as for future generations.

Research and Practical Applications of Narrative Performance Theory An example of empirical research, based in interviews and participation in family gatherings, comes from our work on family storytelling among Franco Americans in Maine (Langellier & Peterson 2004). Within this larger research project, we discuss a round of courtship stories. Sunday is the day that three Franco

Narrative Performance Theory

215

American adult sisters visit their mother in a small town in Maine. Kristin (co-author) was invited one Sunday, a ratified audience to the family ritual, which, for nearly two hours, spiraled from story to conversation to story. At one point, the middle sister narrated how she met her husband, and as the talk continued the younger sister told her story and then the elder sister added hers. Next, the middle generation requested their mother’s story, and each daughter chimed in with bits of memory, argument, and interpretation. When the oldest daughter Nicole (pseudonym) of the oldest sister dropped by, she, too, was coaxed to join in with her third-generation narrative (transcribed in Langellier & Peterson 2004, p. 63). How do participants order content to make these family stories? Families take up bits of narrative forms to assemble stories for a particular place and time. Genres provide a template to organize the content and to frame understanding for participating in the performance. The courtship genre mobilizes experiences of “how we met and married,” a family genesis story to establish origins, lay groundwork, and cement foundations for the future. This storytelling round among family women deploys the romance plot with predictable motifs that are widely distributed in popular and family cultures. Nicole, too, orders content to embody and materialize the basic plot of the romance, from the opening “we met in high school” through the heartbreak of “when he left me for another woman” to the closing “and he’s been a really good husband ever since.” The intricate weaving of experience and genre can easily obscure how the family story is constituted rather than there to be found. Because a story can always be told differently, critical attention to how content is ordered to make a good story reminds researchers to continuously ask how the story is being told, given the participating bodies, situation, and discursive resources. What communication researchers have access to and are called to analyze is always a strategic performance; indeed, there is no neutral nor omniscient view of the event as it happened. Task-ordering shifts the analytic focus to participation in the storytelling. Telling is one communication task among many others, such as inviting, elaborating, clarifying, correcting, confirming, and contesting. When Nicole ends her story, the middle sister asks her to backtrack and to “tell about the prom,” and they co-narrate to fill in how “he dumped her” before the prom and the couple’s triumphant re-uniting for the next year’s prom. Then all three sisters prompt Nicole to flesh out the gap of the “three-month hiatus” between “he broke my heart” and “I took him back,” an animated collaboration on the vivid details of Nicole’s misery and their efforts to comfort her. Task-ordering reveals a three-generational structure of storytelling centered on the multi-tasking of the middle generation, here the three adult sisters who generate and guide the storytelling. The active, collaborative production of Nicole’s story suggests that this generational labor creates gendered lines of alliance, support, and loyalty. Indeed, it can be understood as a form of incorporating women into family sensibilities and, equally, coaching the younger generation (Nicole) to master tasks of telling and listening. The gendered and generational ordering of tasks

216

Langellier & Peterson

in this example increases the likelihood that this story will be remembered and this family culture will survive. As a good telling, it incorporates redundancy of content, distributes participation, and achieves a family consensus. The turn to group-ordering shifts the analytic focus to how identities emerge from and depend upon successful content-ordering (what’s a good courtship story) and task-ordering (how to tell it well). Like any courtship story, Nicole’s poses the threat of incorporating a stranger or outsider, here a boyfriend who broke her heart, into the family circle. The ordering of identities sets and shifts the boundaries of who we are as a family in relation to each other (internal relations). The content of the courtship story that Nicole ordered as a personal experience (mine) becomes, through participation, a family experience as the three generations make it a better story and make it their own. Simultaneously, the storytelling creates external relations to them, to other families, like or unlike this one. Families have high stakes in courtship stories because they not only produce a family but they also reproduce The Family with wide-ranging power to constitute and regulate normative families. Our analysis suggests how making courtship stories and doing collaborative storytelling romance the family and stabilize it as a good family. The identity of a good family aligns with the environmental interests of social and cultural forces, among them particular forms of the White ethnic and heteronormative family. We provide a second application of narrative performance theory through a brief look at the work of two performance studies scholars, Heidi Rose and Craig Gingrich-Philbrook, who craft aesthetic performances of family storytelling for public audiences. Whereas the previous research exemplar illustrates the mundane group production of family storytelling in a home, the second exemplar shows aesthetically-marked solo performances of making stories and doing family on stage. A performer takes the lived realities of family life and orders content by mobilizing aesthetic conventions that enhance and heighten experience. Staged performance orders tasks by allocating an extended turn to the storyteller and structuring audience participation in taking up the experience. And stage performances order identities—constructing the performing self, family characters, and listeners. This focus on the craft of storytelling can “illuminate how an action held within our quotidian lives, in certain charged moments, becomes a spectacular act that creates, imagines, or disturbs a particular lived reality” (Madison, 2013, p. 209). In Words and Music, her trilogy of solo one-acts (e.g., Mirror Image, Rose 2006a), Rose incorporates a variety of family texts, such as: a cousin’s jacket and poetry, her mother’s gown, recordings of her mother and aunt (the “Tracey Twins”) singing on 45s and for broadcast, recordings of her father chanting Chasidic melodies, handwritten notes exchanged after her parents’ first date, newspaper clippings, and her father’s WWII discharge papers. The multi-voiced and multi-media content interweave with her performance of characters (pivoting among stage locations, donning their clothes, speaking their words, and listening intently to their voices and song), much the way a musical composition repeats, varies, elaborates, and reverses a theme (such as the

Narrative Performance Theory

217

eponymous mirror image) in a linear progression of melody and harmony. Rose highlights the potential for embodiment as a site for creating family identities. As she comments, “Mirror Image concretizes the body as a site of grief, memory, and relational identity” (Rose, 2006b, p. 276), creating palpable family bodies and relationships. Gingrich-Philbrook’s performances take up quotidian moments to disturb the normative realities of family experience by exploring sexualities and locating queer differences (Gingrich-Philbrook, 2005). He emphasizes the curvilinear ordering of content in solo performances such as Cups and Exit Strategy (Gingrich-Philbrook, 2006, 2014) that take a revelatory phrase or image and then curve back on it or twist it to explore the fractal possibilities of multiple versions of “Craig” and his relations to his mother, grandmother, father, and step-fathers at different times (past, present, future) or in other (sometimes imagined) circumstances. He engenders moments that disrupt conventional understandings of family and performer-audience relations, queer moments where “it feels like we’re finally off script, beyond expectation, past the escapist normativity of performance in general” (Gingrich-Philbrook, 2014, p. 113; see Perez, 2013, on the “anesthetic aesthetic”). He displays and displaces the work of “always making nice-nice” with audiences, the construction of himself on stage as a good subject he calls “Craig the Nicer.” With the metaphor of a computer hard-drive, Gingrich-Philbrook (2007) describes the “default settings” of family storytelling that call some identities into being and prefer some interests overs others. He writes that the family: initializes and reformats us the way one does a hard drive one wishes to erase. In doing so, the family thereby precludes some experiences while compelling and pre-installing others until these other pictures over-write our memories to make us more useful to the family, which is to say, to the archive of the status quo. (p. 74)

Evaluation of Narrative Performance Theory Narrative performance theory offers three strengths for understanding family communication. First, it has the advantage of emphasizing family as a production of communication practices rather than an extra-linguistic, ahistorical, de-contextualized, or natural entity. Family storytelling is an embodied struggle in specific material conditions, under multiple discursive conventions, and with complex political consequences. The focus on narrative performance makes it possible to critically investigate family communication—rather than assume its existence—as it emerges in particular behaviors, in habitual and habituating patterns, and in conventional and unconventional practices that reproduce and/or challenge institutional arrangements. Storytelling is one way to produce and reproduce particular families as well as ideological constructions of The Family. Narrative performance theory locates family storytelling as an object

218

Langellier & Peterson

of analysis situated in events and their social and cultural contexts of power and knowledge. Second, narrative performance theory has the advantage of emphasizing family as both a performance and a performative accomplishment. The study of family storytelling locates the circulation of investments, desires, and subjectivities inscribed in particular performances. At the same time, this study locates particular performances and the interests they mobilize and serve. The empirical study of performance in all its varieties (reviewed by Langellier & Peterson, 2006) provides a test for how family and family storytelling is conceptualized at the same time that these theoretical conceptions provide a test for how family and family storytelling is actually practiced and performed. Third, narrative performance theory utilizes a strategic model that can explore the complexities of family storytelling without reducing stories to oppositions between dominant and resistant discourses. Discourse, whether described as a narrative (the courtship storytelling round above) or a counternarrative (Gingrich-Philbrook’s performances), functions differently at different levels in a hierarchy of strategy and tactics. As a result, family storytelling can resist dominant power relations at one level while re-inscribing them at another. For example, Gingrich-Philbrook’s performances illustrate how storytelling may re-structure individual identities as part of a rupture in group-ordering. Changes in group-ordering, however, may not affect the larger strategic context of content- and task-ordering. A resistant identity (a tactic of group-ordering) may do little to alter existing allocations of labor (task-ordering) or the larger strategic context of institutional and ideological arrangements (contentordering). A strategic model, therefore, can help researchers explore how any particular storytelling performance can work to both resist and re-inscribe existing conventions and institutional practices. Finally, we suggest three related areas of caution regarding narrative performance research. First, research may over-emphasize experience, thereby obscuring how experience itself is constituted in consciousness. Such research tends to privilege individuals and individual families as the origin of family stories, eliding how storytelling depends on participation. Experience, in this instance, is de-contextualized and taken to be self-evident and authentic. The research challenge is to begin with storytelling as an intersubjective phenomenon and with conscious experience in the phenomenological sense. The un-critical use of experience can be offset by research that explores differences and the variability of family storytelling. This shift in emphasis requires an ongoing and continuous effort to critique, rather than naturalize, experience and conventions for understanding experience. Second, research may over-emphasize the family as a homogeneous system built on group consensus. This focus may overstate group stability and interests at the expense of surrounding social structures, intra-group conflicts, and participants and participant subjectivity. An over-emphasis on group homogeneity is evident in the problematic ways power is conceptualized. One may conceptualize

Narrative Performance Theory

219

power as “power over” and find evidence for it in asymmetrical relations among participants that place, for example, the father over the mother and parents over children. In this instance, variable practices, which constitute the family as a group, are de-emphasized in order to focus on the “amount” of power “held” by family members or by the family itself. Another problematic conception of power explains its operation by attributing it to external sources beyond and unaffected by family communication practices so that social structures such as classism, racism, heterosexism, and sexism function as undifferentiated and uniform explanations for asymmetrical power relations upon and within the family. The over-emphasis on group homogeneity can be countered by investigating the multiple, contingent, and contradictory ways that communication practices circulate and participate in power relations to form families and perform storytelling. Third, research may over-emphasize the importance of storytelling as a way of doing family. However, storytelling does work other than to form families; and storytelling is not the only practice—and certainly not the only communication practice—that makes family. The challenge for family communication theory is to understand and explore the variety of behaviors, habits, practices, and conventions that form families and that families perform.

Continuing the Conversation One obvious and understudied variation of family storytelling can be found in the growth of computer-mediated practices, such as Facebook and video chats with extended family members (e.g., a child talking with a grandparent using FaceTime, a recent immigrant talking with a cousin on Skype). How are these performances distinctive from and/or continuous with daily life and aesthetic performances of family storytelling? What insights do they offer regarding the ordering of content, interaction, and identities? How does such family storytelling select, store, retrieve, share, adapt, innovate, and critique meanings of and for family in an environment of changing technologies, economies, and cultural complexities? What interests does the investment in the visual, a particular way of making bodies and family visible, serve? How does computer-mediated storytelling re-order family transmission, memory, and survival? How do these new forms of task-ordering maintain or disturb internal relations of family? How does computer-mediated family storytelling set and shift boundaries of inclusion and exclusion in the circle of family? How does it align with and/or resist environmental interests of large social and cultural forces that regulate the Family in normative ways? Computer-mediated family storytelling suggests the increasingly public and ritualistic sites that display, document, and narrate family, where families perform themselves to themselves and to others with special urgency. This practice calls with equal urgency for communication analysis and critique. Narrative performance theory considers family storytelling as the evolving creation of local small-group cultures of we that emerge from the diverse

220

Langellier & Peterson

experiences and narrative resources of participants. To continue the conversation requires more research that explores these variations, especially in terms of the differences that matter for both the material and cultural survival of families, particularly class, race, and sexualities. Indeed, in this postmodern and neo-liberal moment, family storytelling moves through the boundaries defining the private and the public, whether family storytelling is mobilized in making social policies, waging political campaigns, attracting audiences to reality television, launching blogs, performing on stage or in the places called home. Communication scholars are called to describe and critique this practice—its strategies, tactics, efficacies, and operations of power.

References Gingrich-Philbrook, C. (2005). Autoethnography’s family values: Easy access to compulsory experiences. Text and Performance Quarterly, 25, 297–314. Gingrich-Philbrook, C. (2006). Cups (Sufficiency enigma, 1999). Liminalities: A Journal of Performance Studies, 2. Retrieved from http://liminalities.net/2–2/cups.htm Gingrich-Philbrook, C. (2007). Taking pictures: Rage and forgiveness in autoperformance from the family archive. Theatre Annual, 60, 71–78. Gingrich-Philbrook, C. (2014). Exit strategy (for my grandmother, Margaret Gingrich). Cultural Studies—Critical Methodologies, 14, 111–115. Langellier, K. M., & Peterson, E. E. (2004). Storytelling in daily life: Performing narrative. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Langellier, K. M., & Peterson, E. E. (2006). Family storytelling as communication practice. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook: A reference of theory and research (pp. 109–128). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lanigan, R. L. (1992). The human science of communicology: A phenomenology of discourse in Foucault and Merleau-Ponty. Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press. Madison, D. S. (2013). That was then and this is now. Text and Performance Quarterly, 33, 207–211. McFeat, T. (1974). Small group cultures. New York, NY: Pergamon. Pérez, K. (2013). When we call one another by our names: Toward economies of relation in performance. Text and Performance Quarterly, 33, 248–250. Peterson, E. E., & Langellier, K. M. (2006). The performance turn in narrative studies. Narrative Inquiry, 16, 173–180. Rose, H. M. (2006a). Mirror image. Text and Performance Quarterly, 26, 278–296. Rose, H. M. (2006b). Writing and performing Mirror Image. Text and Performance Quarterly, 26, 274–277.

20 Necessary Convergence Communication Theory Submission and Power in Family Communication Michelle Miller-Day Building on earlier theorizing by Duck (1994) and Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002, 2006), necessary convergence communication theory (NCC) was developed as a framework for understanding how submissive-dominant communicative interaction within the family system can affect shared meanings and intersubjectivities of its members, creating scripts that place submissive family members at risk for a host of behavioral problems.

Intellectual Tradition of Necessary Convergence Communication Theory Berger (2005), in his review of interpersonal communication up to the twentyfirst century, pointed out that very few communication scholars have developed theories addressing meaning—the central tenet of communication. In his review, Berger argued that for the field to move forward, communication researchers should look more at interaction routines and the process of meaningmaking between interactants. Around the same time that this review was being written, Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002) published an article in Communication Theory arguing that “a complete explication of family communication needs to consider both intersubjectivity and interactivity“ (p. 73). These authors go on to explain that intersubjectivity refers to the “similarity of meaning that family members assign to their communicative behavior” and can be understood as relational cognition (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006, pp. 50–51), whereas interactivity refers to the “degree to which family members’ creation, use, and interpretation of symbols are interdependent” (p. 51). Understanding how family members create meaning in their everyday practices is fundamental to an interpretive approach to social scientific exploration of family communication. Yet, some scholars argue that since interpretive theories are emergent and focused on the multiple perspectives of the communicators they might be more accurately termed perspectives. However, as interpretive perspectives take form with clear propositions, theories manifest. A theory suggests a representation of the “way things are,” making order out of chaos because they organize the parts of the world into logical, coherent, understandable relationships (Littlejohn & Foss, 2010).

222 Miller-Day Developed firmly in the interpretivist paradigm, the necessary convergence communication theory (NCC)1 was first proposed by Miller-Day (2004). NCC addresses intersubjectivity and interactivity in family member interactions, specifically explaining how submission in interactivity affects meaning-making between the communicators and may place submissive family members at risk for a host of negative outcomes. NCC is a mid-range theory for communication scholars to use as a framework to explain and further understand how chronic submission to dominant family members over time may influence the meaning construction process in family communication. The theory suggests that when family members are chronically submissive to dominant family members across a variety of contexts and situations, as well as over the life course, there will be an uncritical acceptance of and conformity to a dominant partner’s interpretive frame, with the submissive partner appropriating the social meanings of the dominant partner for relational maintenance purposes (Miller-Day & Jackson, 2012). An interpretive frame is defined here as a cognitive structure that contains mental representations of meanings, with the process of constructing meaning activating interpretive frames (Duck, 1994). Necessary implies that convergence with the more dominant other is perceived as essential to achieving a certain result, and convergence indicates a tendency toward one point (MillerDay, 2004). Thus, to obtain relational approval and avoid rejection, the submissive partner will accommodate the dominant partner by assimilating his or her interpretive frame. Within this model, convergence is relationally adaptive. The theory emerged from an extensive ethnographic study of three generations of women in six families (grandmothers, mothers, and adult daughters) and the discovery that the submissive daughters in three of these families accounted for all of the self-reported behavioral problems (e.g., eating disorders, substance abuse, and suicidality) (Miller-Day, 2004). That research revealed that convergence communication occurred when meaning coordination was coercive rather than cooperative, with the dominant family member’s interpretive frame consistently being privileged over the submissive partner’s and submissive partner consistently deferring to the more dominant other, leading to unequal contributions to the process of meaning coordination. This leads to individuals who don’t judge for themselves, but repeat what others close to them say, embrace it, and make it their own. The following represent foundational theoretical assumptions of NCC. Theoretical Assumptions Communication is Coordinated via Interpretive Schemata. People approach the world through processes of interpretation. As human social animals, we are constantly interpreting and managing meanings, and interpreting meanings is an interdependent process. As Duck pointed out in his book Meaningful Relationships (1994), meanings are not inherent in objects, but instead arise out of social interaction and it is through this interaction—in particular through communication—that meanings are constructed and shared.

Necessary Convergence Communication 223 As children are socialized within the family, meanings are coordinated through interpretive schemata—mental structures consisting of organized knowledge about family relationships. Interpretive schemata represent accumulated knowledge—the sum of past experiences—which help an individual interpret, understand, and predict the outcomes of interactions with family members and others (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006). Moreover, interpretive schemata serve to guide behavior. Interpretive schemata specific to relationships within the family influence the “encoding and decoding of information, the inferences and evaluations people make . . . and ultimately their interpersonal behavior” (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002, p. 80). This assumption presumes that the process of “making meaning” activates interpretive frames. That is, the process of shared meaning involves a social process of understanding the other plus sharing a similar evaluation (Duck, 1994). As we continue to interact with family members of the lifespan, communicators coordinate their meaning systems as filtered through these interpretive frames and negotiate and re-negotiate understandings over time. Understanding between the family members builds intersubjectivity and hopefully leads to consensus (Solomon, Dillard, & Anderson, 2002). Implicit in this assumption are claims of coordination and negotiation. Coordination implies a state of equal rank, equal power, and harmonious order, whereas negotiation suggests that communicators confer with one another to reach an agreement. Coordination involves collaboration of all communicating partners. Yet, as we know from the voluminous research on family communication patterns, not all communication among family members is collaborative (see Schrodt, Witt, & Messersmith, 2008). Relational Culture Shapes Interpretive Schemata. Relational cultures consist of shared meaning systems, routinized patterns of interaction, and norms that structure members’ roles and behaviors (Wood, 2000). These cultural norms shape relational schemata (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002), and these schemata are socialized across a family’s (or individual relationship’s) developmental trajectory. Socialization involves the “social and communicative processes through which cultural knowledge, resources and practices are made available and internalized” by cultural members (Burleson, Metts, & Kirch, 2000, p. 35). As Entman (1993) demonstrated, culture is the stock of commonly evoked interpretive schemata and culture might be defined as the “empirically demonstrable set of common interpretive frames exhibited in the discourse and thinking of most people in a relationship” (p. 53). Relational schemata are the mental structures that are socialized within a relational culture, organize knowledge about relationships, and are used to process information relevant to these relationships. Therefore, relational cultures will share common schemata and should be reflected in the communication practices of relational members. Interpersonal Scripts Emerge from Relational Schemata. Scripts are one form of communication practice enacted within relationships that emerge from relational schemata (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002). Scripts are guides to action that structure everyday interaction and dictate normative ways of interacting

224

Miller-Day

with one another (Wood, 2000). Scripted interactions are often routine, habituated, and overlearned through repetitive practice in the family culture (Sillars, 1995), however these scripts are useful in directing the “typical” ways in which an interaction should be handled given the particular relational schema. When relational members become practiced in these roles and memorize their lines, these enactments become scripted. That is, partners may not think about their day-to-day ways of interacting with each other on a conscious level, but they may still tend to communicate in patterned ways with well-defined scripts that enact “appropriate” relational behavior. Communication enacts family relationships. The state of being in a “relationship” is inherently a communication process and must be understood as a series of transactions in which messages are exchanged (Duck, 1994). Family relationships are formed across repeated transactions, with each new transact adding new information to the one that came before, building a cumulative database of information about the relationship (Duck, 1994). Transactions are units of interaction affecting both interactants and carrying commentary on the interactant’s relationship. As Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) pointed out, each message (both verbal and nonverbal) carries information at two levels— content and relationship. The relationship level enacts the current state of the relationship and provides information about how the communicators see one another, themselves, and their relationship. Communication within Family Relationships has Implications for Personal and Relational Identities. Relational members encode and decode information about themselves as well as for their partners, extrapolating this information to the relational unit, which might be a dyad or an entire family system. Within this framework, the self is conceptualized as inseparable from dynamic interaction, with each transaction contributing to both self- and relational knowledge. Personal identity development is the unfolding of the self while retaining relational ties; identities are constituted and managed through relationships, not to their exclusion (Adams & Marshall, 1996). The influence of family relationships on personal identity is particularly salient, with family interactions affecting members’ self-esteem, self-efficacy, perceptions of self, and gender identity (Scabini & Manzi, 2011). To summarize, the assumptions underlying NCC presuppose that family cultures shape each member’s knowledge of family relationships, argue that knowledge is cumulative, and this knowledge serves as interpretive schemata to assist family members in coordinating meanings among one another. These schemata lead to scripted, routine, and habituated communication behavior within family relationships and these scripts are consequential for family relationships.

Main Goals and Features of Necessary Convergence Communication Theory NCC seeks to explain how extreme levels of submission to dominant family members over time can place submissive members at risk for negative health

Necessary Convergence Communication 225 outcomes. NCC posits that when the relational schema for the submissive partner is based on conditional regard in communicative interactions—that is, s/he believes that acceptance in the relationship (e.g., receipt of emotional resources) is contingent on meaning convergence—the submissive partner will converge with the dominant partner‘s meanings for relational maintenance purposes. The submissive partner will feel forced to embrace intersubjectivity; that is, feel the necessity to attain “shared meaning” with the dominant partner to avoid rejection. Not to converge with a dominant partner’s meaning system in any transaction would risk already precarious acceptance and approval in the relationship. In NCC, this process is termed convergence communication. Convergence communication can be described by its three separate dimensions—disequilibrium, interpersonal deference,2 and motivation—and two process dimensions—degree and chronicity (Miller-Day, 2004; Miller-Day & Jackson, 2012). Dimensions of Convergence Communication Disequilibrium. When convergence communication occurs, there tends to be disequilibrium in the relational coordination of meanings. Equilibrium refers to an equality of distribution; however, when disequilibrium occurs, there is unequal power to determine meanings in interpersonal interaction. Power is a person’s ability to control valuable resources and is often tied to status. Any type of power, such as expert, legitimate, or coercive power, is relevant to equilibrium as long as the person is in control of resources considered valuable. The control of resources provides the potential for the exercise of power in most relationships, with resources including the knowledge, skills, emotions, words, actions, and materials that are at the disposal of the person. Given the distribution of resources within any specific family or interpersonal relationship, power might be evaluated by its outcome, which is dominance. Dominance refers to the degree to which a person can influence and impose their will on the other; its counterterm, submission, refers to the degree to which a person gives up influence or yields to the wishes of the other. It is important to keep in mind that dominance itself is determined by the submissive response of others. Moreover, as Burgoon, Johnson, and Koch (1998) pointed out, “While power enables the display of dominance, and dominant behavior may solidify power—though correlated— dominance and power are not interchangeable concepts” (p. 310). According to Miller-Day (2004), when convergence communication occurs, the relational member who is dominant (e.g., parent, relational partner) tends to impose rather than negotiate shared meanings. Moreover, as one person’s power to determine meanings increases, the other person’s decreases, this then leads to an unstable situation in which the importance of one partner’s interpretive frame outweighs the partner’s. Interpersonal Deference. The second dimension of convergence communication is interpersonal deference, where a submissive partner submits to the unequal distribution in power and is deferent to the more dominant other.

226

Miller-Day

Dominance requires submission. Consequently, when a submissive partner submits, s/he affords the dominant partner’s meanings more weight—more significance—in the transaction. He or she submits or yields to the judgment of the other, displaying interpersonal deference. Developmentally, it seems logical that young children are deferent to their more powerful and knowledgeable parent, but as individuals develop through adolescence and adulthood they begin to acquire personal authority; that is, they naturally become differentiated from parents and others in their life, even as they remain emotionally connected to them (Nadien & Denmark, 1999). Adults eventually develop new connections with others outside of the family and even sometimes accommodate others for the purposes of achieving shared meanings. In the classroom, for example, a professor may not encourage critical thinking, choosing instead to mandate rote memorization and resist any challenge of information. In this case, students are required to accommodate the professor’s meanings into their own understanding (and repeat them on the exam). Anyone who has ever been in a classroom with one of these instructors may empathize with students who must endure a low tolerance for differentiated (i.e., critical) thinking. In the case of family relationships, however, when there are dominant and submissive members, family processes may be rigid and inflexible, and dominant members may not tolerate differentiation from the family and may closely monitor any behaviors suggesting a growing independence or differentiation. Differentiation is conceptualized here as the process by which partners maintain or move toward an autonomous self, yet remain emotionally connected to their partner (Miller-Day, 2004). In relationships where differentiation is perceived as threatening to the relationship, emotional autonomy may be discouraged, leading the submissive partner to always look toward the dominant partner for all of the answers. If the less powerful partner resists the imposition of meaning and challenges his or her partner’s construction of meaning in the dyadic interaction, then convergence communication has not occurred. It is the absence of resistance— the convergence—that is a key feature of this kind of communication. Per NCC, the less powerful submissive partner will be motivated to converge because he or she believes it is necessary. Motivation. Motivation is a reason for action or an incentive. NCC argues that when there is a compelling reason for convergence, such as to avoid undermining the relationship or to secure relational acceptance, there is increased motivation to converge with the dominant partner. When acceptance in the relationship is perceived to be conditional on that convergence, then convergence is perceived as relationally adaptive and the submissive partner is more likely to perceive convergence as necessary. Within a family where there is convergence communication, convergence may not be explicitly demanded, yet submissive partners believe that convergence is a condition for relational acceptance. Manipulation of resources in a relationship, such as support, regard, or inclusion, emerged as a significant contributor to asserting dominance in the

Necessary Convergence Communication 227 family relationships observed by Miller-Day (2004). As a form of psychological control, dominant family members offered and withheld these resources contingent on the convergence of the submissive member. The manipulation of emotional resources, therefore, was used to assert psychological dominance, with the provision or withdrawal of resources providing a compelling motivation for the submissive partner’s convergence. According to NCC, once convergence is perceived to be necessary, and one accommodates the dominant partner’s interpretive frame at the expense of one’s own, two additional characteristics become important when assessing necessary convergence: degree and chronicity. Process Dimensions Degree. The relative intensity or amount of convergence in any given dyadic interaction is important to the process of NCC. The following illustration captures different degrees of convergence. An adult woman’s friend comments that she likes the woman’s new hairstyle. The woman comments that she likes the new style too. Soon the adult woman’s mother enters and with a tone of disapproval says, “What have you done to your hair? It looks awful.” Under conditions of high convergence, the submissive woman would change her hairstyle extensively because of her mother’s comment, converging with her mother’s interpretation that the style was indeed horrible and altering her original interpretation to “fit” more closely with her mother’s. If asked by another, she would explain that the hairstyle does look awful, so she altered it. Under conditions of moderately high convergence, the submissive woman would significantly change her hairstyle because of her mother’s comment, but just to please her mother or to reduce conflict. The submissive woman would not alter her own interpretation to fit with her mother’s interpretation; she would merely accommodate the alternative interpretation. Under conditions of moderately low convergence, the submissive woman might make minor alterations in the hairstyle to integrate both perceptions of what was attractive into one style. Finally, under conditions of low convergence, the submissive woman might listen to her mother’s comment but keep the style anyway because she likes it. As Miller-Day (2004) commented, there are times when we all perceive that it is just easier, necessary, or politically astute to adjust our interpretations to others’ view of the world. However, when there is extensive accommodation and convergence, obliterating personal interpretative frames constitutive of self, personal identity may be negatively influenced. Chronicity. Convergence may be chronic or the pattern of convergence may occur across time and contexts. When submissive individuals experience repeated failures in negotiating meanings in transactions with a partner across time (e.g., across the life course) and contexts (e.g., attitudes, values, behaviors),

228

Miller-Day

this may instill a generalized expectancy of learned helplessness and “giving in.” Miller-Day’s (2004) data revealed that women who chronically engaged in necessary convergence had an undefined sense of self and lower self-esteem than women who did not engage in convergence. When boundaries between individuals blur in personal relationships, identities may become undefined and convergence communication becomes the modus operandi. Piaget’s (1972) theory of cognitive development points out that in normal development, both assimilation and accommodation processes are used simultaneously and alternately throughout life. Assimilation is the process of using or transforming the environment so that it can be placed in preexisting cognitive structures; accommodation is the process of changing cognitive structures to accept something from the environment. Convergence communication offers an explanation for those interactions in which accommodation becomes the primary means of making sense of the world. Theoretical Propositions Although convergence communication is a central concept within NCC, the theory itself is defined by several propositions linking chronic submission to convergence communication and negative health outcomes. The following theoretical propositions are provided to guide theory development and offer future directions for empirical testing of NCC. 1.

2.

3.

Family members with more power (e.g., legitimate, reward) can coerce intersubjectivity from members with less power. Coordination of meaning involves power and control; according to NCC, meanings can be hijacked. When family members share power, it would be predicted that they would enjoy intersubjectivity and co-construction of shared meanings in communicative interactions, with a relatively high degree of match between symbol creation and interpretation. But most theories assume co-construction and equal power structures in sharing cognitions. Per NCC, the power status of the interactants must be factored into the act of co-constructing meaning and achieving intersubjectivity. Although social stratification and power have been explored in terms of race, gender, and larger cultural hierarchies, rarely do scholars explore the function of interpersonal submission in the process of meaning-making within family contexts. Under conditions where intersubjectivity is coerced, the submissive family member’s meanings will carry less significance. If one participant in a communication interaction is chronically submissive to the other more dominant partner, it is predicted that subjective interpretations of the dominant partner will be consistently privileged over that of the submissive participant. Converging with a dominant family member’s assigned meanings will function to maintain the family identity of the members and relational identity of the dyad. In interactions between dominant-submissive family relationships, the act of convergence is relationally adaptive. The act of

Necessary Convergence Communication 229

4.

5.

convergence in any given interaction will serve to protect the entangled identity of the participants and function to maintain the family and relational status quo. Partners in dominant-submissive relationships will maintain their relational culture through patterned responses to each other’s communicative acts, with one requiring convergence and the other converging. The manipulation of emotional resources by the dominant partner in the family relationship will positively predict the submissive partner’s convergence communication. It is posited that a communication partner who encourages emotional and psychological dependence through the manipulation of emotional resources (e.g., love, acceptance) will also coerce a high degree of convergence in the communicative interaction. Respectively, a communication partner who submits to the dominant partner will perceive that convergence—or attaining intersubjectivity—is necessary to maintain receiving emotional resources. The more chronic and the greater the degree of convergence, the more likely it is that a submissive partner will experience behavioral problems. Seligman (1975) explains that when apathy and submission to more dominant others prevails, this can cause a person to fully rely on others, feel that their own cognitions are irrelevant, and lead to behavioral problems. NCC builds on this and predicts higher levels of convergence communication will predict behavioral problems.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Necessary Convergence Communication Theory Family communication involves much more than sending and receiving messages among family members. The communication process involves creating meanings, enacting what it means to be family, including establishing roles, maintaining rules, and sustaining behavioral patterns (Vangelisti, 2012). The core foundation of NCC is the convergence communication as a scripted behavioral pattern for creating meanings in communicative interaction in a way that instantiates roles, relational rules, and enacts relationships as prescribed by dominant family members.

Research and Practical Applications of Necessary Convergence Communication Theory Miller-Day (2004) provided the groundwork for describing this theory and descriptively linking convergence communication to submissive daughters’ behavioral problems such as substance abuse, eating disorders, and suicidality. Since that time, a measurement instrument has been developed to measure convergence communication (Miller-Day & Jackson, 2012) and a number of studies have applied NCC to investigate convergence communication with behavioral health issues, discovering significant, positive relationships between

230

Miller-Day

convergence communication and submissive partners’ eating disorders (MillerDay & Marks, 2006), suicidality and depression (Miller-Day, Dorros, & Day, 2016), and internalizing disorders and substance use (Miller-Day & Jackson, 2012). The Convergence Communication Scale (Miller-Day & Jackson, 2012) has demonstrated test-retest reliability in these studies. The dimension of disequilibrium, however, has been reported to be the least reliable characteristic when measuring convergence; therefore, more research must be completed in this area to further refine this instrument.

Evaluation of Necessary Convergence Communication Theory This chapter argues that NCC as a mid-range theory may be useful in understanding intersubjectivity and interactivity in dyadic social interaction where one partner is dominant and the other submissive. Whether that partnership is interpersonal or relational, there are implications for this kind of communication in understanding interpersonal influence and possibly even mental health outcomes such as depression. As noted above, there is already a body of empirical literature supporting this theoretical link. It is important for scholars to ask if NCC meets the criteria for a mid-range theory. First, is there explanatory power—do the propositions of NCC enable scholars to explain as much of the communication phenomenon as possible? Next, is the theoretical model parsimonious—is it as simple as it can be? Is NCC internally consistent; that is, do the propositions contradict one another? Does NCC have heuristic potential; does it suggest hypotheses to be tested through additional research? Finally, does NCC promote new understanding and have societal value? Measurement is also an issue to consider with NCC. Convergence communication has been assessed either interpretively through qualitative interviews or empirically using self-report measures. It is difficult to find samples of highly power discrepant family members in adulthood for observation or interview and some individuals may not wish to self-report submissive behaviors. It might be useful to pursue future research with clinical populations, especially when examining negative health outcomes such as suicidality and eating disorders.

Continuing the Conversation To further develop, refine, and build on the current theory, the Convergence Communication Scale (Miller-Day & Jackson, 2012) must first be refined to produce the most effective instrument to measure convergence communication. Future research should test each of the propositions with the potential to falsify and/or delimit this theory. Gender differences must be examined more fully both in terms of submission and dominance. Whereas original research focused on mother-daughter interactions, later research points to gender differences pertaining to maternal and paternal dominance and different models for

Necessary Convergence Communication 231 daughters and sons (Miller-Day et al., 2016). Finally, proposition two seems to be tacitly linked to conformity communication orientation as represented in Family Communication Patterns. Perhaps research might investigate associations between convergence communication and conformity orientations. Research to date suggests that convergence communication may be an extreme form of conformity orientation in families with psychologically dominant parents, but much more research is warranted. Beyond parent-child relationships, NCC may be useful in exploring other family relationships that may have been perceived as more equal in terms of power. For example, DeGroot, Carmack, and Quinlan (2015) applied convergence communication to the study of domestic discipline—a relational approach that advocates wifely submission and male dominance using disciplinary tactics such as spanking. Indeed, NCC provides an opportunity to further explain how communication plays a role in constructing realities of “love” in abusive partnerships. In the end, NCC is a very new theory and underexplored. New scholarship is needed to interpretively examine the meanings of those engaging in convergence communication, and empirically test the proposed theoretical relationships, while retaining the applied nature of the theory to address behavioral health.

Notes 1. The earlier theory in Miller-Day (2004) was referred to as necessary convergence of meaning. 2. The theoretical dimension of “interpersonal deference” was previously labeled “weighted proportion of meaningfulness” in Miller-Day (2004).

References Adams, G. R., & Marshall, S. K. (1996). A developmental social psychology of identity: Understanding the person-in-context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 429–442. Berger, C. R. (2005). Interpersonal communication: Theoretical perspectives, future prospects. Journal of Communication, 55, 415–447. Burgoon, J. K., Johnson, M. L., & Koch, P. T. (1998). The nature and measurement of interpersonal dominance. Communication Monographs, 65, 309–335. Burleson, B. R., Metts, S., & Kirch, M. W. (2000). Communication in close relationships. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 245–258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeGroot, J. M., Carmack, H. J., & Quinlan, M. M. (2015). “Topping from the bottom”: Relational convergence of meaning in domestic discipline relationships. Sexuality & Culture, 19, 85–102. Duck, S. W. (1994). Meaningful relationships: Talking, sense, and relating. London, England: Sage. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70–91.

232

Miller-Day

Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family communication patterns theory: A social cognitive approach. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 50–65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Littlejohn, S. W., & Foss, K. A. (2010). Theories of human communication (10th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. Miller-Day, M. (2004). Communication among grandmothers, mothers, and adult daughters: A study of maternal relationships. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miller-Day, M., Dorros, S., & Day, D. (2016). The impact of maternal and paternal communication dominance on offspring’s negative self-talk, depression, and suicidality. In L. Olson & M. Fine (Eds.), The darker side of family communication: The harmful, the morally suspect, and the socially inappropriate (pp. 27–47). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Miller-Day, M., & Jackson, A. W. (2012). The Convergence Communication Scale: Development and evaluation of an assessment of interpersonal submission. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 1036–1057. Miller-Day, M., & Marks, J. L. (2006). Perceptions of parental communication orientation, perfectionism, and disordered eating behaviors of sons and daughters. Health Communication, 19, 153–163. Nadien, M. B., & Denmark, F. L. (Eds.). (1999). Females and autonomy. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books. Scabini, E., & Manzi, C. (2011). Family processes and identity. In S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds.). Handbook of identity theory and research (pp. 565–584). New York, NY: Springer. Schrodt, P., Witt, P. L., & Messersmith, A. S. (2008). A meta-analytical review of family communication patterns and their associations with information processing, behavioral, and psychosocial outcomes. Communication Monographs, 75, 248–269. Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman. Sillars, A. L. (1995). Communication and family culture. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 375–399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Solomon, D. H., Dillard, J. P., & Anderson, J. W. (2002). Episode type, attachment orientation, and frame salience: Evidence for a theory of relational framing. Human Communication Research, 28, 136–152. Vangelisti, A. L. (Ed.). (2012). The Routledge handbook of family communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J., & Jackson, D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York, NY: Norton. Wood, J. T. (2000). Relational communication: Continuity and change in personal relationships(2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

21 Negotiated Morality Theory How Family Communication Shapes Our Values Vincent R. Waldron and Douglas L. Kelley

Negotiated morality theory (NMT) originated within the communication discipline, yet it also represents an expression of the “dialogic” strain of moral theorizing (e.g., Levinas, 1981). In contrast to approaches that cast morality in terms of virtuous qualities of individuals, dialogic perspectives emphasize communication processes. They view relationship ethics as shaped by one’s interpretations of the values espoused by such sources as family, peer groups, faith community, and culture (Haste & Abrahams, 2008; Tappan, 2006), and focus on the social interactions that help relationship partners negotiate and prioritize their personal and collective values. NMT (Waldron & Kelley, 2008) offers a theoretical framework for understanding how personal relationships serve as important sites of these interactions. The family is an important site of moral learning. It is in communication with parents that children first form their understandings of right and wrong, good and evil, worthy and unworthy. Parental messages about moral matters have lasting effects, as demonstrated by studies showing that young adults rely on them years later as they make commitments to romantic partners or evaluate the character of their friends (Waldron, Kloeber, Goman, Piemonte, & Danaher, 2014). Of course, the effect is reciprocal as parents often adjust their own values in response to their children. For example, according to survey comments collected by the Pew Research Center (2013), some of these changes are due to the influence of family members who are gay. Moral learning extends beyond the parent-child relationship. Grandparents are important sources of moral education (Soliz & Rittenour, 2015). Siblings are important “sounding boards” for moral decisions, as when brothers or sisters discuss the “right thing to do” when it comes time for an aging parent to give up the car keys, move out of the family home, or grapple with a terminal illness (Fisher & Wolf, 2015). Moral development is a lifelong process, one often shaped by important conversations with family members.

Intellectual Tradition of Negotiated Morality Theory Developmental psychologists such as Piaget (1965), Kohlberg (1981), and Coles (1986) have long made moral socialization in the family a central concern.

234

Waldron & Kelley

Others suggest that lessons about relational justice are learned at an early age (Batson, 2002; Lerner, 1980). Yet, reflecting a more general neglect among family communication scholars (see Socha & Eller, 2015), moral communication in the family has largely escaped the attention of otherwise comprehensive reviews of family communication theory. Negotiated morality theory (NMT) was developed in response to this gap in theoretical coverage. The theory was first posed by Waldron and Kelley in their 2008 volume Communicating Forgiveness. Grounded in surveys and interviews with long-term romantic couples, family members, and friends, the book defined forgiveness not simply as a psychological decision, but as a process of communicating about morality. They wondered how some couples and families (but not others) facilitated healing after such hurtful experiences as infidelity, relational neglect, or substance abuse. After considering a number of partly successful theoretical explanations, Waldron and Kelley suggested an alternative. In relationships that recovered from trauma, members succeeded in reestablishing a sense of moral order that led to a relational future that felt safe, right, and worthwhile. So in the case of a cheating spouse, conversation began with an assertion that a shared commitment to monogamy had been broken and partners expressed such “moral emotions” as outrage, hurt, and (by the offender) guilt. The cheating partner offered a pledge to be “better” in the future and the parties explored whether, and how, they could have a trusting and respectful relationship. Forgiveness (a willingness to let go of bitterness and eschew revenge) was eventually offered with conditions (“Okay, I can forgive you but don’t let it happen again”) or unconditionally. In this way, families or married partners explicitly discussed, negotiated, their relational values. Although emanating from these close observations of forgiveness episodes, NMT became a framework for understanding any form of family communication that helped members express and modify their collective moral commitments. Although NMT has some potential to generate hypotheses that might be tested with empirical data, it fits best within the interpretative paradigm. A primary purpose of theory is to enrich our understanding of how family discourses are used by members to assess, convey, enact, or resist definitions of the “good” relationship, in the moral sense of that word. NMT pushes into the background questions about the degree to which such communication is satisfying, effective, or even socially appropriate. The theory does suggest that communication practices may perform certain moral “functions,” such as asserting values or inviting discussion of moral commitments. In that narrow sense, it shares properties with systems frameworks that emphasize how patterns of interaction sustain families and other collectives. Although NMT draws attention to the process by which moral commitments are made, it is not intended to guide the theorist in evaluating the veracity of moral claims, exposing potentially immoral behavior, or liberating relational partners from arrangements that are oppressive or wrong. For that reason, NMT is not a critical theory. Nonetheless, its originators encourage researchers to be transparent about the values that guide their own research agendas, including their own claim that forgiveness

Negotiated Morality Theory

235

is often a worthwhile, positive, relational process (Kelley, 2012a; Waldron & Kelley, 2015). Families, in particular, are places where members reproduce values— sometimes with, sometimes without, awareness—that they inherit from family, religious, or cultural sources. But implicit values are often discovered, contested, and refined over the lifecourse of the family. For example, parents and teenagers may need to make explicit their assumptions about the conditions under which they consider premarital sex to be right or wrong. In doing so they may invoke sexual mores embedded in family identity, religious doctrine, and cultural norms, among other sources of moral guidance. And these conversations will change as the parent-offspring relationship evolves against a changing cultural backdrop. These kinds of interactions are the focus of NMT.

Main Goals and Features of Negotiated Morality Theory NMT is a framework for understanding moral sense making in personal and family relationships. It encourages researchers to listen for the talk that family members use to negotiate, define, and enact their moral commitments. Family interactions are viewed as processes for making local interpretations of values propagated in the larger culture. For example, a mother may be influenced by cultural definitions of “good mothering,” but it is through interactions with her own parents, partners, and children that she comes to define what that term will mean in her own family. Further, NMT positions families as primary sources of moral socialization, even as it assumes that moral learning is a lifelong process, one that involves reciprocal exchanges between family members and evolving roles (e.g., daughter eventually becomes a mother of her own children and “mothers” her aging parents). In this way, another goal of NMT is to encourage a lifecourse perspective. Meaningful moral conversations are assumed to be prompted by both maturation and exposure to both unexpected (e.g., a parent’s divorce; a serious illness) and expected (e.g., a wedding; the end of active parenting) life events. NMT also brings attention to the role of family communication in framing moral violations. Some violations are assumed to be communicative in nature. Examples include discourse that is judged to be disrespectful, dishonest, or coercive when judged against family norms. But the theory also positions family discourse as a means of assessing the type and degree of transgressions. Here, an example would be romantic partners discussing whether an act of flirting is wrong in the context of their shared relational values and, if “wrong,” the degree to which it is forgivable. In these ways, NMT’s overarching goal is to draw attention to the ways in which family members work out how they “should” behave. Assumptions When originally posted in 2008, NMT was founded on eight assumptions (Table 21.1). As the theory expanded its coverage beyond forgiveness these

236

Waldron & Kelley

Table 21.1 Original Assumptions of Negotiated Morality Theory 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Human relationships are interpreted with reference to a system of implicit or explicit values. Forgiveness-related values are derived from community, personal, and relational sources. The desire to preserve moral codes motivates forgiving (and unforgiving) behavior. Values that are socially sanctioned, individually internalized, and relationally shared are most motivating of forgiving and unforgiving behavior. Values with long relational histories are more motivating than those with short histories. Behavior that threatens important values provokes emotional responses in those with a vested interest in maintaining those values. The processes of forgiving communication are a primary means by which moral codes are expressed, negotiated, and restored in human relationships. The process of forgiveness influences the quality of post-transgression relationships, including the extent to which it is experienced as trustworthy, intimate, and just.

(Waldron & Kelly, 2008, p. 80)

have been consolidated to a smaller set of core principles (Kelley, 2017; Waldron et al., 2014). First among them is the understanding that preservation of shared moral commitments is a substantive motivator of family communication. When the presumed “moral order” is threatened, family members take communicative action to make sense of the situation. The theory assumes that moral emotions such as guilt, remorse, hurt, indignation, anger, and shame are provoked by moral misdeeds. Feelings of pride, admiration, solidarity, and self-satisfaction are associated with moral compliance. In NMT, expressions of, and responses to, moral emotions help family members legitimize and contest moral actions. Actions that call into question moral commitments that are sanctioned at multiple levels of social organization (e.g., cultural, religious, familial) are associated with more emotional and complicated family dialogues. In addition, NMT posits that certain communication sources and practices are particularly influential as parties negotiate relational standards of conduct. Because moral commitments are so important to communal life, cultures are likely to have legitimized certain practices as acceptable ways of working out relational and community standards. Early on, Waldron and Kelley (2005, 2008; Kelley & Waldron, 2005) looked most closely at forgiveness-granting and seeking practices, but recent studies have found other such practices, including poetic justice or “sweet revenge” (Baxter, Pederson, & Norwood, 2015) and sharing secrets (Vangelisti & Nelson, 2015). Moral Functions NMT encourages researchers to examine family communication with an eye toward understanding how it serves certain moral functions for the members.

Negotiated Morality Theory

237

Table 21.2 Original Moral Functions of NMT 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Defining moral standards Establishing accountability Engaging moral tensions Restoring relational justice Hope: (Re)imagining a moral future Honoring the self Redirecting hostility Increasing safety and certainty Finding closure Possible reconciliation

(Waldron & Kelley, 2008, p. 82)

The original list of functions is found in Table 21.2. Again, these have been adapted as the theory expanded its coverage and several have been studied in some depth. Waldron and Kelley (2008) proposed that forgiveness dialogues serve the function of making explicit relationship standards that were previously ambiguous or only presumed. For example, a couple might be prompted by a damaging argument to (re)define the standards of “fair fighting” or parents may respond to a skeptical teenager to explain why they think underage drinking is wrong. Another function, “honoring the self” is enacted by such actions legitimizing emotions related to moral transgressions, such as acknowledging that an aggrieved partner has a “right” be outraged or hurt. Yet another function of conversations about forgiveness is to (re)imagine the moral future; that is, to mutually construct a relational trajectory through which an errant family member can once again be trusted and fully respected.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Negotiated Morality Theory In NMT, relational communication is allocated a central role in the lifelong process of moral development. Interactions among family members are presumed to be a primary means of moral sense making. In this sense, the conversation is presumed to be a key unit of analysis. Indeed, the original formulation was grounded in an analysis of the discussions that long-term romantic partners had among themselves and with researchers (Waldron & Kelley, 2008). In that work the authors also described the “forgiveness episode,” a series of conversations in which partners cooperated to perform such moral tasks as confronting the transgressions, expressing moral emotion, seeking and granting forgiveness, and renegotiating relationship commitments. However, recent applications have conceptualized communication using varying units of analysis. For example, Kloeber (Kloeber & Waldron, 2017) has researched the strategy of conditional forgiveness (“I will forgive you, but only if you do/ don’t do X”), finding it serves a variety of moral functions, such as holding the

238

Waldron & Kelley

transgressor accountable and ensuring that relational justice is served. Studies of this kind imagine family communication about morality to be intentional and goal directed. A series of studies has conceptualized moral talk at the level of the message. For example, Waldron and colleagues (Waldron et al., 2014) examined “memorable moral messages” that young adults recalled receiving from their parents years earlier. The study showed that some parental messages (e.g., proverbs, religious mandates) replicated moral positions that were valued in the larger cultural context in which the family existed. Studies of this type support the idea that moral conversations are condensed into brief and accessible messages that are recalled later in life, when moral guidance is needed. Other studies have offered finer-grained analysis, examining transcripts for words or phrases that signal moral talk. Kelley (2015) conducted a word search of a large corpus of transcribed conversations between married partners, searching for terms related to justice (e.g., “fairness,” “equal”). From those instances he examined larger chunks of marital discourse in an effort to explicate how relational justice was negotiated through talk. NMT assumes that both the form and the content of discourse are important elements of moral negotiation. Waldron et al. (2014) found that the content of parental messages often concerned relational ethics (e.g., sexual behavior, the nature of good romantic relationship) and moral identity (what it means to be a good person, friend, worker, woman, or man). However, in this study, it appeared to be the form of the message that made it memorable. The messages were communicated using a variety of discourse forms, including self-disclosures (“let me tell you about a mistake I made”), future-casting (“If you stay on this path, no one will want to hire you when you need a job”), axioms (“the seed never falls far from the tree”), and invocations of religious authority (“Do as the Bible says . . .”). NMT incorporates cognitive and emotional constructs. For example, it is assumed that perceptions of threats to the moral integrity of the family can motivate negotiations about values. Further, emotional responses to transgressions, as evolutionary theories of emotion posit, serve a system-enhancing purpose (Keltner, 2009). But, a significant contribution of NMT is its suggestion that the meanings of such perceptions and emotions are largely constructed through family discourse. A transgression is perceived to be more or less threatening based on the way it is discovered, confessed, or denied; a wounded family member who professes to be “hurt” will be perceived differently than if she professes to be “outraged.” Finally, we note that in NMT communication is not centrally associated with role performance. However, it is assumed that some forms of moral communication are bound by family roles and social norms. For example, grandparent generativity (investment in the next generation) is sometimes enacted through such roles as moral sage or, in some cases, moral arbiter between children and their parents. Siblings (as well as friends) may be bound by the widely held norms that secrets should not be shared, except when certain

Negotiated Morality Theory

239

“good reasons” are offered, such as concern for the sibling’s well-being (Vangelisti & Nelson, 2015). In these ways, moral “negotiation” needn’t be a highly inventive form of interaction. Rather, it can involve a determination of which role to play and which communication rules to follow.

Research and Practical Applications of Negotiated Morality Theory A relatively new theory, NMT has generated a flurry of research in recent years. Much of this work was generated in response to a challenge offered by Waldron and Kelley, described in their book Moral Talk Across the Lifespan: Creating Good Relationships (2015). Writing under the title “In Search of the Good Relationship,” the authors outlined NMT and asked leading scholars of relationships to reconsider their own areas of research from a moral perspective. The result was a series of intriguing book chapters detailing practices of moral communication among (mostly) family members. Among the questions pursued were these: How do parents (Socha & Eller, 2015) and grandparents (Soliz & Rittenour, 2015) communicate moral messages to their children? Why do some of those messages have lasting effects, while others are forgotten (Waldron, Danaher, Piemonte, Goman, & Kloeber, 2015)? How is justice established and reestablished in long-term marriages (Kelley, 2015)? How can revenge be exacted in a morally-appropriate way (Baxter et al., 2015)? When discussing responses to the serious illness or eminent death of a parent, what kinds of moral commitments are discussed by family members (Fisher & Wolf, 2015)? When is it okay to reveal secrets (Vangelisti & Nelson, 2015)? And, what moral standards do romantic partners apply when deciding how to communicate with a cheating partner (Guerrero & Cole, 2015)? A community application of NMT has grown out of our work that conceptualizes forgiveness as a process of moral negotiation. The Forgiveness Tree Project (FTP) (Waldron & Kelley, 2013) is a curriculum that helps communities talk about forgiveness. Grounded in our research suggesting that forgiveness can be a hopeful and constructive alternative to bitterness, alienation and revenge, deep disappointment, and hurt, FTP has been offered to children, college students, jail inmates, and members of inner city families. NMT uses a communicative device (the tree metaphor) to facilitate moral dialogue. The roots of the tree represent the family and cultural values that might encourage one to be forgiving (such as the belief that all people make mistakes). They also provide a vehicle for exploring cultural myths about forgiveness (e.g., that it is a weak response to wrongdoing). The branches represent the connections and bonds that hold a family or community together. We explore the ways in which revenge and other unforgiving responses can eat away at the branches and even cause them to break. The leaves of the tree represent renewal and growth. We position communication as the process by which growth is nurtured, and share specific examples of communication practices that facilitate forgiveness.

240

Waldron & Kelley

The final step in FTP is the construction of a “tree,” typically crafted from parts prepared by the participants (roots, trunk, branches, leaves). In a communal ceremony, participants are invited to write “forgiveness messages” on the leaves. The tree then serves as a symbol of collective commitment to more forgiving family, school, or neighborhood.

Evaluation of Negotiated Morality Theory NMT is a relatively new theory, and it has only recently begun to attract research attention. One of its goals is to interest researchers in the moral dimensions of personal relationships. Most relationship scholars (including the authors) are trained as scientists, so questions of morality rarely make it to our research agenda. Humanities scholars and the occasional family researcher who embraces the critical perspective have more readily taken on questions of right and wrong. So it is perhaps a measure of success that a broad cross section of family communication scholars have begun to view their research using a moral lens (Waldron & Kelley, 2015). Of course, NMT is not a critical theory in that it offers no criteria for evaluating the “goodness” of any particular practice. But the theory is prompting more researchers to consider the role of relational communication in the shaping the moral commitments of families. The theory is finding practical application in the work of the Forgiveness Tree Project, which has now reached hundreds of individuals in a dozen community settings. It is also finding its way into classrooms, having been referenced in a number of new textbooks (Kelley, 2017) and accessible encyclopedia entries (Waldron, 2014). Another marker of success is the expansion of the theory beyond its original realm of relational life, the practice of forgiveness. As discussed above, the theory has prompted research questions about such relational practices as revenge, telling secrets, socializing grandchildren, and relational justice. Within its original realm of forgiveness research, the theory is advancing, if somewhat sporadically. New research on the common but under-researched practice of conditional forgiveness is one example (Kloeber & Waldron, 2017). NMT has also guided analyses of the role of forgiveness at the intersection of family and working life (Waldron & Kloeber, 2012), and the practice of restoring damaged family relationships (Kelley, 2012b). It has recently been cited as the most forward-looking of forgiveness theories (Merolla, 2017). Having acknowledged these promising signs, we note the theory has limitations. NMT has not been widely adopted (much of the research, until recently, has been generated from its founders and their students) and is not yet fully developed. Beyond its fundamental principles, assumptions, and “functions” there remains much room for conceptual advancement. For example, more could be made of the intersections between cultural and family values and the authors could specify more concretely the role of emotion in prompting various forms of communication. Fortunately, research in this area is being advanced by others (e.g., Guererro & Cole, 2015). Finally, some of NMT’s assumptions remain

Negotiated Morality Theory

241

untested, such as the suggestion that moral violations of values, sanctioned at multiple levels (relational, family, cultural) should prompt more, and possibly different, dialogue. Additional data-based explorations of NMT will prove helpful.

Continuing the Conversation As NMT evolves, researchers will consider understudied contexts of moral dialogue in families. A particularly fertile example is the stepfamily, where moral commitment can be complicated by traditional definitions of good families and by a child’s competing loyalties to parents and stepparents. In what ways do moral misgivings and commitments get expressed in stepfamily conflicts? How do strong stepfamilies talk about the moral rationales that inform divorce and remarriage? How do step and biological parents negotiate their roles as sources of moral guidance in family life? Another area ripe for research is that explored recently by Fisher and Wolf (2015). Intergenerational discussions spurred by aging—about such topics as independent living, driving, caregiving obligations, and the onset of memory loss— are often fraught with moral anxieties. Of course, scholars of the medical humanities and health communication scholars have addressed these matters. But family communication theories, including NMT, add value by conceptualizing the family as a site for lifelong discussions about values. The types of discourse that facilitate or inhibit these moral discussions are ripe for further study. NMT suggests that the moral emotions play a role in prompting dialogue. As Guerrero and Cole (2015) discovered, various types of moral transgressions elicit varying emotional responses. Conflict scholars should explore the probability that “moral discussions” in the family elicit particularly strong emotions and complicate members’ ability to engage in constructive dialogue. Attachment theorists may take Feeney’s (2005) lead in suggesting that hurt reorients the victim to consider his or her loveworthiness, and his or her partner’s availability, responsiveness, and trustworthiness. Feeney notes that this process may be accompanied by intense emotion in response to a perceived need for security. These processes likely affect the ability of relationship partners to negotiate the future of the relationship (including possible relationship termination) as well as the re-negotiation of the relationship’s moral code. NMT may also provide significant insights into the negotiation of particular types of relationship challenges. For instance, Gordon and Baucom (1998, 2003) have studied how couples grappling with infidelity use forgiveness to heal relationship partners and, possibly, the relationship itself. NMT nudges researchers to explore the communicative aspects of Gordon and Baucom’s work (Kelley, 2012a). For us, NMT is just one representation of our commitment to join the cadre of scholars (see e.g., Coles, 1986) who view moral conversations as catalysts for healthy development of children and strong functioning in families. It is that impulse that guides us to refine and assess the Forgiveness Tree Project. We are doing that now, in partnership with Boys and Girls Clubs. As we attract funding to this effort we hope to develop a model curriculum, an important

242

Waldron & Kelley

communicative component of this organization’s long-standing commitment to character education. And, in this way, we hope to provide a theory that elegantly flows between abstract assumptions and concrete community applications.

References Batson, C. D. (2002). Justice motivation and moral motivation. In M. Ross & D. T. Miller (Eds.), The justice motive in everyday life (pp. 91–106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baxter, L. A., Pederson, S. N., & Norwood, K. M. (2015). Negotiating morality through poetic justice. In V. R. Waldron & D. L. Kelley (Eds.), Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 117–136). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Coles, R. (1986). The moral life of children. New York, NY: Grove/Atlantic. Feeney, J. A. (2005). Hurt feelings in couple relationships: Exploring the role of attachment and perceptions of personal injury. Personal Relationships, 12, 253–271. Fisher, C. L., & Wolf, B. (2015). Morality and family communication when coping with cancer. In V. R. Waldron & D. L. Kelley (Eds.), Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 55–74). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Understanding betrayals in marriage: A synthesized model of forgiveness. Family Process, 37, 425–449. Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (2003). Forgiveness and marriage: Preliminary support for a measure based on a model of recovery from a marital betrayal. American Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 179–199. Guerrero, L. K., & Cole, M. (2015). Moral standards, emotions, and communication associated with relational transgressions in dating relationships. In V. R. Waldron & D. L. Kelley (Eds.), Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 155–182). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Haste, H., & Abrahams, S. (2008). Morality, culture and the dialogic self: Taking cultural pluralism seriously. Journal of Moral Education, 37, 377–394. Kelley, D. L. (2012a). Forgiveness as restoration: The search for well-being, reconciliation, and relational justice. In T. Socha & M. Pitts (Eds.), Positive interpersonal communication (pp. 193–210). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kelley, D. L. (2012b) Marital communication. London, England: Polity. Kelley, D. L. (2015). Just marriage. In V. R. Waldron & D. L. Kelley (Eds.), Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 75–94). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Kelley, D. L. (2017). Just relationships. New York, NY: Routledge. Kelley, D. L., & Waldron, V. R. (2005). An investigation of forgiveness-seeking communication and relational outcomes. Communication Quarterly, 53, 339–358. Keltner, D. (2009). Born to be good: The science of a meaningful life. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Kloeber, D. K., & Waldron, V. (2017). Expressing and suppressing conditional forgiveness in serious romantic relationships. In J. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 250–266). New York, NY: Routledge. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The psychology of moral development: The nature and validity of moral stages. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

Negotiated Morality Theory

243

Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York, NY: Plenum. Levinas, E. (1981). Otherwise than being: Or, beyond essence. The Hague, Netherlands: M. Nijhoff. Merolla, A. J. (2017). Forgiveness following conflict: What it is, why it happens, and how it is done. In J. Samp (Ed.), Communicating interpersonal conflict in close relationships: Contexts, challenges, and opportunities (pp. 227–249). New York, NY: Routledge. Pew Research Center (2013). In your words: Views of same-sex marriage. Homosexuality. Retrieved from www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/06/in-your-words-viewsof-same-sex-marriage-homosexuality/ Piaget, J. (1965). Moral judgment of the child (M. Gabain, Trans.). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1932.) Socha, T. J., & Eller, A. (2015). Parent/caregiver-child communication and moral development: Toward a conceptual foundation of an ecological model of lifespan communication and good relationships. In V. R. Waldron & D. L. Kelley (Eds.), Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 15–34). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Soliz, J., & Rittenour, C. E. (2015). Generativity in the family: Grandparent-grandchild relationships and the intergenerational transmission of values and worldviews. In V. R. Waldron & D. L. Kelley (Eds.), Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 55–74). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Tappan, M. B. (2006). Mediated moralities: Sociocultural approaches to moral development. In M. Killen & J. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (pp. 351–374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vangelesti, A. L., & Nelson, E. C. (2015). The morality of revealing other people’s secrets. In V. R. Waldron & D. L. Kelley (Eds.), Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 137–154). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Waldron, V. R. (2014). Negotiated morality theory. In T. Thompson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Health Communication (pp. 936–937). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Waldron, V., Danaher, J., Goman, C., Piemonte, N., & Kloeber, D. (2015). Which parental messages about morality are accepted by emerging adults? In V. R. Waldron & D. L. Kelley (Eds.), Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 35–53). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2005). Forgiveness as a response to relational transgression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 723–742. Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2008). Communicating forgiveness. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (Producers). (2013, December 5). The forgiveness tree project [You Tube video]. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=WflGyKojGd8 Waldron, V. R., & Kelley, D. L. (2015). Introduction: In search of the good relationship. In V. R. Waldron, & D. L. Kelley (Eds.) Moral talk across the lifespan: Creating good relationships (pp. 75–94). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Waldron, V. R., & Kloeber, D. K. (2012). Communicating forgiveness in work relationships. In B. Ohmdahl & J. Harden Fritz (Eds.), Problematic relationships in the workplace (Vol. 2, pp. 267–289). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Waldron, V. R., Kloeber, D. K., Goman, C., Piemonte, N., & Danaher, J. (2014). How parents communicate right and wrong: A study of memorable moral messages recalled by emerging adults. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 274–299.

22 Relational Dialectics Theory Realizing the Dialogic Potential of Family Communication Elizabeth A. Suter and Leah M. Seurer

Relational dialectics theory (hereafter RDT) is a dialogic theory of interpersonal and family communication. An analysis utilizing RDT seeks to understand how meanings are constructed through relational talk. Extending Mikhail Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism, RDT offers a relationally oriented dialogic theory grounded in a skepticism of monologue (i.e., the silencing of alternative views by one dominant perspective). RDT critiques monologic communication both within the family (e.g., an authoritarian parent’s view) and outside of it (e.g., determinate socio-cultural discourses of how families should be that negate or minimize alternate ways of enacting family). In Bakhtin’s dialogism and in RDT, dialogue is celebrated. In dialogue, multivocality (the presence of two or more, often contradictory, perspectives) and indeterminacy reign supreme. Indeterminacy pushes back against a view of family communication as inherently reproducing the status quo. Indeterminacy allows for communication to serve as a creative endeavor; it privileges communication’s potential to create new meanings within and about families. Certainly, RDT recognizes the monologic potential inherent within family communication; however, RDT critiques these monologic tendencies, favoring instead a dialogic sense in which a cacophony of multiple perspectives struggles to be heard as the family makes—and remakes—meaning.

Intellectual Tradition of Relational Dialectics Theory RDT is grounded in the work of Russian cultural theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975). Posthumously, Bakhtin’s work was labeled dialogism to reflect the fact that the concept of dialogue unites Bakhtin’s scholarly writings across his career. During most of his life, however, Bakhtin worked in relative obscurity. Bakhtin’s central criticism of monologue put him at political odds with the Leninist and Stalinist regimes at rule in the Soviet Union at the time he wrote. His work was marginalized and his scholarship was slow to be published in Russia, and even slower to be translated into English (Baxter, 2004). His works were not rediscovered until the 1960s by Russian scholars at the Gorky Institute in Moscow and then later, once translated, discovered by Western scholars in the 1970s and 1980s. Since then, Bakhtin’s work has been celebrated and he

Relational Dialectics Theory 245 is now considered one of the leading theorists of the twentieth century (Baxter). The translated works of most relevance to communication scholars include Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986, 1990; Voloshinov, 1973). Appropriating many of the concepts from Bakhtin’s theory of dialogism, Baxter and colleagues (Baxter, 2004, 2006, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) fashioned a dialogic theory of relating in familial, social, and personal relationships. Specifically, RDT applies the core concepts and principles of dialogism to theorize how communication makes meaning in the everyday practices of relating in interpersonal and familial contexts. The use of the word relational in the theory’s name signals the theory’s focus on relationships, distinguishing it from Bakhtin’s primary interests in literature, linguistics, and philosophy. Moreover, the choice of dialectics was purposeful in the theory’s naming as a way to foreground the theory’s focus on combative, competing discourses that create meanings in relationships (Baxter, 2011). RDT was initially articulated in 1996 (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996). Baxter continued to develop the theory (Baxter, 2004, 2006), publishing a formal re-articulation in 2011 (Baxter, 2011). In doing so, she distinguished the 1996 and 2011 versions, referring to them as RDT 1.0 and RDT 2.0, respectively. Five interrelated differences exist between the two versions (see the introduction in Baxter, 2011, for detail on these differences). Research framed by RDT 1.0 has been situated largely within post-positivist and interpretive research traditions. However, Baxter (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Norwood, 2015) repositioned the 2011 version as most congruent with the critical paradigm, given RDT 2.0’s focus on issues of struggle and power (conceptualized in terms of the interplay of competing discourses) and the discursive inequality characteristic of such interplay. RDT 2.0 centers on the ways in which meanings get reproduced over and over to the point of calcification in addition to the ways in which new meanings get created through dialogic struggle. RDT 2.0 is most congruent with the postmodern (as opposed to modern) critical project, in that it takes a discursive view of power, locating power not within overarching structures of domination themselves (e.g., capitalism, race) but rather within the seemingly stable systems of meaning and taken-for-granted assumptions (i.e., discourses) about how the family should or should not be that circulate within such structures (Baxter & Asbury, 2015). Relatedly, RDT 2.0 has been framed as consistent with the recently articulated critical family communication approach (Suter, 2016).

Main Goals and Features of Relational Dialectics Theory In this section, we discuss foundational RDT concepts, including the utterance, the utterance chain (and its four variant links along this chain), the centripetalcentrifugal struggle of competing discourses (i.e., where RDT locates power), unfinalizability, and the continuum of interplay (moving from monologue to increasingly dialogic forms of communication, ending with the most dialogic— the aesthetic moment). We begin with the theory’s building block: the utterance.

246

Suter & Seurer

The Utterance Bakhtin noted the need to move toward an examination of language-in-use that could account for the relation between speaker and other (Baxter, 2007). Doing so required the development of an analytic unit of language that could be identified and studied not using grammatical rules, but with relational rules. The utterance, therefore, is defined by Bakhtin (1986) as: [a] change in speaking subjects, that is, a change of speakers. Any utterance —from a short (single-word) rejoinder in everyday dialogue to the large novel or scientific treatise—has, so to speak, an absolute beginning and an absolute end; its beginning is preceded by the utterances of others, and its end is followed by the responsive utterances of others. (p. 71) In other words, the utterance is defined as a unit of language-in-use that is determined by communicative interaction rather than linguistic markers. The utterance is not conceptualized as a representation of inner thoughts of a speaker, but rather as a “verbal crossroads of contested meanings” (Baxter, 2010, p. 372). Each utterance is examined as part of a larger set of utterances already spoken and anticipated in response, what Bakhtin (1986) refers to as links in a “chain of speech communication” (p. 93) and what Baxter (2011) refers to as the utterance chain. The Utterance Chain The concept of the utterance chain concretizes Bakhin’s central argument that utterances do not exist in isolation; rather, utterances are always in dialogue with both prior and anticipated future utterances. Elaborating on Bakhtin’s ideas, Baxter and Montgomery (1996) visualized the utterance chain using a typology with four primary links: the distal already-spokens, the distal not-yet-spokens, the proximal already-spokens, and the proximal not-yet-spokens. The distal already-spoken link on the utterance chain refers to utterances circulating in the broader culture that are invoked in the speech of family members (Baxter, 2011). For example, a father’s suggestion to a mother that they declare the family’s financial problems “off limits for discussion with the children” invokes the larger cultural discourse of privacy. The distal not-yet-spoken link on the utterance chain refers to the anticipated response of the generalized other or superaddressee (Bakhtin, 1986). Baxter (2010) notes that discursive struggles often emerge when individuals, for instance, must make sense of aspects of their families that butt up against what is normal, expected, or even idealized in society. For example, an individual noting that his or her foster family is “not traditional, but real” demonstrates an anticipated response from culture at large that foster families might be seen as less legitimate (i.e., not real) than biological families. In this instance, the speaker preemptively combats this negative

Relational Dialectics Theory 247 judgment by grounding the authenticity of the foster family in a sense of realness that transcends biological ties. The proximal already-spoken link on the utterance chain represents where a family’s relational past collides with its meaning in the immediate present (Baxter, 2011). The family’s current understanding of who it is—the family’s relational meaning system—is inherited from its past interactions; past interactions always serve as a context for familial interactions in the present. However, the family’s relational meaning system is never simply reproduced in each new interaction. Rather, with each utterance, family members have the potential to move the family to a new meaning system, to create new meanings about, for, or of the family (Baxter). Certainly, familial utterances within the context of the family can reify its status quo; the key point is that the potential for re-creation exists with each utterance in a conversation. The proximal notyet-spoken link on the utterance chain refers to anticipated responses from distinct family members or from the family as a unit (Baxter). RDT holds that these utterances are laden with discourses of varying power, evidencing its postmodern critical view that power is located within discourses (Baxter & Asbury, 2015). To analyze this discursive power, RDT utilizes a slightly altered conceptualization of Bakhtin’s (1981) centripetal and centrifugal flux, to which we turn next. Power: Centripetal and Centrifugal Discursive Struggles For Baxter (2011), a centripetal discourse represents a perspective or worldview that is “[n]ormative, typical, and natural, and thus it functions as a baseline against which all else is somehow positioned as a deviation” (p. 123). Conversely, centrifugal discourses sit outside of the privileged position and represent unnatural or deviant points of views or meaning systems (Baxter). Because centripetal discourses are centered and culturally legitimated, they carry with more discursive power than centrifugal discourses. These competing forces of language within an utterance, both centripetal (centered) and centrifugal (marginalized), intersect in a variety of ways, referred to theoretically as interplay (Bakhtin, 1981). Interplay In some cases, as mentioned earlier, only a single perspective is voiced, leading to a monologic statement. Dialogue, which allows for a rich potential of open and evolving understandings, is always preferred to monologue. However, the process of identifying monologic versus dialogic statements is rarely black-andwhite, and RDT positions monologue and dialogue less as either/or oppositions and more as concepts that operate on a continuum, which leads to the core dialogic concept of the unfinalizability of interplay. In keeping with Bakhtin’s belief in the unfinalizability of language, RDT positions the centripetal-centrifugal struggle of discourses not only as paramount

248

Suter & Seurer

to meaning-making but also as unending. Both within and across time, the centripetal-centrifugal struggle within dialogue is not something that is overcome; rather, it is continually in flux. Any given utterance can result in a repositioning of discourses (Baxter, 2010). According to RDT, a continuum of interplay exists. Visualize a continuum with four points, moving from left to right. On the far left is monologue. Moving away from monologue is diachronic interplay. Next over is synchronic interplay and on the far right is transformative dialogue. The continuum, thus, moves from closed, fixed, totalizing communication toward increasingly more dialogic forms. It culminates in transformative dialogue; transformative dialogue realizes dialogue’s potential for new, emergent meaning-making. Along the middle of the continuum, diachronic versus synchronic interplay differentiates between whether or not the interplay of discourses occurs across time (diachronic) at one point in time (synchronic). Given that transformative interplay materializes idealized dialogic forms of communication, we next differentiate between its two primary patterns. Transformative Interplay: Hybrids & Aesthetic Moments In transformative interplay, discourses rise above the incessant competition (centrifugal-centripetal struggle) inherent within diachronic and synchronic forms of interplay. The discourses realign themselves and this realignment creates space for new meanings to emerge. Two primary forms of realignment occur, both transformative, but with one more dialogic than the other. Hybridization refers to the process by which discursive hybrids, the lesser dialogic form, manifest (Baxter, 2011). In hybrids, two or more discourses (which remain distinct) combine to create a new meaning. In the second more dialogic form, aesthetic moments, multiple discourses consume into one and the meaning systems of the discourses are profoundly reconstructed (Baxter, 2011). In these brief moments of completion, the seemingly relentless centripetal-centrifugal flux suspends and wholeness, albeit fleeting, results (Baxter, 2004). Aesthetic moments epitomize the idealized dialogue Bakhtin wrote about. The ritual genre has been identified by Bakhtin as a particularly dialogically expansive site; for instance, family communication scholars have identified aesthetic moments occurring within the vow renewal ritual event (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2002).

How Communication is Conceptualized in Relational Dialectics Theory RDT takes a dialogic view of communication (Baxter, 2004, 2006, 2011), which might be thought of as a view of “communication as creation” (Baxter, 2006, p. 105). RDT’s dialogic conception of communication sits in opposition to the more traditional view of communication, which is often referred to as the transmission, representational, or informational model of communication.

Relational Dialectics Theory 249 In the traditional view, communication is positioned as a conduit through which antecedent psychological and sociological factors flow. In this view, then, communication is seen as allowing an individual to express his or her attitudes and beliefs, seek understanding of the self, and influence others’ attitudes and beliefs. This traditional view understands the social world as fixed. In contrast, a dialogic view of communication takes a more generative view. In a dialogic view, communication is seen as capable of creating (and recreating) the self, the other, the relationships between individuals, and the social world in which these relationships are embedded (Baxter, 2006). As scholars have noted, the dialogic focus on creation is shared by other constitutive conceptions of communication. Unique to the dialogic view, however, is where it locates the source of this generativity; the dialogic view construes emergent new meanings as emanating from the power-laced interplay of different and often competing discourses (Baxter). So what are the implications of RDT’s dialogic view of communication for the study of family communication? There are several. To begin, RDT sees the family as simultaneously private and public (Baxter, 2004). RDT moves away from a view of the family as an insulated haven or escape from the broader socio-cultural sphere and instead views the family as a socio-cultural institution (Baxter, 2011). Invoking dialogism’s constitutive view, the family (both the unit and the relationships among its members) is seen as constituted in-andthrough communication—communication that is conceptualized as “the dialectical tension of contradictory verbal-ideological forces” (Baxter, 2004, p. 8). Given this contrariness, communication in families is seen as fragmented and disorderly. RDT’s dialogic approach moves difference (of all kinds) to the analytic center (Baxter, 2006); family encounters are seen as the (inter)play of differences not only between members, but also between the unit and broader, social-cultural conventions for family. Relatedly, RDT moves away from the study of individual cognition and the influences of social psychology, wherein the individual is typically the unit of analysis, and toward an emphasis on the joint action of interlocutors during family interactions (Baxter, 2006). Finally, RDT’s dialogic approach to understanding family carries an obligation to critique dominant voices—whether verbal-ideological discourses or literal, embodied ones—that mute or even silence alternative voices within the family system (Baxter, 2004).

Research and Practical Applications of Relational Dialectics Theory RDT has been used in a variety of ways within the family communication discipline since its 2011 re-articulation (Baxter, 2011). In bringing the focus of discursive power into studies of the family, recent work using RDT version 2.0 has demonstrated the theory’s usefulness in understanding meaning-construction around experiences that do not align with cultural norms for family (e.g., in cases of familial estrangement [Scharp & Thomas, 2016]), family membership

250

Suter & Seurer

(e.g., when a family member transitions to a different gender [Norwood, 2012]), or family roles (e.g., in cases of maternal depression [Seurer, 2015]). We situate our discussion of research and practical applications around Suter, Seurer, Webb, Grewe, and Koenig Kellas’s (2015) study of the meanings of motherhood as voiced by lesbian and bisexual co-mothers. In examining the deviation of lesbian and bisexual co-motherhood (one form of polymaternalism in contemporary America; other common forms include adoptive- and stepmotherhood) from normative socio-cultural discourses of motherhood that delimit authentic motherhood to one mother (i.e., the biological mother), Suter et al. (2015) capitalized on a dialogically expansive site to examine competing U.S. discourses of motherhood at play. Particularly apt for this section, Suter et al. exemplifies not only RDT research using RDT 2.0, but also an RDT-based practical application. Theoretically, Suter et al. (2015) focused on the distal links of the utterance chain in its examination of interrelationships between culture and family (in this case, between motherhood and culture). The study design simultaneously captured discourse on the proximal links of the utterance chain by asking comothers to report on specific interactions with family, friends, and/or community members. The unit of analysis for the study was the meaning of motherhood. Alternately stated then, the study interrogated socio-cultural discourses of motherhood permeating co-mothers’ micro-level interactions with their families and social networks (in doing so, the study collapsed the binary of public and private spheres). In addition to identifying socio-cultural discourses of motherhood as they occur in talk, Suter et al. (2015) provides a rich exemplar of the idea that meaning-making is always ideologically saturated and constructed through the competition of discourses with varying degrees of power. New or alternately constructed meanings (centrifugal discourses) work to destabilize taken-forgranted, established meanings (centripetal discourses), making room for alternate voices to interpenetrate within the meaning-making process. Two main meanings of motherhood were found animating the talk of the co-mothers and the reported speech of relationally significant others, which the research team labeled the discourse of essential motherhood (DEM) and the discourse of queer motherhood (DQM). The two antagonistic discourses upheld opposing viewpoints on authentic motherhood; the DQM resisted the more culturally dominant, more established DEM in which authentic motherhood is limited to only one mother—the biological mother—and the father’s presence is seen as best for the child. The DQM was found functioning as a rejoinder to this more accepted view of motherhood; it destabilized the need for a father and interrupted the equivocation of biological and moral motherhood. In effect, the DQM was found validating the presence and the role of the second mother. Combinations or transcendence of these opposing views of authentic, moral motherhood did manifest, albeit briefly, which offers a vision of how essentialist (DEM) and queer (DQM) versions of motherhood might intersect in more inclusive articulations of what constitutes a “real” mother in contemporary U.S. culture.

Relational Dialectics Theory 251 These findings were then used as the basis for an RDT-based practical application; specifically, the results formed the basis for workshop curriculum designed to promote positive motherhood identities for adoptive mothers— another instance of modern co-motherhood. Developed for Colorado’s Heritage Camps for Adoptive Families, Inc., a post-adoptive support service, the workshop curriculum facilitates positive adoptive maternal coping by explaining the monomaternalist views undergirding the DEM and connecting these views to commonly occurring identity-challenging remarks faced by co-mothers. These remarks voice the centripetal, ideologically powerful, cultural idealization of essentialized, biologically based motherhood, such as “Have you met his REAL mom?,” “Are they REAL sisters?,” “Mommy, then who IS my real mom?,” and “You can’t make me, you’re not my real mom.” Second, the curriculum introduces the construct of polymaternalism, validating the presence of two (or more) authentic mothers in a child’s life (e.g., the child’s birth mother and the child’s adoptive mother) and concludes with a robust parental discussion of positive coping in the face of monomaternalistic identity threats.

Evaluation of Relational Dialectics Theory As a heuristic tool, RDT has several key strengths. First, it shifts family communication explorations out from individual psyches and into communication and the co-creation of meaning within families. Specifically, this refocus allows for more nuanced understanding of how meaning is jointly constructed through family talk. Furthermore, in utilizing the construct of the utterance chain with its four petals, RDT facilitates unpacking the complexities of meaning-making, scaffolding examinations of how micro-level relational talk within the family intersects with macro-level socio-cultural discourses to construct meaning. In breaking down presumed barriers between the private lives of families and the public spheres within which families exist, RDT provides a way to understand not only how culture-at-large can influence families in their everyday lives, but also the potential of everyday familial talk to shift and advance novel cultural norms about family. Whereas the articulation of RDT 2.0 is relatively new (since 2011) and its empirical use is in its infancy, criticisms of RDT 2.0 merit addressing. One criticism thus far is that RDT 2.0 is not “critical enough.” This criticism emanates, at least in part, from critical modern scholars’ dissatisfaction with RDT’s critical postmodern conceptualization of power (Baxter & Asbury, 2015). Although critical modern and postmodern approaches jointly attend to power’s functioning in communicative life and share scholarly goals of emancipation and empowerment, they differ in their conceptualization of power. Modern critical theory construes power as a systemic construct residing within systems (inclusive of race, class, sexuality, and sex/gender) that are seen as largely taken-for-granted and/or misunderstood, thus the theoretical emphasis on dismantling false consciousness and rendering visibility to hidden systems (Baxter & Asbury). Relatedly, rules and power relations embedded within these

252

Suter & Seurer

broader social systems are seen as constraining communication (hence, the tendency for reproduction of established meanings) (Baxter & Asbury). RDT’s postmodern construction of power and its dialogic conceptualization of communication shifts the focus away from the systems themselves toward analyses of the discourses circulating within/outside these systems, as the theory works to disrupt and ultimately positively influence the status quo of contemporary families. The theory’s focus on discursive power, for some, makes RDT 2.0 not “critical enough.” The second criticism, that RDT 2.0 ignores the body, is inherently related to the first. RDT 2.0 theorizes that physical embodiment (e.g., race, sexuality, class, sex/gender) does indeed matter, but that the meanings of those differences are discursively constructed and historically, contextually contingent (L. Baxter, personal communication, April 10, 2016). For instance, envision a family headed by two White lesbian mothers with an adopted Black child entering an all-White, largely heterosexual space. It follows that in this specified context the family’s visible differences (e.g., sexual orientation of the mothers, racial differences, and the lack of biological ties between mother(s) and child) might summon discourses of adoption, of race in the family, and/or of biological normativity. However, whether or not these discourses matter, whether or not these discourses erupt verbally, and what particular meanings are constructed/ contested for these discourses would be historically and contextually specific. Finally, a related criticism of the theory has surfaced in empirical research (Suter et al., 2015). Theoretically, RDT idealizes discursive transformation, or moments in which opposing discourses suspend their center-margin competition and realign to realize the dialogic potential for creativity (Baxter, 2011). One of these transformations, aesthetic moments, occurs not only within the discursive realm but also within the affective realm. However, contrapuntal analysis (the analytic method introduced simultaneously with RDT 2.0) is a decidedly critical method of discourse analysis. As such, Suter et al. questions the method’s ability to capture the affective charge and fleeting sense of wholeness required to identify an aesthetic moment. Again, issues of the body surface, in this instance, in terms of affective or emotional charge. Suter et al. suggests researchers might use more detailed transcription methods that include more resources for capturing emotional cues when transcribing affectively charged interactions. We add here that researchers might also consider integrating affectively focused theoretical frameworks (e.g., affect theory, performance theory) to better theoretically merge the body with language-in-use.

Continuing the Conversation To continue the conversation, we suggest that scholars make more productive use of the proximal sites on the utterance chain. Although this was suggested by Baxter as early as 2011 (Baxter, 2011), scholars championing RDT’s 2011 reformulation have almost exclusively used the distal links in the utterance chain as the primary context for their studies. Even though theoretically proximal

Relational Dialectics Theory 253 and distal meanings are never disconnected, within a single study a researcher must choose one or the other to serve as the primary context (Baxter). Given that the emerging body of RDT 2.0-based research has tended to interrogate intersections of family and culture, critiquing broader, socio-normative discourses about families, it makes sense that the distal has been the primary context to date. Certainly this work is highly significant and needs to continue. What we are suggesting is a supplemental move toward studies that begin with the proximal as the primary context. To make this move, family scholars would need to go beyond favored self-reported methods of data collection (e.g., interviews, online posts) toward data-gathering methods that capture real-time talk between family members (e.g., naturally occurring conversations, family self-interview protocols) and employ longitudinal methods to allow researchers to view the family’s relational past in play with its relational present (Baxter). Conversational and discourse analytic data collection procedures (e.g., recording family dinner-time talk) offer useful models for family communication scholars. Additionally, initial RDT 2.0 research has tended to focus on dialogic expansiveness, which is understandable given that the search for new, emergent meanings potentiates positive (re)makings of both day-to-day and broader socio-cultural understandings of familial life. To continue the conversation, scholars might consider paying more attention to dialogic contraction (i.e., the presence of a limited number or the domination by one singular monologic perspective). From a critical lens, dialogically contractive texts merit scholarly attention to illuminate discursive practices infused with tradition and authority that marginalize, subvert, dismiss, and even silence alternate discursive world views within family systems leading to, for instance, enmeshed familial systems and abuse (Baxter, 2011). Together, these shifts help realize practical applications of RDT 2.0-based research. For instance, RDT 2.0’s critical postmodern approach to power and the body might open up new, more discursive-based conversations about race and the family that could ideally complement and/or extend current, more structurally based understandings. RDT 2.0-based empiricism might also engender insights on how monologues of race (e.g., fixed, static understandings of what it means to be Black in America) marginalize and even silence alternative meanings and understandings. This rethinking might destabilize monologic meanings and push for creative, new meanings that might improve the lives of Black family members and Black families in the United States, as an exemplar.

References Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). Discourse in the novel. In M. Holquist (Ed.), The dialogic imagination: Four essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans., pp. 259–422). Austin: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson Ed. & Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 1929.)

254

Suter & Seurer

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). The problem of speech genres. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres & other late essays (V. W. McGee, Trans., pp. 60–102). Austin: University of Texas Press. (Original work published in 1979.) Bakhtin, M. M. (1990). Author and hero in aesthetic activity. In M. Holquist (Ed.), Art and answerability: Early essays by M. M. Bakhtin (V. Liapunov, Trans., pp. 4–256) Austin: University of Texas Press. Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22. Baxter, L. A. (2006). Communication as dialogue. In G. J. Shepherd, J. St. John, & T. Striphas (Eds.), Communication as . . .: Perspectives on theory (pp. 101–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baxter, L. A. (2007). Mikhail Bakhtin. In P. Ameson (Ed.), Perspectives on philosophy of communication (pp. 247–268). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. Baxter, L. A. (2010). The dialogue of marriage. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 370–387. Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baxter, L. A., & Asbury, B. (2015). Critical approaches to interpersonal communication: Charting a future. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 189–202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2002). Performing marriage: The marriage renewal as cultural performance. Southern Communication Journal, 67, 94–109. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford. Baxter, L. A., & Norwood, K. M. (2015). Relational dialectics theory: Navigating meaning from competing discourses. In D. O. Braithwaite & P. Schrodt (Eds.), Engaging theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (2nd ed., pp. 279–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Norwood, K. (2012). Grieving gender: Trans-identities, transition, and ambiguous loss. Communication Monographs, 80, 24–45. Scharp, K. M., & Thomas, L. J. (2016). Family “bonds”: Meaning making of parentchild relationships in estrangement narratives. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 32–50. Seurer, L. M. (2015). “She can be a super hero, but she needs her day off”: Exploring discursive constructions of motherhood and depression in emerging adult talk surrounding maternal depression (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.du.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1588&context=etd Suter, E. A. (2016). Introduction: Critical approaches to family communication research: Representation, critique, and praxis. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 1–8. Suter, E. A., Seurer, L. M., Webb, S., Grewe, B., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2015). Motherhood as contested ideological terrain: Essentialist and queer discourses of motherhood at play in female-female co-mothers’ talk. Communication Monographs, 82, 458–483. Voloshinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language (L. Matejks & I. R. Titunik, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

23 Relational Turbulence Theory Understanding Family Communication During Times of Change Leanne K. Knobloch, Denise Haunani Solomon, Jennifer A. Theiss, and Rachel M. McLaren

A family of four is enjoying a relaxing summer of picnics, pool time, and bicycle rides when, one day, everything changes. Mom comes home from work with the news that she has received a valuable promotion—at company headquarters located across the country. Dad is surprised, but he is ready for an adventure. The teenagers are excited and panic-stricken at the same time. The move is rewarding yet challenging: Their new home is more modern but less spacious, the neighborhood is friendly but far from downtown, and all family members feel alone without their friends. How will the family members adjust to all of these changes? Will they be able to figure out how to co-exist in a smaller space, develop a routine for getting to school and work on time, and fill the gaps left by old friends without adversity? Will they be able to communicate in ways that do not involve withdrawal and/or negativity? Will they develop a new normal in their new location, or will the unsettled state produced by this move become a pervasive family pattern? Relational turbulence theory seeks to explain how people think, feel, and communicate when circumstances change within their relationship (Solomon, Knobloch, Theiss, & McLaren, 2016). The theory defines a transition as a period of transformation during the progression of a relationship that requires individuals to restructure how they relate to one another (Knobloch, 2007; Solomon & Theiss, 2011). A transition begins with a change in the relational environment that can vary in valence (positive or negative), significance (major or minor), and abruptness (gradual or sudden). It ends when individuals establish new ways of interacting to accommodate the change. The theory proposes that a transition sparks questions about the nature of a relationship and upends interdependence, both of which affect people’s subjective experiences of everyday events. In turn, the accumulation of volatile episodes culminates in an overarching perception of the relationship as turbulent that shapes enduring outcomes (Solomon et al., 2016). Figure 23.1 depicts the theory. Our goal in this chapter is to explicate relational turbulence theory. We start by outlining the historical evolution of the theory. Then, we summarize the theory’s fundamental assumptions, describe how the theory characterizes communication, and provide a flavor of the research undergirding the theory. We conclude by critiquing the theory and identifying avenues for additional development.

Partner Facilitation

Partner Interference

Relationship Uncertainty

Intensified Emotions

Biased Cognitive Appraisals

Communication Valence

Communicative Engagement

Experiences of Specific Episodes

Relational Turbulence

Disclosures to Social Network

Relational Communication

Supportiveness

Collaborative Planning

Cumulative Effects and Outcomes

From “Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships” by D. H. Solomon, L. K. Knobloch, J. A. Theiss, and R. M. McLaren, 2016, Human Communication Research.

Figure 23.1 Relational turbulence theory. Reciprocal effects are depicted in dashed gray lines

Partner Influence

Partner Uncertainty

Self Uncertainty

Relationship Parameters

Relational Turbulence Theory 257

Intellectual Tradition of Relational Turbulence Theory Relational turbulence theory evolved from the relational turbulence model and its corresponding research. The relational turbulence model was developed to account for why dating partners encounter turmoil at moderate levels of intimacy within courtship (Solomon & Knobloch, 2001, 2004). The model drew on interdisciplinary theorizing about uncertainty from the field of interpersonal communication (Berger & Bradac, 1982; Berger & Calabrese, 1975) and interdependence from the field of social psychology (Berscheid, 1983, 1991) to identify predictors of cognitive, emotional, and communicative upheaval during the transition from casual dating to serious involvement (Solomon, Weber, & Steuber, 2010). Over time, the model grew in scope to consider diverse markers of turmoil (e.g., irritations, hurt, topic avoidance) and types of transitions (e.g., parenthood, health conditions, empty nest). Whereas a model identifies linkages between constructs but not necessarily the underlying explanation, a theory provides conceptual logic to explain why constructs are linked. Like its predecessor, relational turbulence theory adopts a post-positivist theoretical orientation, but it advances beyond the relational turbulence model in a trio of ways. Specifically, the theory (a) proposes causal mechanisms shaping people’s subjective experiences, (b) specifies causal associations among cognitive, emotional, and communicative reactivity, and (c) conceptualizes how subjective experiences accumulate into an overall sense of relational turbulence that affects durable outcomes. In other words, the theory offers a more precise theoretical infrastructure than the model for deducing hypotheses and advancing practical recommendations.

Main Goals and Features of Relational Turbulence Theory Relational turbulence theory begins with the assumption that changes in the relational environment spark relational uncertainty and disrupt interdependence processes (see Figure 23.1). Heightened relational uncertainty and disjointed interdependence processes, in turn, have polarizing effects on people’s cognitive appraisals, emotional reactions, and communication behaviors in response to specific episodes, defined as discrete communication events between partners (cf. Baxter, 1992). If people’s exposure to polarized episodes is frequent and ongoing, their experiences of the episodes culminate in their perception of the relationship as turbulent, which has cumulative effects on a variety of enduring outcomes. We explicate these central tenets of relational turbulence theory in the sections that follow. Relational Uncertainty Relational uncertainty is how sure or unsure people are about the status of a relationship (Berger & Bradac, 1982; Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). It encompasses questions about a person’s own investment in a relationship (self uncertainty),

258

Knobloch, Solomon, Theiss, & McLaren

questions about a partner’s investment in the relationship (partner uncertainty), and questions about the nature of the relationship itself (relationship uncertainty). The three sources of relational uncertainty are unique, but together they form the overarching construct of relational uncertainty (Knobloch & Satterlee, 2009; Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). According to the theory, individuals experiencing relational uncertainty are prone to drawing biased cognitive appraisals of specific episodes. People who are uncertain about the nature of their relationship, by definition, communicate under a knowledge deficit: They lack information to help them derive meaning from events that occur in their relationship (Knobloch & Satterlee, 2009). Their ability to comprehend situations is compromised because they do not have sufficient information to make definitive choices from among a range of possible interpretations (Berger & Calabrese, 1975). Accordingly, they rely on heuristic cues to appraise interpersonal situations, leading to attribution biases and distorted perceptions of everyday events. The theory utilizes this reasoning to contend that relational uncertainty biases people’s comprehension of specific episodes. Interdependence Interdependence is the degree to which people’s outcomes are contingent upon their partner’s involvement in their daily lives. Relational turbulence theory draws on Berscheid’s (1983, 1991) logic to assert that changes in the relational environment alter how individuals intertwine their lives. When people permit one another to influence their everyday activities, they open themselves up to interruptions in those activities. Interference from a partner is a disruptive interruption that blocks a person’s ability to achieve a goal; facilitation from a partner is a constructive interruption that helps an individual to accomplish a goal (Knobloch & Solomon, 2004). When their everyday routines are interrupted, people experience an immediate emotional response, with their assessment of the interruption determining the valence of their feelings (i.e., typically negative emotion in response to interference, positive emotion in response to facilitation). Relational turbulence theory builds upon the idea that interruptions trigger an immediate emotional response, and it further suggests that frequent activations of emotions in this way make individuals increasingly sensitive to further provocation. In other words, a climate of volatility develops that permeates people’s responses to unrelated events in their relationship, making them emotionally reactive to subsequent episodes. The theory allows for individuals to experience both higher highs and lower lows under conditions of emotional reactivity by positing that interference and facilitation from a partner prompt people to feel more intense emotions in response to specific episodes. Because hindrance from a partner tends to be more salient than assistance, the theory argues that emotional reactivity is stronger for interference from a partner compared to facilitation from a partner.

Relational Turbulence Theory 259 Experiences of Specific Episodes The theory proposes that relational uncertainty and disrupted interdependence processes make people cognitively, emotionally, and communicatively reactive to specific episodes in their relationship. Whereas this claim also was a cornerstone of the relational turbulence model, the theory goes a step further by drawing particular connections among cognitions, emotions, and communication. More specifically, the theory ties (a) relational uncertainty to cognitive reactivity, such that people experiencing questions about their relationship are likely to draw biased appraisals of specific episodes, and (b) interference and facilitation from a partner to emotional reactivity, such that individuals encountering interruptions to their everyday activities are likely to feel strong emotions in response to specific episodes (Solomon et al., 2016). As shown in Figure 23.1, the theory contends that people’s biased cognitive appraisals and intensified emotional reactions shape their communication in response to specific events. The theory focuses on engagement and valence as two dimensions of communication that are fundamental to how individuals manage specific episodes. Communicative engagement involves the degree to which people confront versus avoid talking about an episode and the directness versus indirectness of the messages they employ. Communication valence indexes the tone of people’s behavior on a continuum ranging from friendly and amiable to unfriendly and hostile. The theory argues that the biased cognitive appraisals and volatile emotional reactions individuals experience in conjunction with specific episodes predict both the engagement and valence of their communicative response. The directions of these effects hinge on the substance of people’s cognitive appraisals and emotional reactions. Relational Turbulence and Cumulative Outcomes Relational turbulence arises from the accumulation of biased cognitions, intense emotions, and polarized communication in response to specific episodes. It is defined as an overarching and durable perception of a relationship as tumultuous, frenzied, and unstable (Solomon et al., 2016). The theory asserts that people’s repeated exposures to polarizing everyday events coalesce into a broader judgment about the relationship as chaotic. Relational turbulence, then, is a product of specific episodes and crystalizes as a global assessment of the relationship. It is akin to other persistent evaluations of a relationship, such as intimacy, satisfaction, and commitment. The theory’s final assumptions explicate two pathways through which relational turbulence affects a variety of cumulative outcomes (see Figure 23.1). One pathway involves cognitive construal level, which refers to the psychological distance with which individuals perceive their environment. The theory posits that relational turbulence fixates people on the proximal confines of their situation and reduces their capacity to take a long-term view of their relationship. A second pathway involves dyadic synchrony, which represents the degree

260

Knobloch, Solomon, Theiss, & McLaren

of coordination between partners in interaction. The theory contends that relational turbulence hampers people’s ability to attune their micro communication behavior in conversation. According to the theory, individuals experiencing relational turbulence construe their relationship in terms of immediate constraints and engage in nonsynchronous communication patterns, which, in turn, diminish a variety of personal, social, and relational outcomes. Examples of such outcomes include (a) planning collaboratively; (b) accomplishing instrumental communication functions such as offering support, managing conflict, and persuading each other; (c) interpreting relational messages; and (d) regulating privacy with social network members.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Relational Turbulence Theory Interpersonal communication plays multiple roles within relational turbulence theory (see Figure 23.1). Communication can be a catalyst for tumultuous events, such as when a hurtful message from a partner prompts biased cognitive appraisals and volatile emotional responses. Communication also is among the reactions to specific episodes that are polarized by relational uncertainty and interference from a partner. Third, the theory highlights how communication about specific episodes can have reciprocal effects by amplifying or alleviating people’s cognitive biases and intense emotions, as well as their subsequent experiences of relational uncertainty and interference from a partner. Finally, the theory explains how relational turbulence as a relationship quality can, through its effect on cognitive construal level and dyadic synchrony, infuse all communication between individuals. We consider each of these ways communication is embodied in relational turbulence theory in the following paragraphs, along with illustrations from our example of a family relocating for Mom’s promotion. A first way the theory conceptualizes communication is in terms of specific episodes, defined as the speech acts individuals pursue through dyadic exchange. These speech acts can be the stimulus events that incite more or less biased cognition, stronger or weaker emotion, and more or less engaged and positive communicative responses. For example, over the course of a day, the relocating family might discuss plans for the weekend, Mom might disclose about her new co-worker, Dad might complain about getting lost in the unfamiliar city, and the teenagers might argue about who forgot to pick up ice cream at the grocery store. All of these communicative exchanges offer opportunities for relational uncertainty and disrupted interdependence processes to spark polarized reactions. Relational turbulence theory also conceptualizes communication as a phenomenon that varies in engagement and valence as part of a person’s response to a specific episode. When Mom mentions her co-worker, Dad might experience jealousy, and when Dad grumbles about taking a wrong turn, Mom might feel blamed. They could communicate in response by engaging the issues directly

Relational Turbulence Theory 261 (e.g., disclosing their thoughts), indirectly (e.g., acting out their feelings), or not at all (e.g., changing the topic). Their communication also could be more or less positive (e.g., bringing up a happy memory or storming out of the room). Thus, relational turbulence theory appreciates how communication varies quantitatively along the dimensions of engagement and valence within episodes characterized by qualitatively different content. The dashed arrows in Figure 23.1 depict a third way that communication is manifest in relational turbulence theory. Specifically, communication between partners can have reciprocal effects on the cognitions and emotions that emerge during a specific episode, as well as on people’s ensuing experiences of relational uncertainty and interdependence. For example, when the teenagers fight about who was at fault for forgetting the ice cream, their appraisals of each others’ messages might become more biased and their hurt feelings more intense. This exchange also might prompt them to apologize, laugh about their mistake, and discuss ways to be more organized during future trips. In this way, communication between individuals might alleviate reactions to both the specific episode and the relational uncertainty and interruptions from a partner that exacerbated those reactions. Relational turbulence theory, then, conceptualizes communication as both a consequence of relational, cognitive, and emotional factors and an antecedent force shaping those phenomena. The final panel in Figure 23.1 illustrates how communication is inextricably connected to the global qualities of a relationship—in this case, a person’s conception of his or her relationship as unsteady, chaotic, or tumultuous. Within turbulent relationships, frames of meaning for communication are altered and coordination between partners is disrupted. Communication is fundamentally linked to relationship schemas (e.g., Planalp, 1985), and interaction unfolds as people draw on the mental models of discourse they assume are shared by their partner (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). When relationship schemas and mental models of discourse are compromised by relational turbulence, all facets of communication are disrupted. For the relocating family, the emergence of relational turbulence as a global relationship quality could make communicating about everything—from planning for the day to coordinating dinner—a challenge.

Research and Practical Applications of Relational Turbulence Theory Families navigate many life experiences that carry the potential for relational turbulence, such as embarking on a new hobby, sending a child to kindergarten, coping with a serious illness, integrating an in-law into the family, and deciding to divorce and remarry. By way of illustration, we describe research on three family transitions conducted under the auspices of the relational turbulence model that provided a foundation for the theory: (a) the transition to parenthood, (b) the reunion of military families after deployment, and (c) the transition to the empty-nest phase of marriage.

262

Knobloch, Solomon, Theiss, & McLaren

Parenthood Conceiving a baby can be a stressful experience that gives rise to relational turbulence for some couples. Steuber and Solomon (2008) found that relational uncertainty and interference from a partner were consistent themes in online discourse among individuals struggling with infertility. Relational uncertainty was reflected in (a) perceptions of relational invalidation stemming from mismatched priorities regarding fertility and the relationship, and (b) implications of blame about infertility. Interference from a partner was apparent in (a) the tendency for fertility treatments to supersede other personal or relational goals, and (b) violated expectations about a partner’s commitment to getting pregnant. Thus, infertility can be accompanied by questions and disruptions that coincide with relational turbulence. Couples who succeed in having a child are susceptible to relational turbulence as they navigate the transition to parenthood. A longitudinal study of first-time parents revealed that relational uncertainty and interference from a partner (a) increase from pregnancy through the first few months after the birth of a child, and (b) predict relationship dissatisfaction during the transition (Theiss, Estlein, & Weber, 2013). In addition, new parents experiencing relational uncertainty and interference from a partner view their mate as less responsive and less supportive (Theiss, Leustek, Estlein, & Weber, 2016). In sum, findings on both infertility and the transition to parenthood are consistent with relational turbulence theory principles. Reintegration after Deployment Military families can experience relational turbulence during the transition from deployment to reunion. For example, military couples report questions about commitment, reintegration, household stressors, personality changes, sexual behavior and infidelity, and the service member’s health (Knobloch & Theiss, 2012). Military children grapple with questions about what their parent did during deployment, why their parent had to deploy, the closeness of family bonds, and whether their parent will leave again (Knobloch, Pusateri, Ebata, & McGlaughlin, 2014). Moreover, military couples encounter hindrance in coordinating everyday routines, household chores, negotiating control, feeling smothered, parenting disagreements, partner differences, social networks, and a lack of time together (Knobloch & Theiss, 2012). Military youth report interference in terms of disrupted routines and violated expectations upon reunion (Knobloch et al., 2014). In turn, relational uncertainty and interference from a partner among military couples are associated with relational turbulence (Theiss & Knobloch, 2014) and difficulty with reintegration (Knobloch, Ebata, McGlaughlin, & Ogolsky, 2013). Taken together, these findings suggest the utility of relational turbulence theory for illuminating how military families experience the post-deployment transition.

Relational Turbulence Theory 263 Empty Nest The launching of children from the family home can spark relational turbulence as well. Couples experiencing the empty-nest stage of marriage encounter relational uncertainty about adopting new roles and identities, depending too much on their partner, maintaining intimacy, and growing older (Nagy & Theiss, 2013). Many couples report increased facilitation from their partner after launching children, but they also contend with interference from a partner via feeling guilty for spending time independently, being forced to engage in joint activities, and expecting more help with household chores. Empty-nest couples experiencing relational uncertainty and interference from a partner engage in more polarized communication behaviors during conflict, including topic avoidance, indirectness, withdrawal, and criticism (King & Theiss, 2016). Although some couples enjoy a second honeymoon of sorts during the transition to an empty nest, others experience upheaval that affects their communication. Accordingly, research on the transition to an empty nest underscores the premise of relational turbulence theory that times of change provide opportunities for both relationship growth and decay.

Evaluation of Relational Turbulence Theory Relational turbulence theory makes several important contributions to the field of family communication. First, it is a home-grown communication theory. Whereas many theories of family communication are imported from other disciplines, relational turbulence theory privileges communication as a central process that can perpetuate or resolve turmoil during times of change within families. Second, the theory supplies testable hypotheses that can be deduced from its claims. It moves beyond the relational turbulence model by articulating causal processes linking relationship parameters with subjective experiences of specific episodes, and in turn, cumulative effects and outcomes (see Figure 23.1). Perhaps most important, the theory has heuristic value. The original statement of the theory identified several plausible outcomes of relational turbulence (i.e., collaborative planning, communicating instrumentally, interpreting relational messages, and disclosing to social network members), and the theory leaves room to investigate other communication processes that might emerge from relational turbulence (Solomon et al., 2016). Thus, the theory has the potential to inspire scholars to examine the causal processes in diverse contexts with varied outcomes. The theory also contains notable limitations in scope and applicability. First, relational turbulence theory was developed with an emphasis on romantic relationships, rather than family relationships more generally. In addition, the theory privileges the experiences of individuals over romantic dyads or family systems. Dyadic processes are implied by the theory, but research often is conducted using the individual as the unit of analysis given that the causal processes become exponentially more complicated with dyads and families (e.g.,

264

Knobloch, Solomon, Theiss, & McLaren

McLaren & Solomon, 2014). Accordingly, a key direction for future work is to consider the adaptations, if any, required for the theory to accommodate the complexities of dyads and family systems. Another unresolved question is whether the theory is sufficiently parsimonious in its current state. On the one hand, the theory is necessarily complex because it synthesizes both intrapersonal and interpersonal processes and integrates both specific episodes and cumulative outcomes. On the other hand, the density of the theory is difficult to test in any one study; scholars might be left evaluating one part of the theory at a time. Assessing the cumulative effects of relational turbulence, in particular, is a formidable challenge because it requires longitudinal research designs sensitive enough to bridge the gap between specific episodes and distal consequences. Nonetheless, understanding how dayto-day events coalesce into overarching perceptions of relationships and enduring outcomes is a core question in the field of family communication worth pursuing. Such work also will shed light on the broader issue of whether relational turbulence theory should be streamlined or elaborated to achieve the appropriate balance between complexity and parsimony.

Continuing the Conversation Relational turbulence theory provides numerous opportunities for future growth. As alluded to previously, the theory would benefit from research investigating whether the causal processes work similarly for other kinds of family ties beyond romantic relationships. Second, wide horizons exist for examining the interplay of relational turbulence stretched beyond the perspective of the individual to include dyads, triads, and entire family systems. Third, longitudinal research is necessary for testing the theory’s claims about the cumulative effects of specific episodes over time. Possibilities also exist for deriving evidence-based recommendations to help people manage relational turbulence when their relationships are in flux. Scholars investigating the relational turbulence model have examined a number of important transitions within the lifespan of family relationships, and although their findings have yielded insights into the challenges of the transitions, clear guidelines for helping individuals manage the difficulties have been elusive. Fortunately, relational turbulence theory suggests ways that people could anticipate and circumvent relational uncertainty and interference from a partner, and it also implies routes for individuals to prevent the accumulation of negative experiences by restraining their cognitive, emotional, and communicative reactivity in response to specific episodes. Indeed, clinicians might be able to use relational turbulence theory principles to help resolve episodic problems before they culminate into larger, more enduring challenges. We are enthusiastic about the promise of relational turbulence theory to generate concrete advice for families to navigate periods of relationship change in ways that promote resilience rather than turmoil.

Relational Turbulence Theory 265

References Baxter, L. A. (1992). Interpersonal communication as dialogue: A response to the “social approaches” forum. Communication Theory, 2, 330–337. Berger, C. R., & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal relationships. London, England: Edward Arnold. Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 99–112. Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotion. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. H. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 110–168). New York, NY: Freeman. Berscheid, E. (1991). The emotion-in-relationships model: Reflections and update. In W. Kessen, A. Ortony, & F. Craik (Eds.), Memories, thoughts, and emotions: Essays in honor of George Mandler (pp. 323–335). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. King, M. E., & Theiss, J. A. (2016). Applying the relational turbulence model to predict conflict behavior and cortisol reactivity among empty-nest couples. Communication Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2015.1129353. Knobloch, L. K. (2007). Perceptions of turmoil within courtship: Associations with intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24, 363–384. Knobloch, L. K., Ebata, A. T., McGlaughlin, P. C., & Ogolsky, B. (2013). Depressive symptoms, relational turbulence, and the reintegration difficulty of military couples following wartime deployment. Health Communication, 28, 754–766. Knobloch, L. K., Pusateri, K. B., Ebata, A. T., & McGlaughlin, P. C. (2014). Communicative experiences of military youth during a parent’s return home from deployment. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 291–309. Knobloch, L. K., & Satterlee, K. L. (2009). Relational uncertainty: Theory and application. In T. D. Afifi & W. A. Afifi (Eds.), Uncertainty, information management, and disclosure decisions: Theories and applications (pp. 106–127). New York, NY: Routledge. Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty. Communication Studies, 50, 261–278. Knobloch, L. K., & Solomon, D. H. (2004). Interference and facilitation from partners in the development of interdependence within romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 11, 115–130. Knobloch, L. K., & Theiss, J. A. (2012). Experiences of U.S. military couples during the post-deployment transition: Applying the relational turbulence model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 29, 423–450. McLaren, R. M., & Solomon, D. H. (2014). Victim and perpetrator accounts of hurtful messages: An actor-partner interdependence model. Human Communication Research, 40, 291–308. Nagy, M. E., & Theiss, J. A. (2013). Applying the relational turbulence model to the empty-nest transition: Sources of relationship change, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 280–300. Planalp, S. (1985). Relational schemata: A test of alternative forms of relational knowledge as guides to communication. Human Communication Research, 12, 3–29.

266

Knobloch, Solomon, Theiss, & McLaren

Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2001). Relationship uncertainty, partner interference, and intimacy within dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 804–820. Solomon, D. H., & Knobloch, L. K. (2004). A model of relational turbulence: The role of intimacy, relational uncertainty, and interference from partners in appraisals of irritations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 795–816. Solomon, D. H., Knobloch, L. K., Theiss, J. A., & McLaren, R. M. (2016). Relational turbulence theory: Explaining variation in subjective experiences and communication within romantic relationships. Human Communication Research. Advance online publication. Solomon, D. H., & Theiss, J. A. (2011). Relational turbulence: What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. In W. R. Cupach & B. H. Spitzberg (Eds.), The dark side of close relationships II (pp. 197–216). New York, NY: Routledge. Solomon, D. H., Weber, K. M., & Steuber, K. R. (2010). Turbulence in relational transitions. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication research (pp. 115–134). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Steuber, K. R., & Solomon, D. H. (2008). Relational uncertainty, partner interference, and infertility: A qualitative study of discourse within online forums. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25, 831–855. Theiss, J. A., Estlein, R., & Weber, K. M. (2013). A longitudinal assessment of relationship characteristics that predict new parents’ relationship satisfaction. Personal Relationships, 20, 216–235. Theiss, J. A., & Knobloch, L. K. (2014). Relational turbulence and the post-deployment transition: Self, partner, and relationship focused turbulence. Communication Research, 41, 27–51. Theiss, J. A., Leustek, J., Estlein, R., & Weber, K. M. (2016). Post-partum depression and relational turbulence during the transition to parenthood: Implications for perceived partner responsiveness, support, and relationship satisfaction. Manuscript submitted for publication. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York, NY: Academic Press.

24 Social Construction Theory Communication Co-Creating Families Dawn O. Braithwaite, Elissa Foster, and Karla M. Bergen

Because “family” is a pervasive and institutionalized social form, it can be challenging to think about it as created in interaction rather than an inevitable reality. Cases that disrupt our assumptions about family can be helpful to illustrate the socially constructed aspects of family life. Consider the following story offered by Baglia and Foster (2013) as they experienced negotiating life as an unmarried family: We have been surprised at how others, especially close friends and even family, often introduce one or other of us as ‘Jay’s wife’ or ‘Elissa’s husband.’ We recognize that this faux pas is not likely malicious; rather, it is merely the result of entrenched language assumptions and cultural scripts . . . [One day] Elissa encountered a new signifier to encapsulate her relationship with Jay. As she traveled alone with the baby, one of the hotel porters, Larry, had taken a special interest in ensuring a safe and easy transition into the hotel and invited her to call him for a ride back to the airport. As they made the brief journey the next day, their conversation turned to the subject of the economy and jobs—both expressing that they felt fortunate to be working. Elissa mentioned that her ‘partner’ worked at a university in Pennsylvania that had just learned about proposed massive state cutbacks. Larry queried, ‘Who is this you’re talking about?’ ‘My partner. My daughter’s father,” Elissa amended, having been reminded once again how inadequate the term ‘partner’ can be sometimes. After a few more exchanges, Larry asked, ‘Is your baby’s daddy worried about whether he will lose his job?’ And while the conversation continued without pause, Elissa could not help but smile inwardly and begin to reflect on what it meant to have Jay referred to as her ‘baby’s daddy.’ (Baglia & Foster, 2013, pp. 89–90). What we see highlighted in this brief example is that families are created, constituted, sustained, and changed in the social processes, relations, and actions of family members and others (Baxter, 2014; Burr, 2015). Those adopting social

268

Braithwaite, Foster & Bergen

construction as a theoretical perspective see communication as much more than the way messages are transmitted; rather, communication is fundamental to the constitution of all social realities, including families (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2006). In their foundational treatise, The Social Construction of Reality, sociologists Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann (1967) specified how language serves as a vehicle for the objectivation (p. 34) and externalization (p. 52) of social realities that are then shared and internalized (p. 61) within social groups. What this means is that those taking a constructionist perspective recognize that “we use talk to make things happen: by naming things, we give them substance” (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2006, p. 230). Communication creates our social world and so relationships, including our families, are socially constructed.

Intellectual Tradition of Social Construction Theory Social construction can be thought of as a theoretical cousin to symbolic interaction, which takes a central focus on social roles created via language use (Leeds-Hurwitz, 2006). These two theories are often mistakenly used interchangeably. We chose to focus on social construction in this chapter because it has been used more frequently by family communication scholars and we believe it provides the best theoretical resource. Rather than a single theory, social construction is better conceptualized as a set of key assumptions (Burr, 2015) or a broader meta-theory. The same can be said for some other theories in this volume, for example, systems theory in Chapter 15. Centered in how persons co-construct and transform meanings through communication, social construction fits into the interpretive paradigm discussed in Chapter 1; specifically, social construction focuses on how relational partners and families interact and negotiate their relational worlds, and researchers in this tradition seek to understand and describe (interpret) patterns of interaction and associated meaning. Researchers centering their studies in social construction most often use qualitative methods, for example, interviewing family members one-on-one or in focus groups about their experiences, observing family interaction via ethnography, or undertaking discourse analysis of texts related to different constructions of family. In addition, as we discuss in the next section, some social constructionists also center their research in the critical paradigm, which is dedicated to addressing perspectives and voices that are marginalized or silenced. Early signs of the influence of social construction on interpersonal communication scholarship began with the development of relational communication theory (Millar & Rogers, 1976), which emphasized that relationships and meanings emerge between individuals. The scholars who took this relational approach in the 1980s departed significantly from research that had been, and still is, largely post positivist and focused on discovering communication effects (see Chapter 1). Dialogic approaches to communication (Baxter, 2004), including relational dialectics theory (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996) (see Chapter 22), were influential in focusing attention on the quality

Social Construction Theory 269 of interaction and the co-constructed nature of meaning. Scholars who were drawn to social construction were important in shaping the study of family communication in our discipline (Galvin & Braithwaite, 2014) and to advancing the use of qualitative research methods in a field where most scholars were using quantitative methods.

Main Goals and Features of Social Construction Theory Family communication scholars centering their work in social construction focus on family as constituted in interaction and social relations (Baxter, 2004, 2014; Galvin, 2006). Three features of the social constructionist perspective align it with communication as a discipline and contribute specifically to the goals of family communication researchers. First, constructionists value everyday interaction as essential to human existence. This means that examinations of mundane talk, such as family dinner table talk (van Nijnatten & Noordegraaf, 2016), everyday conversations (Tovarez, 2010), and storytelling (Thompson, Koenig Kellas, Soliz, Thompson, Epp, & Schrodt, 2009; Trees & Koenig Kellas, 2009) (see Chapters 6 and 19), are fundamental to understanding the emergence of a shared reality within the family. Second, there is a reflexive relationship between micro (individual-level) and macro (societal-level) discourses, so that social realities become reflected in and supported by larger institutions. This reflexive relationship between interpersonal and social discourses is also noted in the symbolic interactionism perspective, particularly in the concept of the “generalized other.” In the context of family communication scholarship, this means that “traditional” family forms are more dominantly represented in the media, are reified in policies and laws related to the family, and may in turn impact the nature and quality of interaction within any given family. The reflexive relationship between media (macro) discourses and the ways that individuals (micro) view family can be seen in a range of critical studies; for example, studies that examine mediated constructions of family (Cummings, 2008; Friedman, 2014), analyze the social constructions of factors central to family life (such as commitment; Foster, 2008), and explore how political discourses appropriate the concept of “family” to further specific agendas (Blain, 2005; Lodhia, 2014). Third, by recognizing the constructed nature of social realities, we are better prepared to identify the impact of hegemonic and takenfor-granted assumptions that are embedded in our everyday communication. For example, when we refer to “mothers and fathers” rather than “parents,” we privilege a heterocentrist construction of family; when we use the term “parents” rather than “family caregivers,” we privilege a nuclear construction of family that ignores intergenerationality. For family communication scholars, this means that we should recognize that the ways we define, examine, and describe families can either reflect the status quo and existing power relations, or can construct new and more inclusive discourses about family. Discussion of contemporary family life in the United States presents a discursive challenge. Evotypical families (also called postmodern families), such

270

Braithwaite, Foster & Bergen

as single-parent, adoptive, LGBTQ, and post-divorce families, now constitute a majority of the U.S. population. In an effort to be inclusive, communicators struggle with qualifying terms such as “non-traditional,” “multigenerational,” “bi-racial” and so on, but consequently, evotypical families are constructed primarily in relation to (and perhaps opposition to) the “traditional” family— single-generation, married, heterosexual, racially-homogeneous, with biological offspring. Because social constructionists are concerned with the constitutive power of communication, they are focused on the role that language plays in legitimation (Berger & Luckmann, 1967, p. 92) of certain family forms over others. Scholars who analyze social discourse about families in order to reveal inequity and injustice are invoking the social construction perspective from within the critical paradigm (see Chapters 10 and 16). Galvin (2006) developed the concept of “discourse dependent families” to underscore challenges encountered by different types of evotypical families. Although the “traditional nuclear” family has biological and legal ties and well developed cultural models to guide them, discourse dependent families are especially reliant on communication to negotiate and enact their roles and expectations, as they do not have existing cultural models to light their path (Baxter, 2014; Galvin, 2006). For example, Braithwaite et al. (2010) studied voluntary kin, sometimes called “fictive kin,” which are those people we perceive to be family but are not related by biology (“blood related”) or law. They described four voluntary kin family types that are co-created in talk, as there is no recognized cultural model to guide these relationships. One of these four types, supplemental kin, describes those who have a relationship with both their family of origin and the voluntary kin. This supplemental relationship may arise when the person does not share values with their family of origin, family roles are not existent or not performed well, or family of origin do not live close by. For instance, some LGBTQ persons they interviewed constructed voluntary kin relationships when they did not perceive that their family of origin understood them or accepted them in the way that the voluntary kin did. Another couple created and labeled a “grandfriend” relationship for a pair of children whose grandparents lived out of state and could not attend the children’s school events. Many evotypical family forms are challenged and members face additional burdens of needing to explain and legitimize their family internally among themselves and externally to others. For example, Bergen (2010) studied the interaction and socially constructed identity of women who lived away from their families for work or education. These women often received questions that highlighted the non-normative aspect of their family life. Questions such as “how do you keep two houses clean?” and “doesn’t your husband really miss you?” reflected more than simple requests for information, but rather revealed the perception that these women might be neglecting their wife and mother roles. Many of the women felt compelled to offer accounts to explain how they managed the logistical and relational aspects of commuter marriage. Similarly, Suter (2008) found that parents of children adopted from China received

Social Construction Theory 271 questions such as “are you having any real children” suggesting that international adoption is not the accepted way to create a family. These adoptive parents responded in ways that affirmed their family identity for others and for themselves. Centering studies in social construction helps researchers highlight how evotypical families must do extra communicative work to validate themselves and educate or try to persuade others about the value of their family. To summarize, for social constructionists (a) everyday communication is essential to human existence because it creates our social realities; (b) there is a reflexive relationship between mediated communication and individuallevel communication, such that they influence one another; and (c) communication can be used to construct new and more just realities. You may notice that many of the examples we highlighted from research concern evotypical families, because this does represent a focus in much of the social construction family communication research. However, we believe scholars studying interaction in all types of families would find social construction useful. As a last point, we want to stress that from a social constructionist perspective, we understand all families are discourse dependent, as they are cocreated and enacted in interaction; however, evotypical families are especially reliant on interaction, as Baxter (2014) described, to (re)make themselves communicatively.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Social Construction Theory Foster and Bochner (2008) perhaps say it best: “to root one’s work in social construction is to plant one’s feet squarely in the world of interactive communication” (p. 86). The fact that the social construction is indeed social means that it does not happen within individuals, but family identity is co-created between people in interaction. With its roots in sociology, social construction was not originally conceived as a communication theory. However, communication scholars who were drawn to the central role of language and discourse began to conceptualize communication as constitutive (and not merely descriptive or predictive) of relationships. Scholars studying family interaction who began to see communication as constituting family and as the fundamental feature of family life quickly saw the value in social construction. Although some family communication researchers frame their work explicitly within the social construction paradigm, others do not explicitly label their study as such, which can be confusing. Broadly conceived, we include inquiry bound together by the thread of narrative discourse as social construction, given the observation that narratives “are resources through which family members create shared realities of family life” (Jorgenson & Bochner, 2004, p. 517). Whether or not social construction is named explicitly in a study, family researchers working in this perspective share a focus on how families are co-constructed in interaction; how they are made and remade, embraced and resisted, and changed and defended in communication (Baxter, 2014).

272

Braithwaite, Foster & Bergen

Research and Practical Applications of Social Construction Theory Social construction theory holds far-reaching implications for understanding the changing state of contemporary families. Centering research in social construction helps scholars understand how families navigate changing roles, including parenting, homecare, and work-life issues. For example, in addition to Bergen’s (2010) study of commuting wives’ nonconventional family identity, Medved and Rawlins (2011) examined role negotiation in families with stayat-home fathers and breadwinning mothers. They developed narrative composites concerning homemaking and moneymaking and identified communicative processes of reversing, conflicting, collaborating, improvising, and sharing that help and hinder gendered roles and expectations. For example, for at-home fathers and breadwinning mothers, reversing traditional gendered responsibilities often resulted in a simultaneous openness and dissatisfaction with their choices. The researchers stressed that families struggling with the gendered nature of parental roles may be able to understand other ways to be and “do” family. Family communication researchers have focused attention on many types of diverse families that further illustrate the valuable and practical contributions of communication research using a social construction lens, including (a) LGBTQ families, (b) adoptive families, and (c) ethnically diverse families. LGBTQ Families First, a number of family communication scholars have studied social construction of LGBTQ families to illuminate the processes by which these families communicatively co-create family identity, within their family and to others outside the family. This was especially important before same-sex marriage became legal in the United States, but is still necessary for LGBTQ families. For example, Bergen, Suter, and Daas (2006) discovered how lesbian families interacted and strategically constructed family identity both internally and externally, particularly to legitimize co-motherhood for the nonbiological mother. The researchers described naming practices for non-biological mothers, language included in legal documents, rituals such as family meals and at bedtime, and acts of “doing family” by taking family walks through the neighborhood and attending church as a family. These choices illustrate Galvin’s (2006) discourse dependent family strategies of legitimizing and ritualizing. Breshears (2011) examined how lesbian parents interpreted and framed outsider discourse posing identity threats to their family. She was concerned with how parents talk with their child who has received an identity threat, such as being told by a friend that s/he cannot have two mothers. Breshears found mothers responded to this kind of challenge by highlighting that families come in different forms. Breshears’s work illustrates how evotypical families co-construct their identity and craft responses to legitimize contested family identity

Social Construction Theory 273 to others. This highlights Galvin’s (2006) internal discursive strategy of discussing as a way of constructing family identity in everyday interaction, helping discourse dependent families establish and defend family identity when their legitimacy is questioned. Adoptive Families Second, a number of family communication scholars have studied discourses of identity for families formed through both domestic and international adoption and this has been a particularly rich area of research for social constructionists in family communication. For example, Baxter, Norwood, Asbury, and Scharp (2014) described the counterstories of adoptive families wherein they challenge the master narrative framing adoption as a “second-best” way of creating a family in a culture that values biological children. Adoptive families embraced four alternative discourses that re-positioned adoption as a positive way to create a family: (a) adoption as a valuable alternative to pregnancy, (b) adoption as a worthwhile struggle guided by destiny, (c) adoption as a smooth and predictable process, and (d) adoption as communal kinning (pp. 258–259). Suter, Reyes, and Ballard (2011) conducted focus groups with adoptive parents who recounted examples of disconfirming questions and comments that illustrate the dominant cultural norm of having biological children or at least adopting children who look like the parents. Adoptive parents responded by framing their discourse with those who demonstrated such beliefs with the metaphor of “a battleground” as they communicatively navigated comments questioning the legitimacy of their family. Although domestic adoption is regarded as a “second-best” way of creating a family, families with international and transracial adoption face even greater legitimacy challenges when they experience their family identity being questioned or rejected. Suter and Ballard (2009) studied messages received by parents of children adopted from China who reported comments such as “how much did you pay for her?” or “do you love them as much as if you had your own?” (pp. 115–116). These questions clearly point to the perception that adoption is not the right way of becoming a family, necessitating parents to co-create new meanings and help themselves and their children navigate these identity threats. Suter (2008) identified indirect and direct responses adoptive parents developed to respond to questions challenging family identity and to contradict or challenge the speaker, illustrating Galvin’s (2006) discursive strategies of legitimizing and defending. Harrigan (2010) examined adoptive mother narratives to understand how they interacted and created self-worth and positive family identity for themselves and their internationally adopted children. She described how adoptive mothers strategically and intentionally told adoption stories within the family via an oral storytelling format and using artifacts, such as photographs, to co-construct and normalize the adoptive identity of the child and the family. The adoption stories engaged Galvin’s (2006) strategy of narrating to help the children build a “complete

274

Braithwaite, Foster & Bergen

history” (p. 34), circumventing negative outcomes from incomplete or inconsistent narratives. Ethnically Diverse Families Third, a number of scholars have worked to understand family communication in an increasingly multi-ethnic and multi-racial milieu, seeking to illuminate co-construction and enactment of diverse family identities. For example, Bylund (2003) undertook a case analysis to understand family stories in three European American, Mexican American, and African American families. She highlighted how stories co-created family identity and served to entertain, inspire, reminisce, and teach in different ways in each culture. Although stories served to create family history for the European American and African American families and help African American children navigate racism, Mexican American family stories helped members construct shared family identity, reflecting Galvin’s internal (2006) strategy of narrating. Also focusing on how ethnic differences might interact with the social construction of family identity, Buzzanell, Waymer, Tagle, and Liu (2007) examined the discourse of Asian, Hispanic, and African American women talking about their transition into working motherhood. These researchers found that differences in the constructions of discourse about returning to work reflected cultural beliefs about motherhood held in their respective ethnic groups. For example, Asian American mothers’ discourse reflected the collectivist values of being a loyal employee and being a good family member by eagerly returning to work to honor the needs of the employer and fulfilling financial responsibility to the family. Hispanic mothers demonstrated their value of family by speaking about reluctantly leaving their newborns to return to work, but found consolation in the fact that their infants were being cared for by family members. African American mothers’ discourse reflected their value of independence and called on their extended relational networks for assistance, rather than spouses or members of the immediate household. In each case, identity positioning of the working mothers was co-created in family interaction and influenced by culture. These examples help us understand how culture creates and infuses the social construction of identity for family members in racially and ethnically diverse families.

Evaluation of Social Construction Theory As we evaluate social construction for its usefulness to guide family communication researchers, we see that it is broadly applicable across all different family forms and it puts communication as the central process that co-creates, sustains, and changes families. As such, viewing families from the lens of social construction highlights how the field of family communication makes a unique contribution to the wide variety of disciplines that are studying family, centering families as discourse dependent, created and legitimized in interaction (Galvin

Social Construction Theory 275 & Braithwaite, 2014). This helps explain why social construction is especially useful when thinking about evotypical families. As we mentioned earlier, social construction is more a way of conceptualizing the central role of communication in creating and enacting family than it is a single theory, which is its strength and limitation. As a strength, social construction is a theory of understanding and a sensitizing device, as discussed in Chapter 1, that helps clarify the perspectives of family members represented in a particular study and the interpretations and applications of the researcher. That should be the main goal to evaluate any social construction study. The limitation is that social construction is a collection of premises about the social nature of human life and interaction and, because there are multiple conceptions of social construction, as a theory it provides less explicit guidance to those evaluating the work. Finally, as we stressed earlier, a complication, more than a limitation, is that researchers may base a given study in principles of social construction without necessarily labeling it as such.

Continuing the Conversation As we saw in Elissa’s conversation with the taxi driver at the beginning of this chapter and in the research we highlighted, social construction is a fruitful lens to study and understand how family relationships are co-created, maintained, challenged, and transformed in interaction. Scholars who imported social construction into the communication discipline established a home in interpersonal and family communication, where scholars using post-positive research and quantitative methods were making important discoveries, but had largely closed the doors to interpretive and qualitative methods. As scholars centered studies in social construction and other developed theories that shared the broad goals of understanding communication as co-constructing personal and family relationships, family communication scholarship has continued to branch out and make unique contributions to the interdisciplinary study of family. We have noticed of late that a number of family communication scholars across meta-theoretical traditions reference the constitutive approach and/or use Galvin’s frame of discourse dependence, which springs from social construction. We agree with Baxter’s (2014) caution not to confuse communication effects scholarship of post-positivism and social constructionist scholarship, as they come from different intellectual traditions and methodological assumptions. Both approaches are consequential, and at the same time, it is important that the language and premises of social construction are not appropriated incorrectly. We do appreciate that researchers guided by social construction can have translational goals; for example, helping families negotiate conflict or using it in family therapy (Gergen, 2015). While we have argued in this chapter that social construction research can address a critical agenda for highlighting marginalized perspectives and voices and advancing social justice goals, we were surprised to see how little expressly critical research has been done so far. When we consider continuing challenges of the changing family constellations

276

Braithwaite, Foster & Bergen

represented by evotypical families, we hope to see more social constructionist research that springs from a critical agenda. For example, current media coverage of immigrant and refugee families constructs those families in ways that reflect political realities as much as it does the families’ lived experiences. In addition, while there are a number of scholars studying social media and family communication, we believe adopting a social construction lens may help facilitate a critical turn to understand how members interact and co-create family in increasingly digital ways that are simultaneously connected and disconnected. We encourage scholarship that will help families step back, understand, make choices and at times resist discourses about their family or others’ families that marginalize differences.

References Baglia, J., & Foster, E. (2013). The communicative effort of negotiating unmarried family life: Friction and flexibility. In S. R. Marrow & D. A. V. Leoutsakas (Eds.), More than blood (pp. 84–94). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22. Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baxter, L. A. (2014). Theorizing the communicative construction of “family”: The three R’s. In L. A. Baxter (Ed.), Remaking “family” communicatively (pp. 33–50). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guildford Press. Baxter, L. A., Norwood, K. M., Asbury, B., & Scharp, K. M. (2014). Narrating adoption: Resisting adoption as “second best” in online stories of domestic adoption told by adoptive parents. Journal of Family Communication, 14, 253–269. Bergen, K. M. (2010). Negotiating a “questionable” identity: Commuter wives and social networks. Southern Communication Journal, 75, 35–56. Bergen, K. M., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). “About as solid as a fish net”: Symbolic construction of a legitimate parental identity for nonbiological lesbian mothers. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 201–220. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, NY: Anchor Books. Blain, M. (2005). The politics of victimage: Power and the subjection in a US anti-gay campaign. Critical Discourse Studies, 2, 31–50. Braithwaite, D. O., Bach, B. W., Baxter, L. A., DiVerniero, R., Hammonds, J., Hosek, A., . . . Wolf, B. (2010). Constructing family: A typology of voluntary kin. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27, 388–407. Breshears, D. (2011). Understanding communication between lesbian parents and their children regarding outsider discourse about family identity. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 7, 264–284. Burr, V. (2015). Social constructionism (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Buzzanell, P. M., Waymer, D., Tagle, M. P., & Liu, M. (2007). Different transitions into working motherhood: Discourses of Asian, Hispanic, and African American women. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 195–220.

Social Construction Theory 277 Bylund, C. L. (2003). Ethnic diversity and family stories. Journal of Family Communication, 3, 215–236. Cummings, J. (2008, November). Seventeen girls without family: The abdication of family in teen magazines. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Communication Association, San Diego, CA. Foster, E. (2008). Commitment, communication, and contending with heteronormativity: An invitation to greater reflexivity in interpersonal research. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 84–101. Foster, E., & Bochner, A. (2008). Social constructionist perspectives in communication research. In J. Gubrium & J. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 85–106). New York, NY: Guilford. Friedman, R. (2014). The lifestyle of the “urban tribe.” The Florida Communication Journal, 42, 61–77. Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Galvin, K. M., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2014). Family communication theory and research from the field of family communication: Discourses that constitute and reflect families. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 6, 97–111. Gergen, K. J. (2015). An invitation to social construction (3rd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harrigan, M. M. (2010). Exploring the narrative process: An analysis of the adoption stories mothers tell their internationally adopted children. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 24–39. Jorgenson, J., & Bochner, A. P. (2004). Imagining families through stories and rituals. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 513–538). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2006). Social theories: Social constructionism and symbolic interactionism. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 229–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lodhia, S. (2014). “Stop importing weapons of family destruction!”: Cyberdiscourses, patriarchal anxieties, and the men’s backlash movement in India. Violence Against Women, 20, 905–936. Medved, C. E., & Rawlins, W. K. (2011). At-home fathers and breadwinning mothers: Variations in constructing work and family lives. Women & Language, 34, 9–39. Millar, F. E., & Rogers, L. E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonal communication. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 87–104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Suter, E. A. (2008). Discursive negotiation of family identity: A study of U.S. families with adopted children from China. Journal of Family Communication, 8, 126–147. Suter, E. A., & Ballard, R. L. (2009). “How much did you pay for her?”: Decision-making criteria underlying adoptive parents’ responses for inappropriate remarks. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 107–125. Suter, E. A., Reyes, K., & Ballard, R. L. (2011). Adoptive parents’ framing of laypersons’ conceptions of family. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 12, 43–50. Thompson, B., Koenig Kellas, J., Soliz, J., Thompson, J., Epp, A., & Schrodt, P. (2009). Family legacies: Constructing individual and family identity through intergenerational storytelling. Narrative Inquiry, 19, 106–134.

278

Braithwaite, Foster & Bergen

Tovarez, A. V. (2010). All in the family: Small stories and narrative construction of a shared family identity that includes pets. Narrative Inquiry, 20, 1–19. Trees, A. R., & Koenig Kellas, J. (2009). Telling tales: Enacting family relationships in joint storytelling about difficult family experiences. Western Journal of Communication, 73, 91–113. van Nijnatten, C., & Noordegraaf, M. (2016). Constructing familyness: Pedagogical conversations between professional parents and adolescents. Children and Youth Services Review, 61, 296–302.

25 Social Exchange Theory A Cost-Benefit Approach to Relationships Laura Stafford

Our relationships with family can provide many rewards. These relationships also come with costs. According to social exchange theories, the interpersonal interactions and relationships we engage in depend upon our estimates of the costs and rewards they will bring. Social exchange theory is not actually one theory. Rather, it is a framework for a set of related theories. A social exchange framework “refers to any conceptual model or theoretical approach that focuses on the exchange of resources (material or symbolic) between or among people” (Sprecher, 1998, p. 32). The beginnings of social exchange theories can be traced to psychologists Thibaut and Kelley (1959) and sociologists Blau (1964) and Homans (1961). Those psychologists and sociologists adopted the concepts of rewards, costs, and resources from behavioral psychology and economics. Social exchange theories expand the concepts of economics to “the notion of exchange to include all interpersonal experiences” (Foa & Foa, 2012, p. 15).

Intellectual Tradition of Social Exchange Theory Social exchange theories comprise falsifiable propositions: propositions can be found false. Thus, this group of theories is considered to be post-positivist. The overarching proposition is that people are rational beings who act in accordance with their own self-interests. People conduct a cost-benefit analysis on some level about interpersonal interactions and relationships and then, according to exchange theories, act in ways we believe will be profitable, similar to economic exchange.

Main Goals and Features of Social Exchange Theory As social exchange theories are based in social scientific principles, their main goal is to predict and explain behavior. By understanding the factors (the rewards and costs) that people consider in making decisions, we can predict and explain their behavior. These predictions and explanations are based in several key premises and concepts. The fundamental premise of social exchange theory is that people act in their own self-interests and they make rational, calculated choices about social

280

Stafford

interactions. Social exchange or social interactions consist of a series of transactions. A transaction or social exchange is simply a voluntary transfer of something in return for something else (Roloff, 1981). An exchange is giving up some resources to gain others. A resource is “anything that can be transmitted from one person to another” (Foa & Foa, 2012, p. 16). A key concept in social exchange is reciprocity. Reciprocity is a social norm that we give and get in kind. When we receive rewards from others, we feel a sense of obligation—although not a legally enforceable one—to return the favor. Strong feelings and expectations for reciprocity exist among family members and romantic partners, and thus some costs may not feel voluntary. Interdependence is also an important feature of social exchange theories. Interdependence refers to the extent to which one person’s rewards or outcomes depend on another person’s outcomes. For example, in a marriage or other longterm romantic relationship, each person’s satisfaction depends, in part, on the other person’s efforts. If both parents in a family want to pursue a college degree, each person’s success is, in part, contingent upon his or her academic efforts (independence). However, the success is also dependent upon the resources provided by the partner, such as financial support and childcare. It is possible that the family can afford for only one parent to attend college at a time and neither can afford to go to college without the other putting in long hours and picking up increased childcare responsibilities. How much interdependence there might be in a situation is contingent on available alternative options. If grandparents are willing and able to contribute to the cost of tuition or offer significant child care help, then perhaps both parents could attend college with less dependence on the other. Of course, they then have greater dependence on their parents. Despite the shared assumption between social and economic exchange that people exchange resources to gain rewards, social exchange is in many ways different from economic exchange. Economic exchange usually involves legal obligations with the specification of exact quantities and set time frames for the receipt of goods or services and for the payment of those goods or services. Payment is not voluntary. Costs, and the rules surrounding costs, are similar from person to person. For example, when driving a rental car off the lot of a car rental agency, there are explicit terms about the cost of using the car, how long you have the car, how many miles you can drive, whether or not you are responsible for gas and any damages that might occur, and a myriad of pages of fine-print contractual obligations and signatures. You expect to pay the same fees as anyone else using the car for the same terms. In other words, rules surrounding economic exchange are typically the same for different people. In social exchange, trust and goodwill take the place of legal obligations. If a teenager goes out for the evening without asking parents’ permission for the use of the car, the teenager is not (typically) subject to arrest. Although the parents and teenager may outline the parental rules and expectations regarding the use of the family car, it is unlikely that the family has binding legal contracts. Payment for the use of the car is voluntary, rather than legally required.

Social Exchange Theory 281 Nonetheless, social obligations might dictate that the cost of using one’s parent’s car include helping out around the house. Of course, social and economic exchange can be similar. A restaurant manager might decide to offer you a free dessert or forgive the cost of an overcooked burger, with no legal obligation to do so. Engaged couples could, and sometimes do, enter their marriages with detailed, legally binding prenuptial agreements. Children often expect exchanges to be identical for themselves and their siblings. The refrain of “that’s not fair” is a common one among siblings. One sibling “shouldn’t” be allowed to use the car more often than another.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Social Exchange Theory Communication is the means through which an exchange is negotiated and conducted. Much more interesting, however, is the idea that the communication itself can serve as the resource that is exchanged either directly or symbolically. Although exchange is usually talked about as a transfer of a resource from one individual to another, when communication is the resource, one could transmit it without transferring it. I could share the same piece of information with several people. After I have given away this information, I still have the information. When I give someone a compliment, I can still give the same compliment to another. Communicative resources often have little cost to the giver, but may be greatly rewarding to the recipient. Moreover, given the norm of reciprocity, wherein people typically feel compelled to give and receive in kind, when I disclose to you, although I am rewarding you with information, I am also making an investment. I expect to be rewarded by your disclosures in turn. Potentially, this costs neither of us and rewards both of us through the increased trust and solidarity resultant from the disclosure. This is not to say that communication cannot be costly. From a social exchange perspective, we project the potential rewards and costs before deciding to engage in communication. We might be risking rejection if we express love. Giving away information might cost power as the original owner is no longer the sole proprietor of that information. Acknowledging we were in the wrong sometimes comes at a cost of swallowing our pride. People often remain silent out of a fear for what a disclosure might cost them or others. Recall that when individuals are interdependent, as people in families are, they consider not only their own costs or rewards, but also the costs and rewards for others. A common reason people do not disclose certain information is in order to protect someone else from shame, pain, or embarrassment. Communication might also serve as a symbolic reward. Disclosing a secret may be symbolic of the trust I have in you. The content of a particular exchange in and of itself might have little value; however, that a wife and husband engage in small talk or simply touch base every evening when they are apart symbolizes and reinforces the relationship.

282

Stafford

Research and Practical Applications of Social Exchange Theory One social exchange theory, interdependence theory, developed by Thibaut and Kelley (1959; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978), has guided a great deal of research. Interdependence theory centers on expectations, comparisons, and alternatives. Individuals make two types of comparisons in evaluating a relationship. The comparison level (CL) is the amount of rewards one thinks one should receive. The comparison level of alternatives (CLalt) is what one thinks one could actually receive from potential alternatives. The CLalt is “the lowest level of relational rewards a person is willing to accept given available rewards from alternative relationships or being alone” (Roloff, 1981, p. 48). The CLalt is considered a better predictor of relationship stability than of relationship satisfaction. Individuals may remain in unsatisfactory relationships that do not meet their expectations when they believe that relationship is still better than the alternatives. Interdependence theory and comparison level of alternatives have been used to try to understand why women remain in abusive relationships. It has been proposed that women believe that the abusive relationship is preferable to viable alternatives, including being alone (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). The greater the woman’s dependence on the relationship to meet her needs, the less likely she will leave the relationship. Women with more resources, such as higher income and higher education, are less dependent on their partners, perceive more alternatives, and appear to be more likely to divorce an abusive spouse than women without these resources (Kreager, Felson, Warner, & Wenger, 2013). One’s predictions of rewards and costs of alternatives are not necessarily accurate. Several factors might come into play, such as self-esteem, personality traits, and our own investments. Low self-esteem might influence people to believe they could not have a better relationship (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). The personality trait of narcissism has been found to be related to a lack of commitment to one’s relationship and to the belief one has better alternatives to their current romantic relations (Campbell & Foster, 2002). The more one has invested in a relationship and the more committed one is to a relationship, the less likely one is to see alternatives as favorable and perceive one’s own relationship as superior (Rusbult & Agnew, 2010). Similarly, for women, the assets and economic benefits from marriage may play a role in their likelihood of divorce via a comparison of their current marital standard of living and their perceived post-divorce standard of living (Dew, 2009). Social exchange theory has also been invoked to explain why sexually abused children often remain silent. Leonard (2016) proposed that, from a child’s point of view, the anticipated costs of telling others about the abuse often seem greater than the likelihood of stopping the abuse. Abusers tell children they will be blamed, they will not be believed, and they will not be loved. Abusers make additional threats such as killing a pet or another member of the family. The

Social Exchange Theory 283 abuse is sometimes believed by the child as less costly than the consequences of telling, at least as outlined by the abuser who is the child’s only reference. Just as our perceptions of rewards and costs come into play in deciding to end a relationship, the projected costs might also stop us from entering a relationship. Before entering into any marriage or long-term commitment, social exchange theory predicts that we would assess the future rewards and costs. Although interethnic marriage is widely accepted and not problematic for most, Clark, Harris, Hasan, Votaw, and Fernandez (2015) proposed that, for some, entering into an interethnic marriage, compared to an intraethnic marriage, may be perceived as being too costly due to a lack of support or acceptance from family and friends. Another social exchange theory that has been applied to family relationships is equity theory. Although self-interests are said to be the driving factor in many social exchanges, equity theory does not contend that we always seek to maximize our rewards. Instead, equity theory proposes that we desire fairness in how costs and rewards are allocated. We believe we should be rewarded in accordance to our costs and in the same manner others are rewarded. In other words, we desire our interactions and relationships to be equitable. In deciding whether or not a relationship is equitable or fair, we consider “distributive justice.” We act and think in a manner to distribute rewards appropriate to our efforts or costs (Adams, 1965). We do not like inequity. When we perceive that our relative contributions are unequal, then a relationship is considered inequitable and the result is emotional distress (Sprecher, 2001). Lively, Steelman, and Powell (2010) considered equity and mental health in marriage and found that overbenefited spouses felt more guilt and sadness than underbenefited ones, whereas underbenefited spouses experienced more fear, anger, and suspicion than overbenefited ones. Similarly, individuals who believe they are in equitable marriages are more likely to be more satisfied with those marriages than individuals who feel their relative contributions to their marriages are greater than their spouses’ (Guerrero, La Valley, & Farinelli, 2008). Exploring equity theory in parent-adolescent pairs, Vogl-Bauer, Kalbfleisch, and Beatty (1999) found that perceptions of equity were related to parents’ satisfaction with their relationship with their teenage children. However, adolescents were not dissatisfied with being overbenefited. They were the most satisfied with higher benefits. Given the distress that inequity causes, when people believe situations are inequitable, they act in ways to restore equity and alleviate the distress of inequity. Ways to restore equity include changing our behaviors or our perceptions. Women more frequently report that they are underbenefited in marriages than men (Canary & Stafford, 2001). In summarizing inequityrestoring strategies, Stafford and Canary (2006) noted that when women are underbenefited in marriage they sometimes put less into that relationship by decreasing their own costs or they might ask their partner to incur more costs (to do more around the house, for example). Women sometimes compare themselves to others in similar situations. Although a woman might feel her

284

Stafford

marriage is inequitable, she might perceive her friends’ marriages to be even more inequitable, thus downplaying her own inequity. Some research found that underbenefited wives were more likely to have an extra-marital affair than wives in inequitable marriages as a means to restore equity (Prins, Buunk, & VanYperen, 1993). Restoring equity does not always occur through increasing the rewards of one person at the expense of the other. One approach to marital therapy, for example, is to increase the rewards for both people in order to restore equity to the relationship (Nakonezny & Denton, 2008). Distress due to inequity is not confined to romantic relationships. Siblings can experience inequity in caregiving for elderly parents. When caregiving falls disproportionally to one child, the primary caregiver often experiences feelings of distress. Siblings sometimes try to restore equity by asking for help or by downplaying another’s lesser contributions by excusing them for factors such as greater distance or greater demands in other arenas (Ingersoll-Dayton Neil, Ha, & Hammer, 2003).

Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory The first and foremost critique of a social exchange framework is that we simply are not rational logical calculating beings. We do not count the rewards and costs of our marriage over coffee every morning in deciding whether or not to file for divorce that day. Respondents to this critique argue that although we might not balance the relational checkbook daily, on some level we nonetheless keep track, and long-term inequities will eventually result in distress. Some premises of social exchange theory may be better suited for providing post hoc explanations than predictions. These post hoc explanations are often based on tautological or circular reasoning. For example, how do we know it is more rewarding to have children than not to have children? The answer is: it must be, otherwise people would not have children. If our basic belief is that people behave in ways that are rewarding, we can explain someone’s behavior by assuming it must have been rewarding. Despite these criticisms, social exchange theories also have a number of strengths. When evaluating theories, simpler (more parsimonious) explanations are preferred to more complicated ones. Social exchange theories are parsimonious, in that their major premise is relatively simple: the idea that people are motivated by self-interest is a simple explanation for human behavior. For example, the proposal that people marry because they anticipate that being married is more rewarding than being single is relatively uncomplicated and straightforward. Although social exchange frameworks provide explanations for the motivations of human behavior and have an intuitive logic, they are also somewhat unappealing. Most of us don’t like to think of ourselves as being driven by our own self-interests. Theories are also evaluated in terms of their heuristic value. Do they spawn additional research? Many topics relevant to families have been examined with social exchange theories. These include disclosure (Altman & Taylor, 1973;

Social Exchange Theory 285 Sprecher & Treger, 2015), relationship initiation and development (Cate, Lloyd, & Long, 1988), sexual activity (Sprecher, 1998), conflict (Molm, Collett, & Schafer, 2006), the maintenance of romantic, friend, and family relationships (Dainton, 2000; Canary & Stafford, 1992), fairness in the distribution of childcare (Chong & Mickelson, 2016), and the division of household labor in heterosexual (Stafford & Canary, 2006) and same-sex couples (Sutphin, 2010). However, comparatively little research on the family beyond the romantic dyad has been conducted from social exchange frameworks.

Continuing the Conversation As noted at the outset, social exchange theories are post-positivistic theories and therefore propositions should be able to be tested. Many premises of social exchange theory are testable and multiple investigations have given support to some of the major premises. Le and Agnew (2003) conducted a meta-analysis and found support for the proposition that the availability of alternatives predicts whether or not someone stays in a relationship. Equity has been found to be related to marital satisfaction in several investigations. Similarly, the proposal that inequity causes emotional distress has received empirical support. Despite having generated much research and finding support for some premises, research on family relationships beyond the romantic dyad is sparse. How social exchange theories might operate in involuntary relationships, like families, is not well understood. Can social exchange theories really apply to family relationships? Could expectations for, or the importance of, equity vary in different types of family relationships? Does equity theory apply to true love, which is often argued to be based in self-sacrifice? Are all family interactions exchange based? Is keeping track of investments even healthy for a relationship? Each of these questions is explored in turn. Do social exchange theories apply to family relationships? Some argue they do not: Exchange theories were largely developed with voluntary relationships in mind, not non-voluntary family relationships. Young children cannot weigh the rewards and costs of their relationships with their parents. They seldom can decide, or at least act on, the idea that an alternative parent, or not having a parent, might provide more rewards than one’s current parent. That said, children do run away from home and teenagers can seek emancipation from parents. Could such actions be explained by social exchange theory? Young siblings cannot weigh the costs and rewards of having a sibling, although, in theory, adult siblings could weigh the costs and rewards of maintaining a close relationship or interacting with each other. Could the expectations for, or the importance of, equity vary in different types of family relationships? Perhaps siblings expect to be treated equitably by their parents. Indeed, perceived differential treatment of children by parents has been found to be related to negative feelings and relationship. In alignment with equity theory, Boll and colleagues (2005) found that adult siblings’ beliefs

286

Stafford

of justice (or fairness) played more of a role in the quality of the parent-child relationship than simply perceptions of differential treatment. Do we really expect equity in parent-child relationships? Exploring equity theory in parent-adolescent pairs, Vogl-Baur et al. (1999) found that adolescents who perceived their relationships with their parent as equitable were more satisfied than those who perceived they were underbenefited. However, disputing equity theory, they also found that the teenagers were most satisfied when they believed themselves to be overbenefited. These authors raised the possibility that children expect to be overbenefited in their relationships with their parents. If we act in our own self-interest, the decision to have children seems, on the surface, patently absurd. It does not take too much calculation to know that children require a great deal of time, energy, and money. Perhaps our balance sheets are long-term and flexible in family relationships with intergenerational reciprocity (Nye, 1979). Family members seem to “take the long-term and flexible view of exchanges with respect to close and/or loved elders” (Wan & Antonucci, 2016, p. 2). Adult children and grandchildren, it has been proposed, are reciprocating for rewards received decades earlier from parents or grandparents. Do we weigh the costs of children in the near future against possible companionship and support we hope will come years in the future? Or, is equity less important in parent-child or grandparent-grandchild relationships than, say, marital relationships? Are all family interactions exchange based? Some scholars reject the notion that all interactions are social exchanges, especially in family or close relationships. Social interaction is the broader construct and only some interactions are exchange oriented. Some interactions are based in social structure or social norms, not social exchange (Zafirovski, 2005). Social structure dictates that we care for our aging parents rather than us doing so to reciprocate earlier investments or restore equity. Does equity theory apply to true love or altruism? It has been argued that relationships based in love are the exact opposite of self-serving interests; they inspire self-sacrifice (Fromm, 1956). In many long-term, love-based relationships, individuals are often more concerned with their partner’s well-being than with their own (Mills & Clark, 2001). Possibly, the emotional satisfaction experienced in caring for others serves as the reward itself (Le, Impett, Kogan, & Cheng, 2013), thus comporting to social exchange. Or, perhaps, true love needs no reward. Is it healthy for people to keep track of rewards and costs? Is it good for a marriage, or any relationship for that matter, for people to keep score? Although equity appears to be related to satisfaction, dissatisfaction appears to be related to scorekeeping (Gottman & Silver, 2015). Marital unhappiness may prompt individuals to start tallying rewards and costs and scrutinizing their relationships. This leads them to see inequities they had not previously noticed (Grote & Clark, 2001). Moving away from keeping score and focusing more on meeting the needs of one’s spouse is often advocated in marital therapy. How can we

Social Exchange Theory 287 determine if inequity leads to dissatisfaction or if dissatisfaction leads to (mis)perceptions of inequity? Although some notable research on social exchange theories continues, overall the study of social exchange theories in intimate relationships has tapered off. Despite the lack of research and the many unanswered questions about how social exchange premises could apply to voluntary family relationships, some believe social exchange theory has passed its prime for the study of intimate relationships. Theories do, to some extent, come in and out of vogue. Will the next generation of scholars revitalize the study of social exchange theories in family relationships?

References Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 2 (pp. 267–299). New York, NY: Academic Press. Altman, I., & Taylor, D. (1973). Social penetration: The development of interpersonal relationships. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: John Wiley. Boll, T., Ferring, D., & Filipp, S. H. (2005). Effects of parental differential treatment on relationship quality with siblings and parents: Justice evaluations as mediators. Social Justice Research, 18, 155–182. Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243–267. Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (2001). Equity in the preservation of personal relationships. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Preservation and enhancement (pp. 133–151). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cate, R. M., Lloyd, S. A., & Long, E. (1988). The role of rewards and fairness in developing premarital relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 443–452. Campbell, W. K., & Foster, C. A. (2002). Narcissism and commitment in romantic relationships: An investment model analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 484–495. Chong, A., & Mickelson, K. D. (2016). Perceived fairness and relationship satisfaction during the transition to parenthood: The mediating role of spousal support. Journal of Family Issues, 37, 3–28. Clark, E. M., Harris, A. L., Hasan, M., Votaw, K. B., & Fernandez, P. (2015). Concluding thoughts: Interethnic marriage through the lens of interdependence theory. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 821–833. Dainton, M. (2000). Maintenance behaviors, expectations for maintenance, and satisfaction: Linking comparison levels to relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(6), 827–842. Dew, J. (2009). The gendered meanings of assets for divorce. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 30(1), 20–31. Foa, E. B., & Foa, U. G. (2012). Resource theory of social exchange. In K. Törnblom & A. Kazemi (Eds.), Handbook of social resource theory: Theoretical extensions, empirical insights and social applications (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Springer. Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

288

Stafford

Gottman, J., & Silver, N. (2015). The seven principles for making marriage work: A practical guide from the country’s foremost relationship expert. New York, NY: Random House. Grote, N. K., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in the family: Cause or consequence of marital distress? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 281–293. Guerrero, L. K., La Valley, A. G., & Farinelli, L. (2008). The experience and expression of anger, guilt, and sadness in marriage: An equity theory explanation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 25(5), 699–724. Homans, G. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ingersoll-Dayton, B., Neal, M. B., Ha, J. H., & Hammer, L. B. (2003). Redressing inequity in parent care among siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(1), 201–212. Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence. New York, NY: Wiley. Kreager, D. A., Felson, R. B., Warner, C., & Wenger, M. R. (2013). Women’s education, marital violence, and divorce: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 565–581. Le, B. M., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10, 1350–4126. Le, B. M., Impett, E. A., Kogan, A., Webster, G. D., & Cheng, C. (2013). The personal and interpersonal rewards of communal orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30, 694–710. Leonard, E. D. (1996). A social exchange explanation for the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 107–117. Lively, K. J., Steelman, L. C., & Powell, B. (2010). Equity, emotion, and household division of labor. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73, 358–379. Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Viewing close romantic relationships as communal relationships: Implications for maintenance and enhancement. In J. Harvey & A. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 13–25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Molm, L., Collett, J., & Schaefer, D. (2006). Conflict and fairness in social exchange. Social Forces, 84, 2331–2352. Nakonezny, P. A., & Denton, W. H. (2008). Marital relationships: A social exchange theory perspective. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(5), 402–412. Nye, F. I. (1979). Choice, exchange, and the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: General theories/theoretical orientations (Vol. 2, pp. 1–41). New York, NY: Free Press. Prins, K. S., Buunk, B. P., & VanYperen, N. W. (1993). Equity, normative disapproval and extramarital relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10(1), 39–53. Roloff, M. E. (1981). Interpersonal communication: The social exchange approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rusbult, C. E., & Agnew, C. R. (2010). Prosocial motivation and behavior in close relationships. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 327–345). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995). Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 558–571.

Social Exchange Theory 289 Sprecher, S. (1998). Social exchange theories and sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 32–43. Sprecher, S. (2001). Comparison of emotional consequences of and changes in equity over time using global and domain-specific measures of equity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18, 477–501. Sprecher, S., & Treger, S. (2015). The benefits of turn-taking reciprocal self-disclosure in get-acquainted interactions. Personal Relationships, 22, 460–475. Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (2006). Equity and interdependence as predictors of relational maintenance strategies. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 227–254. Sutphin, S. T. (2010). Social exchange theory and the division of household labor in same-sex couples. Marriage & Family Review, 46(3), 191–206. Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York, NY: Wiley. Vogl-Bauer, S., Kalbfleisch, P. J., & Beatty, M. J. (1999). Perceived equity, satisfaction, and relational maintenance strategies in parent-adolescent dyads. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 28, 27–49. Wan, W. H., & Antonucci, T. C. (2016). Social exchange theory and aging. In N. A. Pachana (Ed.), Encyclopedia of geropsychology (pp. 1–9). New York, NY: Springer. Zafirovski, M. (2005). Social exchange theory under scrutiny: A positive critique of its economic-behaviorist formulations. Electronic Journal of Sociology, 2, 1–40.

26 Social Learning Theory An Emphasis on Modeling in Parent-Child Relationships Alesia Woszidlo and Adrianne Kunkel

Social learning theory (SLT) explains the process by which individuals learn behaviors through observation of their external environments and provides a useful framework for the study of communication within the family. In this chapter, we present the intellectual tradition of SLT, including its history and meta-theoretical underpinnings. In addition, we identify the main goals and features of SLT, along with how communication, particularly within families, is conceptualized in SLT. Further, we offer some contemporary research that utilizes SLT, as well as some practical applications. We also provide a critique and evaluation of SLT, acknowledging both its strengths and limitations. Finally, we continue the conversation by providing promising future applications of SLT for scholars.

Intellectual Tradition of Social Learning Theory SLT is a post-positivist theory that is not generally attributed to one academic discipline or any single theorist. Early manifestations of SLT appeared within the field of psychology and drew from predictions grounded in the intellectual tradition of behaviorism (e.g., Skinner, 1938). Behaviorism positions behavior as “cued by the stimuli that precede it and shaped and controlled by the reinforcing stimuli that follow it” (Bandura, 1986, p. 12). SLT also borrows from operant conditioning in that it privileges reward/positive reinforcement and punishment/negative reinforcement as consequences that inspire the respective adoption or rejection of modeled (i.e., learned) behaviors (Miller & Dollard, 1941). SLT formulations, such as social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2001), have gone beyond strict behaviorist, stimulus-response explanations of behavior acquisition to consider motivational, personality, and cognitive processes involved in learning from environments. Of special relevance to the discipline of communication studies, these later formulations recognize the “role of other people as the agents of reinforcement” (Howard & Hollander, 1997, p. 45). Although many scholars have contributed to SLT’s development, we feature here the contributions of Julian Rotter (1954, 1966) and Albert Bandura (1977, 1986,

Social Learning Theory 291 2001), whose works are particularly valuable for the study of communication within the family. Rotter, a clinical psychologist, demonstrated in 1954 that an individual’s anticipation of a behavior’s leading to particular reinforcements strongly influences the likelihood of that behavior’s performance. Rotter (1966) also purported that individuals tend to think of outcomes as either under their personal control or under the control of outside forces, such as other people or luck. Those individual differences may explain variance in responses to similar environmental factors. Besides Rotter, Bandura is the scholar most closely associated with SLT. His emphasis on cognition’s role in the acquisition of observed behaviors led to Bandura’s (1986, 2001) reformulation of SLT as social cognitive theory. Bandura argued that whereas social learning theory implies a conditioning model of response acquisition, social cognitive theory posits individual learners as agentic in the “learning” process. Further, he proposed that reciprocal determinism was at play, meaning that a person’s cognition, environment, and behavior all influence one another during the learning process.

Main Goals and Features of Social Learning Theory SLT posits that behavior is learned or cognitively processed before it is performed, and it is through observation that such learning takes place (Bandura, 1977). Bandura’s famed contributions undergird the main goals and features of SLT: stages of observational learning, differential reinforcement, and the development of the psychological construct of self-efficacy. Stages of Observational Learning Bandura (1977, 1986) theorized that observational learning was guided by four interrelated stages. In the first stage, an individual attends to others’ modeled behavior, either directly, via a live model, or indirectly, via a mediated source such as television. During the second stage, knowledge of the behavior(s) is acquired and retained. If a person has no memory of the modeled patterns of behavior, he or she will not be able to reproduce the behavior, which is the third stage, behavioral reproduction. This stage occurs with the display of ability to reproduce the modeled behavior. It requires the individual to possess the skills required to engage in the modeled behavior, and if he or she is unable to execute the behavior, he or she is not able to progress to the final stage. During the fourth and final stage, the individual chooses whether to enact the behavior, which is largely determined by reinforcement and motivation processes. An individual might successfully attend, retain, and possess the necessary skills, but if he or she is not motivated, he or she will not engage in the modeled behavior. Thus, when positive incentives are involved, the individual will engage in the behavior. Incentives may be direct (when the behavior results in inherent positive outcomes), vicarious (when the rewards experienced by others who are

292

Woszidlo & Kunkel

deemed similar to themselves are desired), and/or self-produced (when the perceived rewards meet personal standards of conduct). Bandura and his colleagues tested these stages in the classic “Bobo doll” studies (e.g., Bandura, 1965; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). This paradigm featured a design of children watching film of an adult acting aggressively toward a large, inflated clown doll named “Bobo.” In the film, the adult’s aggressive behaviors were either rewarded, punished, or had no consequences. The children were subsequently left alone with the Bobo doll and their behaviors monitored. Consistent with the fourth stage of social learning, the children who saw the adult being punished engaged in significantly fewer aggressive behaviors toward the doll than did those in the other two groups. However, all children were then offered a reward if they could demonstrate some of the behaviors from the film. This eliminated any differences between the three groups in the production of the behaviors, supporting the conclusion that all children had proceeded through Bandura’s initial hypothesized attention, retention, production, and motivation stages. The Role of Differential Reinforcement Differential reinforcement is what drives observational learning (Bandura, 1977). When actions are reinforced, behavioral persistence sets in. Additionally, when divergent behaviors go unrewarded or are punished, an individual is not encouraged to continue the modeled behavior. Bandura (1986) notes, however, that this can only really explain behavior that is enacted in contexts where the observational learning occurred. The Role of Self-Efficacy Bandura (1986) also claimed that a factor influencing whether an individual chooses to imitate behaviors of others is his or her self-efficacy; that is, confidence in his or her own ability to perform those behaviors. Whereas locus of control (Rotter, 1966) refers to the belief that one’s own actions can (internal locus of control) or cannot (external locus of control) determine outcomes, self-efficacy centers on the belief of whether one can produce the behaviors necessary to achieve desired outcomes. According to Bandura (1986), “competent functioning requires both skills and self-beliefs of efficacy to use them effectively” (p. 391).

How Communication is Conceptualized in Social Learning Theory According to Vangelisti (2013), “family communication is the mechanism for most early socialization experiences” (p. 1). Accordingly, she notes that learning how to communicate comes from observation and interaction with family members. Guided by this thinking, then, communication is a guiding principle to successful socialization and, thus, an integral component to social learning. As such, communication is present in all stages of observational learning, especially

Social Learning Theory 293 the first (i.e., attending to others’ modeled behavior) and last (i.e., choosing whether to enact the behavior) stages. As social learning can only occur if an individual attends to the modeled behavior and its associated consequences, communication is crucial, primarily on the model’s part, in modeling and communicating the behavior. The receiver must then be able to take this information and properly retain or store it (i.e., remember the details surrounding the context, behavioral process, associated consequences). Additionally, if a person successfully attends to the behavior, remembers the behavioral pattern and its outcomes, and is capable of enacting the modeled behavior, he or she must also be motivated to perform the behavior. The motivation may derive from how the rewards of the modeled behavior are communicated to them. For instance, vicarious incentives are successful when the individual can relate to the model who engages in the behavior and gets rewarded for doing so. Therefore, how the rewards are communicated makes a difference.

Research and Practical Applications of Social Learning Theory Although social learning processes may occur within any and all family relationships (e.g., spouses, siblings, grandparent-grandchild), they are especially evident in parent-child relationships. The following sections focus on practical applications of SLT with regard to the parent-child relationship and communication skills, psychosocial problems, and interpersonal violence. Communication Skills The family environment is rich with opportunities for children to acquire communication skills and competencies. Not only does communication play a primary role in the success of observational learning, it is the behavior that many family scholars examine as the outcome (e.g., young adults engaging in conflict resolution strategies that were learned in the family of origin) or mediating variable that can explain the similarities between parent and child individual characteristics, behaviors, and attitudes (e.g., family communication climate as the reason for shared traits among parents and children). Examining communication as an explanatory variable has allowed scholars to discern specific patterns of communication functions in the family of origin. For example, researchers have documented that certain communication climates (i.e., conversation and conformity orientations; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002) created by parents can enhance the likelihood that their children will develop individual traits and attitudes, or employ skills and competencies (e.g., communication competence and conflict management skills) similar to their own. According to Schrodt et al. (2009), parents who create environments where open communication is welcomed and participation is encouraged (i.e., high in conversation orientation) are more likely to have children who perceive themselves to be competent communicators. In other words, when

294

Woszidlo & Kunkel

families are high in conversation orientation, parents display behaviors such as sharing ideas, expressing concerns, and participating in decision making, all of which are associated with competent communication. Conflict is one of the most studied topics in family communication research (Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). All families experience conflict, and children are consequently exposed to the process of conflict management within their family environment. As such, the communication climate can play a role in children’s acquisition of conflict management styles. Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002) concluded that young adults generally approach conflict in their romantic relationships similarly to the way their families of origin did. Specifically, people who were raised in family environments where obedience and uniformity of beliefs were emphasized (i.e., high in conformity orientation) are more likely to express negativity and verbal aggressiveness in their romantic relationships. As Koerner and Fitzpatrick suggest, these behaviors might function as a way to bring about “order” in the relationship, similarly to how things worked in their family of origin. Conversely, people who were raised in families low in conformity are less negative and demonstrate more supportive behaviors in their romantic relationships. It appears that growing up in a family of origin in which homogeneity of attitudes was not stressed allows children to learn to regard conflict as an opportunity to productively address differences—learning firsthand from their parent’s conflict management styles. Social support, or “the type of communicative behavior having the intended function of alleviating, moderating, or salving the distressed emotional states of others” (Burleson, 1984, p. 64), has also been explored widely from the perspective of SLT. Franco and Levitt (1998) determined that children anticipate supportive behavior from outside of the family unit based on the magnitude and quality of support they receive within it. Burleson and Kunkel (1996, 2002) observed that support and comforting skill are culled from family interactions and observations. The critical skill of presenting effective support in the form of “person-centered” messages that reflect “awareness of and adaptation to the subjective, affective, and relational aspects of communicative contexts” (Burleson, 1987, p. 305) is transmitted “from one generation to the next” (Burleson, Delia, & Applegate, 1995, p. 69). More specifically, Burleson et al. (1995) suggest that parental performance is a chief determinant of children’s acquisition of person-centered communicative support styles. Psychosocial Problems The term “psychosocial” refers to the social conditions, aspects, or behaviors related to mental health problems. Whereas psychosocial problems such as loneliness, depression, and anxiety have been found to have genetic antecedents (see Boomsma, Cacioppo, Muthén, Asparouhov, & Clark, 2007; Norrholm & Ressler, 2010; Sullivan, Neale, & Kendler, 2000), they can also be traced to the family of origin environment. Furthermore, loneliness, depression, and anxiety are positively associated with one another, primarily because they share

Social Learning Theory 295 symptomatologies (Segrin, 2001). One explanation for the association between the family of origin and the presence of psychosocial problems among family members is found in family communication and the family of origin environment. The ways in which family members communicate with one another and the social skills that they possess (or lack) have been found to explain why parents and their adult children share similar psychosocial problems (Burke, Woszidlo, & Segrin, 2012, 2013; Schrodt & Ledbetter, 2007; Schrodt, Ledbetter, & Ohrt, 2007). The presence of psychosocial problems undeniably affects family communication patterns, and vice versa. Consistent with extant research, Burke et al. (2013) found that social skills were associated with loneliness and anxiety among family members and extended this research by identifying these associations among family triads (i.e., mothers, fathers, and children from the same family). These findings suggest that parents who suffer from psychosocial problems themselves may be structuring family environments in which ineffective social skills are used and unhealthy modeling is occurring, thus corrupting children’s social skill development while simultaneously making children more vulnerable to developing mental health problems. Another example of how psychosocial problems and poor social skills can contaminate the family environment and result in a dysfunctional learning environment is found in the research on shyness in the family (Arroyo, Nevárez, Segrin, & Harwood, 2012). Arroyo et al. found an indirect effect of parental shyness on perceived family communication (i.e., conversation orientation and family satisfaction) through the lower adult child’s social skills. In other words, their research suggests that shy parents might endorse less satisfying, open, and frequent communication as a consequence of raising children who are shy themselves and feel reticent during interpersonal interactions. Interpersonal Violence One of the most widely studied applications of SLT has been with regard to family violence and aggression. SLT provides an understanding of how exposure to violence during childhood can result in violence during adulthood. Gelles (1994) claimed that those who are abused, and those who observe such abuse, may socially learn to abuse others. A recent meta-analysis conducted by Smith-Marek and colleagues (2015) examined the association between family of origin violence and becoming an adult victim or perpetrator of such violence. An analysis of 124 studies yielded small but significant effect sizes for the relationships between witnessing interparental violence and perpetration of violence (r =0.25) and victimization (r = 0.21) as an adult. Consistent with past literature (e.g., Stith et al., 2000), there was a stronger effect for later perpetration for men and a stronger effect for later victimization for women (Smith-Marek et al., 2015). Research shows that the family of origin is also an arena for learning about verbal aggression in romantic relationships. A family history of conflict that

296

Woszidlo & Kunkel

includes insulting, swearing, and ridiculing is positively associated with perceived acceptability of verbal aggression in young adult romantic relationships (Aloia & Solomon, 2013). According to SLT, continued exposure to verbal aggression in the family of origin can teach children the behavioral pattern and consequences of aggressive behavior, setting the stage for similar behaviors and contexts in their adult romantic relationships. Furthermore, the effects of a violent family environment are exacerbated by the presence of warm and loving marital interactions (Simons, Simons, Lei, Hancock, & Fincham, 2012). Children who are exposed to interparental verbal and physical aggression are not only likely to grow up perpetrating and/or tolerating violence in their romantic relationships; they are more likely to perceive this as normal and acceptable if the violent behavior is accompanied by warmth and supportive behaviors (Simons et al., 2012). Simons et al. (2012) note that a major implication of these findings is that for the cycle of violence to be broken, parents should avoid violent family interactions altogether, and not just try to counter the adverse effects by displaying messages of warmth.

Evaluation of Social Learning Theory The practical utility of SLT for explaining family communication phenomena makes it a premier theoretical framework for many family science scholars. After all, the family of origin is a prime learning laboratory for children because they live among models (e.g., their parents) whom they can relate to and they are consistently exposed to communication processes that are inherently positively reinforced through endorsement by family members. Families are systems and their members are interdependent. SLT allows for closer examination of behavioral (e.g., social skills, engaging in verbal and physical violence) and attitudinal similarities (e.g., perceptions of competence) among family members and of whether these behaviors and/or attitudes have been modeled, learned, and imitated. Additionally, SLT inspires family communication scholars to examine the communication processes (i.e., the amount of openness, conformity, conflict management) that allow social learning to occur. Through investigation of indirect effects and mediation, scholars can better identify the relationships undergirding functional and dysfunctional aspects of family communication that are associated with social learning. A notable shortcoming lies not so much with SLT itself but rather in the way it may be incompletely conceptualized in family communication research. As noted above, communication competencies, conflict management, and tendencies for psychosocial problems and violence and aggression have been shown to be learned within family units. The extent to which these examples of modeling depend on incentivizing and rewards, or even occur despite their absence or the presence of punishments, begs examination. For instance, it is fair to question whether violence between parents witnessed in childhood resulted in positive or negative consequences for the perpetrator. Did he or she lose freedoms through the legal system, or custody of, or contact with, family? Did he or she maintain

Social Learning Theory 297 the upper hand in the family dynamic and enjoy the privileges of power expressed over victims? To ignore the observation and weighing of consequences in decisions about enacting modeled behavior is to fail to fully explore the applicability of SLT and differential reinforcement to the family context. To wit, the outcomes of social learning are observed and examined in extant research but the occurrence of Bandura’s (1977, 1986) famous four stages are not.

Continuing the Conversation One sphere that features a productive merging of the incentivizing features of SLT and family dynamics is that of social learning family therapy (SLFT). SLFT is “based on the notion that conduct-problem behavior is inadvertently developed and sustained through daily maladaptive parent-child interactions” and “is designed to alter the pattern of dysfunctional techniques and focuses on building parental skills in reinforcement” (Chamberlain & Rosicky, 1995, p. 443). Discipline in the forms of chores and timeouts, and reinforcement in the forms of allowance and point systems, are used to develop family communication skill and lessen conflict as well as aggression in children (e.g., Horne & Van Dyke, 1983). Future research could continue to test SLT and SLFT assumptions with regard to specific parenting practices and emphasize the contextual cues (e.g., age and sex of parent and/or child, step- vs. biological parent) that make social learning most optimal. Most examples cited in this chapter refer to parents as the models and children as the observers. Future research may be waged to investigate the ways in which the social learning of communication behaviors occurs when children are the models and parents are the observers. As noted by Peterson and Hann (1999), reciprocal socialization can occur as children undoubtedly influence and teach their parents communication skills. This might be of particular interest for those studying the intersection of family communication and new technology. Research could be aimed, for example, at determining whether rather than greeting their child’s reliance on social media for relational fulfillment with skepticism, parents and grandparents observe the younger generation enjoying benefits (e.g., the freedom from timely response obligations of asynchronous media) and emulate their behaviors by adopting more media when enacting their own relationships. Finally, whereas much of the research in this chapter focused on the application of SLT with regard to parent-child dyads, the theory can apply to learning within other family relationships. Additional research regarding how the “learning” of social support and conflict management, for example, may vary in different types of family relationships are potentially productive future directions. Also, questions of whether verbal aggression experienced at the hands of an older or younger sibling has the same long-term implications as that wielded by parents, or whether psychosocial problems associated among extended rather than just nuclear family members, are ripe for investigation by family communication researchers interested in extending the applicability of SLT.

298

Woszidlo & Kunkel

References Aloia, L. S., & Solomon, D. H. (2013). Perceptions of verbal aggression in romantic relationships: The role of family history and motivational systems. Western Journal of Communication, 77, 411–423. Arroyo, A., Nevárez, N., Segrin, C., & Harwood, J. (2012). The association between parent and adult child shyness, social skills, and perceived family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 249–264. Bandura, A. (1965). Influences of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–593. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic view. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 67, 601–607. Boomsma, D. I., Cacioppo, J. T., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., & Clark, S. (2007). Longitudinal genetic analysis for loneliness in Dutch twins. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10, 267–273. Burke, T., Woszidlo, A., & Segrin, C. (2012). Social skills, family conflict, and loneliness in families. Communication Reports, 25, 75–87. Burke, T. J., Woszidlo, A., & Segrin, C. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of social skills and psychosocial problems among parents and their young adult children. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 77–91. Burleson, B. R. (1984). Comforting communication. In H. E. Sypher & J. L. Applegate (Eds.), Communication by children and adults: Social cognitive and strategic processes (pp. 63–104). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R. (1987). Cognitive complexity. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly (Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 305–349). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Applegate, J. L. (1995). The socialization of personcentered communication: Parental contributions to the social-cognitive and communication skills of their children. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 34–76). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Chamberlain, P., & Rosicky, J. G. (1995). The effectiveness of family therapy in the treatment of adolescents with conduct disorders and delinquency. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21, 441–459. Franco, N., & Levitt, M. J. (1998). The social ecology of middle childhood: Family support, friendship quality, and self-esteem. Family Relations, 47, 315–321. Gelles, R. J. (1994). Family violence, abuse, and neglect. In P. J. McKenry & S. J. Price (Eds.), Families and change: Coping with stressful events (pp. 262–280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Horne, A. M., & Van Dyke, B. (1983). Treatment and maintenance of social learning family therapy. Behavior Therapy, 14, 606–613. Howard, J. A., & Hollander, J. A. (1997). Gendered situations, gendered selves: A gender lens on social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Social Learning Theory 299 Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002). You never leave your family in a fight: The impact of family of origin on conflict-behavior in romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 53, 234–251. Miller, N., & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Norrholm, S. D., & Ressler, K. J. (2010). Genetics of anxiety and trauma-related disorders. Neuroscience, 164, 272–287. Peterson, G.W., & Hann, D. (1999). Socializing children and parents in families. In M. Sussman, S. L. Stienmetz, & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of marriage and the family (2nd ed., pp. 327–370). New York, NY: Plenum. Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. New York, NY: PrenticeHall. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal and external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80, 1–28. Schrodt, P., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2007). Communication processes that mediate family communication patterns and mental well-being: A mean covariance structures analysis of young adults from divorced and nondivorced families. Communication Research, 33, 330–356. Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., Jernberg, K. A., Larson, L., Elledge, N., & Glonek, K. (2009). Family communication patterns as mediators of communication competence in the parent–child relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 853–874. Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., Ohrt, J. K. (2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators of family communication patterns and children’s mental well-being. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 23–46. Segrin, C. (2001). Interpersonal processes in psychological problems. New York, NY: Guilford. Sillars, A., Canary, D. J., & Tafoya, M. (2004). Communication, conflict, and the quality of family relationships. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Handbook of family communication (pp. 413–446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., Lei, M., Hancock, D. L., & Fincham, F. D. (2012). Parental warmth amplifies the negative effect of parental hostility on dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2603–2626. Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Smith-Marek, E. N., Cafferky, B., Dharnidharka, P., Mallory, A. B., Dominguez, M., High, J., . . . Mendez, M. (2015). Effects of childhood experiences of family violence on adult partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 7, 498–519. Stith, S. M., Rosen, K. H., Middleton, K. A., Busch, A. L., Lundeberg, L., & Carlton, R. P. (2000). The intergenerational transmission of spousal abuse: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 640–654. Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Genetic epidemiology of major depression: Review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1552–1562. Vangelisti, A. (2013). Introduction. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of family communication (2nd ed., pp. 1–8). New York, NY: Routledge.

27 Structuration Theory Applications for Family Communication Kristen Norwood and Paaige K. Turner

Some theories are “grand” in that they attempt to explain complex, abstract, and broad-reaching phenomena, whereas others might be described as “grand” in that they are rich frameworks for generating new understandings. Structuration theory has been recognized as a grand theory for its broad theoretical scope (Gastil, 2009), and we believe it to be grand in the colloquial sense as well. Although it is a sociological theory, it focuses on communication at both micro- and macro-levels of society, attempting to capture, holistically, the dynamics of social systems. It is not a theory about family communication, per se, but it is a useful framework through which to analyze family communication. In this chapter, we demonstrate the theory’s value to family communication by articulating its main goals and features, highlighting existing family communication research informed by the theory, and discussing additional applications for family communication.

Intellectual Tradition of Structuration Theory Structuration theory was developed by Anthony Giddens, who provides the most fully developed articulation of the theory in The Constitution of Society (1984). Giddens sought to find a compromise between theories that privilege social structures at the expense of human agency (functionalist theories) and those that privilege agency while largely ignoring structures (hermeneutical theories). He maintains that structure and agency are mutually dependent. Giddens argues that societies have structures to the degree that individuals behave in consistent ways, but also that individual actions are comprehensible only because we have socially structured knowledge of how to behave. Further, he explains that social structures work to both constrain and enable human agency, and that human agency is the mechanism by which social systems are constituted, reproduced, and challenged. Therefore, structuration is the process by which a social system is created and recreated through its members’ use of rules and resources. Structuration theory is described by some as interpretive (Braithwaite & Baxter, 2006), but implemented by others as a critical theory (e.g., Turner & Norwood, 2014). Giddens (1984) explicitly discusses power, agency, and

Structuration Theory 301 domination, but his aim is to capture the process by which these are exercised in a social system rather than to critique power structures or call for agency to change power relations. Structuration theory, therefore, is well equipped for critical inquiry, but not demanding of it.

Main Goals and Features of Structuration Theory Structuration theory’s main goal is to “determine the conditions which govern the continuity and dissolution of structures and types of structure” (Giddens, 1993, p. 127) while incorporating a theory of action that connects to a subject and situates action in time and space. Duality of structure is the central concept of the theory; Giddens claims that the relationship between human agents and social structures is a duality rather than dualism, meaning that the structural elements of social systems serve as the medium for human action and interaction, but also are the outcome of those inter/actions. Calling someone “mother” or “father” creates a sense of family, for example, while at the same time, the family system informs the decision to call someone “mother” or “father.” In this example, family is a social system, or observable pattern of interaction. Any social system, such as a family, contains structures. Structures are the rules and resources upon which individuals draw to create, sustain, or challenge a social system. Structures serve as the medium or “recipe” for action and, simultaneously, as the outcome of the social systems which they organize. Giddens (1984) articulates three interconnected types of structures; structures of signification, legitimation, and domination. Structures of signification manifest in symbolic orders/modes of discourse and operate through modalities of interpretive schemes and communication. In the example above, a decision to call someone “mother” draws upon an interpretive scheme that sustains a particular symbolic order for the meaning of mother (e.g., the woman who gave birth to or adopted me). Structures of signification operate through the modality of norms to sanction behavior via informal means, such as stigma, or formal means, such as laws. Laws, such as who can sign for medical procedures, dictate parental norms and expectations. This would be an example of structures of signification upon which an individual may draw when choosing who to label as mother or father. Structures of domination draw upon the modality of facility (resource allocation/authorization) through power interactions and are institutionalized via political and economic institutions. Providing financial support to children creates a specific economic institution that informs who gets to be called “mother” or “father.” For example, in a case where grandparents take on financial responsibilities for their grandchildren, they may be referred to as that child’s mother or father by others such as the school or family. Rules are procedures of action, which both constitute meaning through discourse (structures of signification) and regulate modes of social conduct (structures of legitimation) (Giddens, 1984). The rule “respect your elders” constitutes meaning regarding age relations while regulating the appropriate form of interaction. Parental permission laws regulate and, simultaneously,

302

Norwood & Turner

constitute meaning regarding appropriate age relations with a family. Rules exist as practical consciousness, which is tacit knowledge that is inexpressible in language, or as discursive consciousness, which can be expressed in language and even formalized in policy or law. Knowledge can be practical knowledge learned from experience of everyday actions (e.g., “Wait until your mother finishes speaking”), rationalized knowledge from monitoring your own behavior and explaining (e.g., “I get candy when I am polite to my grandmother”), or knowledge of the motivation for action (e.g., “I would get arrested if I didn’t buckle in my child”). Since individuals have the ability to reflect upon their knowledge, there is an opportunity to influence social systems and constitute new structures. For example, a parent may notice that the rule “respect your elders” leads to unsafe situations, such as the child not buckling his or her seatbelt when a grandparent says it does not matter. The parent may then create a new rule, “speak with respect to your elders as you tell them you need to buckle.” Giddens cautions that although social actors are knowledgeable of systems, “the vast bulk of such knowledge is practical rather than theoretical in character” (Giddens, 1984, p. 22). Practical consciousness operates at the tacit level and allows actions to become routine. Thus, individuals may act with intention but produce unintended consequences. So while a parent’s intention may be to keep his/her child safe by encouraging the child to speak up about buckling, this may unintentionally challenge the parent’s relationship with his/her own parent, thereby disrupting the systems of interaction that constitute “family.” In addition to rules, structuration theory provides a means for understanding resources and power; through resources, power is exercised, structures of domination are constituted, and structures of signification and legitimation are actualized. Giddens (1984) identifies two types of resources: allocative and authoritative. Allocative resources include the material features of the environment, means of material production/reproduction, and produced goods and economic results. Authoritative resources refer to the capacity to control persons and their activities. This includes the ability to organize social time-space, the production/reproduction of the body, the organization of life chances, and results in political institutions. A parent’s threat to disinherit a child if he doesn’t respect her wishes relies upon the capacity to command allocative resources (e.g., money) and the instantiation of authoritative resources (e.g., laws that uphold a parent’s will). Of course, some families are endowed with or have better access to resources than others. Structuration theory allows for the study of resource allocation and authorization within a family system and at the sociopolitical level. As noted, human agents and social structures are best represented as a duality and therefore must be analyzed in relationship to each other. Social systems are continually created, revised, and recreated in human action and human action is continually informed by those systems. For example, the pronouncement of “husband and wife” at a wedding constitutes marriage via a structure of signification, signifying it as involving a man and woman, normalizes the

Structuration Theory 303 relationship via a structure of legitimation in the legality of the marriage, and draws upon authoritative resources regarding who can make that kind of legal pronouncement via structures of domination. It is in routinization that individuals gain a sense of ontological security in relation to social structures. A couple may not “feel married” without being declared “husband and wife” even when they reject the heteronormativity of the statement. “All actors have some degree of discursive penetration of the social systems to whose constitution they contribute” (Giddens, 1979, p. 5). This does not mean, however, that actors can always provide accounts for that knowledge. In our example, the couple may not be able to articulate why they desire the statement to be voiced. The couple would have practical (tacit) consciousness but not the discursive (stated) consciousness that would allow them to articulate the reasons why they chose a specific action. In contrast, Kim Davis’s refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2015 (Bittnerbender, 2015) represents an act grounded in discursive consciousness with the intent of calling into question a structure of signification (i.e., the meaning of marriage) and a structure of legitimation (i.e., same-sex marriage being legal). Her action invokes power through the use of both authoritative resources (i.e., it is the county clerk who issues marriage licenses) and allocative resources (i.e., the actual license). In both of these examples, agency exists in that the individuals have the capability to perform the action regardless of their intention. In fact, Giddens (1979) argues that due to the boundaries of knowledge and scope of control, agency refers to the doing rather than the intentions or consequences of that action. For Giddens, “the communication of meaning in interaction does not take place separately from the operation of relations of power, or outside the context of normative sanctions. All social practices involve these three elements” (1979, pp. 81–82). Communication is central to structuration theory making it a robust framework for examining family communication and the relationships among family and other structures and systems.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Structuration Theory Giddens (1993) conceptualizes communication as constituted by human agency and the medium of that constitution. This makes communication an integral component to social structures. The both/and relationship forms “a double hermeneutic, relating both to entering and grasping the frames of meaning involved in the production of social life by lay actors, and to reconstituting these within the new frames of meaning” (Giddens, 1993, p. 86). This approach is consistent with the constitutive model of communication, wherein communication is conceptualized as both a tool for expressing and creating social reality as well as a constructed practice in and of itself (Craig, 1999). Giddens’s view of communication is also consistent with the discursive turn, where communication is viewed as a recursive relationship between discourse (language in use) and Discourse (macro-level systems of meaning).

304

Norwood & Turner

Alvesson and Karreman (2000) use discourse to refer to communication between persons in interaction, which Giddens labels speech and defines as situated action that proposes a subject and acknowledges the presence of another. Discourse refers to meanings that circulate at macro-levels of a social system. This would include Giddens’s concept of language, which is subjectless and bridges time-space. Drawing upon Giddens, Heracleous and Barrett (2001) articulate a structural view of discourse where communication actions (utterances, speech) and deep structures (fundamental assumptions) interact through the modality of actors’ interpretive schemes, or knowledge. When individuals draw upon practical consciousness, they may not be able to articulate the influence of a particular discourse via discursive consciousness, but they can articulate more particularized frameworks, norms of behavior, or hierarchies they use or resist when giving accounts for their behaviors and attitudes. Therefore, discourse of social actors can reveal the discourses that influence their actions and sense-making endeavors. In effect, family communication scholars can analyze the relationship between structures and everyday action/interaction through the communication of individual actors. In his explanation of ideology, Giddens (1984) makes the all-important connection between discourse, resource-based power, and social sanction/ approval. This connection makes it possible to explore how discourses surrounding family are bound up with the authorization and allocation of resources that privilege certain types of families as well as sanctions against families that do not fit the ideal. Family communication scholars, therefore, might make use of these structure-level concepts in relation to the concepts of constraint and agency, which are also central to structuration theory.

Research and Practical Applications of Structuration Theory In the first edition of this book, Krone, Schrodt, and Kirby (2006) pointed to a critical oversight that family communication scholars have largely neglected the ways that families are connected to religious, political, economic, and educational institutions. This private/public divide has since been critiqued by other scholars as they argue for a critical approach in family communication (e.g., Baxter, 2011; Suter, 2016). Structuration theory offers a lens through which to analyze the connections between families and the public institutions that influence, and are influenced by, them. In addition to illuminating or critiquing the family’s connections to public institutions, structuration theory provides a way to link family communication to public discourse, conceptualizing the two as interdependent. Finally, structuration theory provides a way to look at the duality of structure within particular family systems. Below, we discuss each of these applications, providing research exemplars when possible.

Structuration Theory 305 Connecting Family to Public Institutions Most of the small collection of research on family communication that uses structuration theory is situated at the border of organizational and family communication, with more of a focus on the former. This work connects families to organizations by examining how the structures of organizational systems are constructed through the inter/actions of employees, but also serve to constrain and enable them. Kirby and Krone’s (2002) study of family leave policy in one organization demonstrated this relationship. The organization had structures in place to provide leave to new parents; however, communication among workers discouraged parents from taking leave. Adding to this pressure, male employees faced negative comments, laughter, and denial of leave requests. When employees refrain from using the policies because of this type of microlevel communication, macro-level gendered discourses surrounding family and work are reinforced. Similarly, Turner and Norwood (2014) applied structuration theory to explore the ways mothers navigate the combination of breastfeeding and work. Participants constructed breastfeeding as a private practice and personal choice, and depicted organizational support for it as a privilege rather than a right, which may unintentionally reproduce organizational structures that marginalize women in the workplace. Related to this, Hoffman and Cowan (2010) explored the rules and resources employees draw upon in requesting accommodations to balance work and life. They found that the rules of the organizational systems discouraged employees from making such requests, causing them to refrain from asking or to frame their requests in terms of the organization’s interests, thus reinforcing the power structures in place. Although structuration theory has proven useful in connecting family to the workplace, there are other connections to be made between the family and public institutions. For example, Schrodt, Baxter, McBride, Braithwaite, and Fine (2006) utilized structuration theory to connect family dynamics to the courts in order to understand the communication surrounding divorce decrees. In their sample, co-parents appropriated the divorce decree as either a strict legal contract or merely a guide, or as both, depending on the situation. This structure, then, functioned to enable and constrain parents’ communication regarding rights and responsibilities. Structuration theory also could be productively used to understand how family communication (re)produces and challenges social structures that constitute churches, schools, healthcare facilities, and government institutions (e.g., child protective services) and how these institutions enable and constrain family communication. For example, researchers could explore how the rules and resources in schools have changed based on parental requests, demands, and inter/actions. Parents of transgender youth have fought to change school policy so that their children can use the bathrooms associated with their gender identities. Whereas some states, such as Texas and North Carolina are fighting back against these efforts, the Obama administration issued a directive to

306

Norwood & Turner

federally funded schools to allow transgender students to use facilities that match their gender identities (Eilperin & Brown, 2016). This interaction between families, schools, and the government illustrates the relationship between agency and structure, and the interface between family life and public institutions. Connecting Family Communication to Public Discourse Although a focus on public institutions often includes attention to discourse, the connections between family communication and cultural discourse warrants a separate discussion. Cultural discourses provide families with recipes for inter/action and, in turn, discourses are produced, reproduced, and challenged by the ways that people “do” family life. Discourses serve as structures of signification, constructing what it means to be a family, and as structures of legitimation, delineating what is normal, valued, and allowable. These structures of signification and legitimation are tightly connected to structures of domination that authorize and allocate resources relevant to family, such as laws regarding who can and cannot marry, adopt, or make end of life decisions (Giddens, 1984). To our knowledge, there is no family communication research that applies structuration theory to matters such as these, but there is ample opportunity to do so. In this vein, family communication research informed by structuration theory could augment existing research on families who deviate from the norm or ideal. Galvin (2006) posits that families such as these must rely more heavily on communication in order to construct a coherent family identity both within the family and to outsiders. Galvin’s concept of discourse dependence has been valuable for studying adoptive families (e.g., Suter, Reyes, & Ballard, 2011) as well as other family forms positioned as less-than-legitimate. Similar work based on structuration theory could add to this by exploring how families’ micro-level discursive practices are connected to macro-level discourses surrounding definitions of family. Adoptive parents, for example, are likely to both appropriate and resist elements of traditional birth narratives as they construct “entrance stories” for their adopted children, thereby reproducing and challenging existing structures. Kranstuber and Kellas (2011) found that entrance stories were characterized by themes of “fate” and being “chosen,” indicating a potential blending of the “fated” notion of biological family formation and a more agentic notion of adoptive family formation. Structuration theory also provides a lens for analyzing power and social change related to families. Before same-sex marriage was legal, for example, gay and lesbian couples were uniting in civil commitment ceremonies, partially appropriating and resisting the social structure of marriage in order to construct meaning for their families. Similarly, when gay or lesbian couples choose to wear wedding rings on their right hands (Suter & Daas, 2007), this seemingly demonstrates both an appropriation of and differentiation from traditional

Structuration Theory 307 heterosexual marriage rituals. In these instances, same-sex couples were and are drawing upon existing resources and challenging rules that long existed and creating new recipes for action (Giddens, 1984). The legalization of same-sex marriage in the U.S. is likely due, at least in part, to the agency of couples that enacted such commitments and garnered the support of their family and friends. Using structuration theory, a researcher could undertake a retrospective analysis of this duality of structure. Exploring Families as Social Systems Finally, structuration theory can be applied to analysis of the dynamics within a family system. Certainly, each family has rules and resources that members of the family draw upon, produce, reproduce, challenge, and change. We can understand mundane rule negotiation between parents and children as a process of structuration wherein parents set rules and children reproduce rules by obeying them or they resist rules by disobeying. We can also understand more significant family communication processes through structuration theory. Sabourin and Stamp (1995) studied communication in abusive couples, finding that partners with a history of abuse communicated in rigid ways that reproduced the relationship’s status quo. A related analysis using structuration theory could explore how the structures in this kind of family system oppress abused members. It could also illuminate the role agency plays in abusive communication. In an oppressive system, agency is necessarily constrained, though never totally extinguished (Giddens, 1984). Clearly, structuration theory has broad applications to understanding communication that happens within and surrounding families. Next, we discuss the strengths and limitations of the theory.

Evaluation of Structuration Theory Although structuration theory offers a grand framework for attending to micromacro and structure-action relations, it presents conceptual and methodological challenges. Perhaps the principal strength of structuration theory for family communication is its focus on the connection between macro- and micro-level forces in a social system. The family as a private, micro-level unit of social life is tightly tied to public, macro-level institutions and to cultural-level discourses. With the central concept of duality of structure, Giddens works to erase the divide between public and private elements of society. However, the theory operates at a very high level of abstraction requiring significant work to define terms and operationalize concepts. Giddens (1984) suggests that structuration should be used as a “sensitizing device” to elements such as the duality of structure and knowledgeability. Methodologically, designing and implementing a study that attends to both structure and action and relations between structures of signification, domination, and legitimation presents challenges in terms of scope and focus. Alvesson and Karreman’s

308

Norwood & Turner

(2000) conceptualization of a “discursive ladder” provides a methodological framework that can assist scholars in this effort. The researcher starts from a construction in participants’ discourse, zooms out to what would logically be the modality that frames this meaning, and then moves to what would logically be the discourse(s) instantiated by this modality. The researcher would next analyze how structures instantiate each other.

Continuing the Conversation Although structuration theory has only been applied to family communication research in a handful of instances, its potential contributions are abundant. Here, we offer a few ideas for research that would continue the conversation on structuration processes in family communication. As Krone et al. (2006) note, family socialization is a process ripe for analysis informed by structuration theory. Researchers might explore how families socialize children in ways that draw upon and reproduce the structures of public institutions, such as churches or corporations. For example, Medved and Kirby (2005) found that corporate discourse has become a frame that stay-at-home mothers use to construct their identities as professionals, managers, productive citizens, or irreplaceable workers. Using structuration theory, researchers might extend this work to explore how corporate discourse is reproduced in various aspects of familial socialization. It could be argued that a parent’s “chore chart” for children mimics the delegation of work tasks assigned to employees by their managers. As discussed above, family communication scholars also might be interested in investigating, and possibly critiquing, how cultural discourses influence family dynamics. For example, discourses that dictate what it means to be a “good mother” or a “good father” serve as a backdrop against which individual mothers and fathers construct their identities. Studies have documented women’s struggles with the “good mother” discourse (e.g., Baxter, Scharp, Asbury, Jannusch, & Norwood, 2012) and others have begun to explore how men contend with constructions of “good fathering” (e.g., Henwood & Procter, 2003). Certainly, the cultural conceptions of “good mother” and “good father” evolve over time (Hays, 1996; Wall & Arnold, 2007), and structuration theory would argue that this change in discourse is partly due to changes in the everyday enactment of motherhood and fatherhood by individual parents. Just as the aforementioned studies demonstrate, as fathers become more involved in parenting and mothers more invested in their careers, they push back against gendered discourse that relegates women to the domestic and men to the professional sphere. Family communication scholars could use structuration theory to continue work on the relationship between discourse and discourse surrounding family roles. Other public discourses can impact family communication, as well. Take, for instance, end-of-life communication. Media coverage of Brittany Maynard’s death and her advocacy for “death-with-dignity” laws in her final months have brought euthanasia to the forefront of public controversy. At the heart of the

Structuration Theory 309 controversy are discourses related to the experience of a “good death” (i.e., death with dignity), the ethics of ending a life, and the medicalization of death as something to prevent at great cost (Clark, 2002). Maynard was a 29-year-old woman who suffered from terminal brain cancer and ended her life via physicianassisted suicide. Arthur Caplan, a professor of Bioethics at New York University wrote, “Brittany Maynard may change this debate. My forecast is that we are going to see more push to put these laws in the front of state legislatures and to get them on state ballot” (Caplan, 2014). This is a case wherein one person’s agency has the potential to influence social structures. Family communication researchers could explore the duality of structure by investigating whether and how Brittany Maynard’s story, or discourse that grew out of it, becomes a part of end of life discussions in families. In their study, Ohs, Trees, and Gibson (2015) found that family members struggled with what it means to be a good family member in the face of end of life decisions. A study informed by structuration theory could continue this work to connect these familial struggles to legal structures and cultural discourses. We have offered a few directions for continuing the conversation about structuration theory’s use in family communication. As scholars continue to apply this theory, they must also continue to explore the most effective ways to study the process of structuration, which at times seems too complex and abstract to capture in a research study. Also, scholars would do well to further operationalize some of Giddens’ more abstract concepts, such as various structural properties and modalities, as work using structuration theory is continued in family communication. Even with its challenges, structuration theory provides a rich framework for understanding family communication and the family’s place in society.

References Alvesson, M., & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, 1125–1149. Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Baxter, L. A., Scharp, K., Asbury, B., Jannusch, A., & Norwood, K. (2012). “Birth mothers are not bad people”: A dialogic analysis of online birth mother narratives. Qualitative Communication Research, 1, 53–82. Bittenbender, S. (2015, Sept. 12). Kim Davis appeals court to let her refuse to issue marriage licenses. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com/ entry/kim-davis-marriage-licenses_us_55f4818ee4b042295e369491 Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (Eds.). (2006). Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Caplan, A. (2014, October 28). Terminally ill woman chooses suicide, may influence a new generation. Medscape. Retrieved from www.medscape.com/viewarticle/833603 Clark, D. (2002). Between hope and acceptance: The medicalisation of dying. British Medical Journal, 324(7342), 905–907. Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9, 119–161.

310

Norwood & Turner

Eilperin, J., & Brown, E., (2016, May 13). Obama administration directs schools to accommodate transgender students. The Washington Post. Retrieved from www. washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-to-instruct-schools-toaccommodate-transgender-students/2016/05/12/0ed1c50e-18ab-11e6-aa55–670 cabef46e0_story.html Galvin, K. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the family: Discourse-dependence and identity. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gastil, J. (2009). Group communication theories. In S. Littlejohn & K. Foss (Eds.), Encyclopedia of communication theory (pp. 455–460). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London, England: Macmillan. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Cambridge, England: Polity. Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method: A positive critique of interpretative sociologies (2nd ed.). CA: Stanford University Press. Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Heracleous, L., & Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: Communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. The Academy of Management Journal, 44, 755–778. Henwood, K., & Proctor, J. (2003). The ‘good father’: Reading men’s accounts of paternal involvement during the transition to first-time fatherhood. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 337–355. Hoffman, M. F., & Cowan, R. L. (2010). Be careful what you ask for: Structuration theory and work-life accommodation. Communication Studies, 61, 205–223. Kirby, E. L., & Krone, K. J. (2002). The policy exists but you can’t really use it: Communication and the structuration of work-family policies. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 30, 50–72. Kranstuber, H., & Kellas, J. K. (2011). “Instead of growing under her heart, I grew in it”: The relationship between adoption entrance narratives and adoptees’ self-concept. Communication Quarterly, 59, 179–199. Krone, K. J., Schrodt, P., & Kirby, E. (2006). Structuration theory: Promising directions for family communication research. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 293–308). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Medved, C. E., & Kirby, E. L. (2005). Family CEOs: A feminist analysis of corporate mothering discourses. Management Communication Quarterly, 18, 435–478. Ohs, J. E., Trees, A. R., & Gibson, C. (2015) Holding on and letting go: Making sense of end-of life care decisions in families. Southern Communication Journal, 80, 353–364. Sabourin, T. C., & Stamp, G. (1995). Communication and dialectical tensions in family life: An exploration of abusive and nonabusive families. Communication Monographs, 62, 213–242. Schrodt, P., Baxter, L. A., McBride, M. C., Braithwaite, D. O., & Fine, M. A. (2006). The divorce decree, communication, and the structuration of coparenting relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 741–759. Suter, E. A. (2016). Introduction: Critical approaches to family communication research: Representation, critique, and praxis. Journal of Family Communication, 16, 1–8. Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2007). Negotiating heteronormativity dialectically: Lesbian couples’ display of symbols in culture. Western Journal of Communication, 71, 177–195.

Structuration Theory 311 Suter, E. A., Reyes, K. L., & Ballard, R. L. (2011). Adoptive parents’ framing of laypersons’ conceptions of family. Qualitative Research Reports in Communication, 12, 43–50. Turner, P. K., & Norwood, K. (2014). ‘I had the luxury . . .’ Organizational breastfeeding support as privatized privilege. Human Relations, 67, 849–874. Wall, G., & Arnold, S. (2007). How involved is involved fathering?: An exploration of the contemporary culture of fatherhood. Gender & Society, 21, 508–527.

28 The Theory of Natural Selection An Evolutionary Approach to Family Communication Kory Floyd, Dana R. Dinsmore, and Corey A. Pavlich

Scholars working to understand the intricacies of family interaction have multiple theoretic paradigms to choose from, as the present volume attests. One perspective not widely used in family communication research is that associated with evolution and natural selection. This is an unfortunate omission because the evolutionary perspective is rich in potential for the breadth of family interactions it can explain and the depth and parsimony of its explanation. Despite references to “the theory of evolution,” there actually is no such theory. Instead, a number of theories—which might be described as “theories of evolution”—explicate different aspects of how evolution works (e.g., attachment theory, which proposes that attachment motivations are adaptive and innate). Chief among these is Charles Darwin’s (1859) theory of evolution by means of natural selection (hereafter called the theory of natural selection, or TNS). Many social scientists have used the logic behind TNS to advance more specific theories about how natural selection shapes human psychology and behavior. In the following sections, we describe the intellectual tradition and main goals and features of TNS. We then comment on how TNS conceptualizes communication and illustrate some of the many ways it can inform research on family communication. We conclude by evaluating the theory’s merits and suggesting future directions for research.

Intellectual Tradition of the Theory of Natural Selection Charles Darwin did not invent the concept of evolution. The fact that evolution occurs—that is, that characteristics of species change over time—had been recognized long before he began his work. Darwin’s grandfather, in fact, was an evolutionist. What eluded scientists for decades, however, was a viable explanation for how evolution unfolds. Darwin’s theory, published in 1859, provided such an explanation by claiming that the engine of evolution is fueled by the process of natural selection. TNS is a scientific theory that most closely aligns with the paradigmatic assumptions of what is now called the post-positivist tradition. Its focus on explanation and prediction, that is, reflect a post-positivistic epistemology.

Theory of Natural Selection 313 Although developed outside the domain of family communication and with a broader explanatory focus than family interaction, TNS nonetheless identifies compelling mechanisms for explaining and predicting numerous aspects of how families communicate.

Main Goals and Features of the Theory of Natural Selection Darwin’s TNS advanced four primary ideas. First, in any generation, many more of a given species are born than can survive to reproductive maturity. This creates what Darwin referred to as a struggle for existence, and inherent in that struggle are two omnipresent motivations: to survive and to reproduce. Second, individual organisms vary, one from another, in myriad physical and mental ways. For instance, humans vary in their height, weight, eye color, strength, and bone density, as well as in their intellectual capacity, disposition, and personality. Third, some of this variation is heritable, meaning that it is passed from parents to offspring genetically. The fourth and most important proposition in TNS was that heritable characteristics that advantage organisms in terms of survival and/or reproduction will gradually appear with greater frequency in populations. That is, individuals who have characteristics that give them an advantage in survival and/or procreation—such as strength, intelligence, or attractiveness—will produce more offspring, on average, than will those without such characteristics. To the extent that these characteristics are heritable, they will gradually become more common in the population because increasing numbers of children will be born with them and will pass those genes to their own offspring. An appreciation for the evolutionary explanation of communicative behavior requires attention to specific forms of evidence (see Cappella, 1991). For one, its focus on characteristics that are genetically grounded leads researchers using TNS to look for similarities, rather than differences, among cultures and other socially organized groups. To the extent that communicative dispositions are derived from heritable genetic characteristics created by adaptive pressures, they should not be expected to vary appreciably according to culture, class, gender, political affiliation, or other similar social divisions. Ekman’s (1972) research on the pancultural similarities in facial emotion display is illustrative. Second, evidence from neonates and infants can illuminate the effects of heritable behavioral dispositions before the influences of socialization and enculturation have had a chance to take hold. Cappella summarized research on neonates and infants with respect to patterns of stimulation regulation and emotional expressiveness, noting that the earlier in life such patterns are observed, the more likely they are to reflect innate dispositions. Third, evidence that physiological processes are reliably associated with observed behaviors suggests that the behaviors are part of an adaptive, regulatory process that may have resulted from adaptive pressures (see Booth, Carver, & Granger, 2000). The principles of natural selection can be used to understand humans and human behavior if two fundamental observations are first made. First, humans

314

Floyd, Dinsmore, & Pavlich

are subject to evolutionary pressures just like any other living organism. Early controversies surrounding TNS reflected the perspective that humans, because of their superior intellectual abilities, transcend the evolutionary processes that affect all other organisms. Although evolutionary psychologists do not deny the intellectual superiority of humans, they maintain that humans still face the same struggles for survival and procreation that affect every other living organism and thus are likewise subject to the process of natural selection. Second, natural selection influences the mind as well as the body. This observation is somewhat counterintuitive because people often conceive of the mind as separate from the body. Evolutionary psychologists counter with the observation that the mind is a product of the brain and the brain is a physical organ, no less subject to natural selection than any other organ. Evolutionary theories posit that mental or psychological characteristics that advantage a person in terms of survival and/or procreation are therefore equally as likely as advantageous physical characteristics to be selected. These two observations are central tenets in the field of evolutionary psychology (EP), which uses the principles of natural selection to understand human personality, cognition, and behavior. Evolutionary psychologists do not deny that human behavior is influenced by social and cultural learning; rather, they simply maintain that behavior is also influenced by the extent to which it advantages individuals in their quests for survival and procreation. When attempting to understand a human behavior from the evolutionary perspective, therefore, the fundamental questions to consider are: To what extent does this behavior confer survival and/or procreation advantages? and To what extent is the cause of this behavior heritable? Researchers have used TNS and related theories of evolution to understand a variety of human behaviors, including those in family communication. As we show below, social scientists have applied evolutionary principles to several aspects of family communication, and many other aspects can be equally well explained from this perspective. We opine here, as we have elsewhere (Floyd & Haynes, 2005), that evolutionary theories provide an important level of breadth, depth, and explanatory power for understanding family communication.

How Communication is Conceptualized in the Theory of Natural Selection TNS is not a communication theory, per se, so it offers no explicit definition of communication. As explained above, TNS is applicable to family behavior via EP, the application of natural selection to the evolution of social, mental, and psychological characteristics. The field of EP does not subscribe to any singular definition of communication either, although one could surmise that EP would consider relevant any verbal or nonverbal behavior by which information or perspectives are exchanged (see Workman & Reader, 2013).

Theory of Natural Selection 315

Research and Practical Applications of the Theory of Natural Selection TNS has been used extensively by psychologists working to understand the intricacies of family interaction. For instance, a large body of empirical work addresses the formation (Grammer & Thornhill, 1994) and maintenance (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992) of romantic pair bonds. A similarly robust literature applies evolutionary principles to parent-child relationships (CluttonBrock, 1991), including those in stepfamilies and adoptive families (Daly & Wilson, 1993). Still other studies have examined communication between siblings (Jankowiak & Diderich, 2000) and between grandparents and grandchildren (Euler & Weitzel, 1996) from the perspective of TNS. Despite the considerable breadth and depth of its explanatory power, however, TNS has not been widely used by family communication researchers. In fact, as Floyd and Haynes (2005) pointed out, TNS has been virtually ignored in introductory family communication textbooks, family research handbooks (e.g., Turner & West, 2015), and empirical research published in the Journal of Family Communication, a critique that largely continues to apply today. Of the work done in the communication discipline that has applied TNS to family interaction, most has focused either on marriage and mating strategies or on parent-child relationships. For instance, Trost and colleagues have written extensively on topics such as attraction, mate selection, and reproduction in romantic relationships from the perspective of natural selection (e.g., Kenrick & Trost, 2000; Trost & Alberts, 1998). Floyd and colleagues have also used evolutionary principles to understand communication in parent-child relationships (Floyd, Sargent, & Di Corcia, 2004), including relationships with stepparents and adoptive parents (Floyd & Morman, 2001), and within various sibling subsystems (Mikkelson, Floyd, & Pauley, 2011). There are numerous other ways in which TNS and related theories can illuminate family communication processes. For illustrative purposes, we focus here on understanding various aspects of the parent-child relationships, including the differences between maternal and paternal care, the incidence of parent-child conflict, and the distribution of resources in biological and stepparenting relationships. These are but three of the numerous aspects of family relationships that the evolutionary perspective can explain. For more complete treatments of the topic, see Buss (2015), Floyd and Haynes (2005), and Koerner and Floyd (2010). Maternal and Paternal Care Why have mothers traditionally accounted for more of the childrearing labor than fathers in two-parent different-sex households? Feminist scholars have long maintained that this division of parental labor has come about because of the culturally sanctioned subjugation of women (e.g., Chodorow, 1978). However, this is not a uniquely human phenomenon; in fact, maternal care exceeds

316

Floyd, Dinsmore, & Pavlich

paternal care in a huge range of species, including many species of reptiles, insects, amphibians, fish, and birds (Clutton-Brock, 1991). It is certainly reasonable to suggest, therefore, that this division of parental labor is not a cultural or political construction, but rather, is reflective of motivations that are generalizable beyond the human race. Researchers working within the evolutionary paradigm have offered various explanations for why maternal care exceeds paternal care in so many species. The most widely cited explanation concerns paternity certainty, or a father’s level of certainty that his children are indeed his biological offspring. Few mothers wonder whether their children are actually “theirs”; indeed, the very act of giving birth gives women high certainty that their children are their own biological offspring. Paternity certainty is never as high, however, because extra-relational sexual interaction on the part of the mother (whether voluntary or involuntary) makes fertilization by a man other than her mate a possibility. As Daly and Wilson (1987) noted, “maternity is a fact, paternity a conjecture” (p. 109). Paternity certainty is important because when men invest resources (including their love, attention, and money) in children who are not their biological offspring, these resources do little to further the men’s reproductive success. According to the paternity certainty hypothesis, men invest less energy in childcare than women do because they have less certainty about whether the children are their biological offspring. Importantly, no evolutionary psychologists argue that men behave this way intentionally or even conscientiously. Rather, evolution has provided the motivation to maximize one’s resources by investing them where they will have the largest reproductive payoff. As a result, men’s motivation to invest less in children than women do has already been selected for. Parent-Child Conflict One aspect of family life that makes it especially relevant from an evolutionary perspective is that family relationships—unlike any other relationships in the human experience—involve genetic links as well as social bonds. Biological family relationships vary in terms of their level of genetic relatedness, defined as the probability of finding in one person a gene that also resides in another (among those genes that vary from human to human). Identical (monozygotic) twins share 100 percent of their genes with each other, and thus are said to have 100 percent genetic relatedness. We typically have 50 percent genetic relatedness with biological parents, biological children, and full biological siblings (including fraternal, or dizygotic, twins). We are related to our half-siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, and uncles by 25 percent, and we typically have 0 percent relatedness to our steprelatives, adoptive relatives, in-laws, and spouses. According to Hamilton’s (1964) theory of inclusive fitness, the level of genetic relatedness between family members is important because when we aid our relatives in ways that further their survival or reproductive abilities, we aid

Theory of Natural Selection 317 ourselves in the process (to a degree equal to our level of relatedness to that person). Thus, we gain more by helping an identical twin than a fraternal twin, and more by helping a father than an uncle. From this perspective, parents and their biological children are invested in each other’s welfare because they share 50 percent of their genes. Importantly, however, this means that they differ genetically by the other 50 percent, suggesting that although parents’ and children’s priorities overlap, they do not perfectly coincide. Conflict between parents and children is therefore inevitable. Specifically, evolutionary psychologists argue that parents and children have different stakes in the distribution of resources, including money, time, attention, and love. Parents are motivated to invest their resources in their children in ways that maximize their evolutionary returns, but children are driven to acquire as many resources as they can for themselves. This explains, from the evolutionary perspective, why parent-child relationships are prone to conflict. It also explains why parentchild relationships can sustain both cooperation and conflict to the degree that they often can. Resource Allocation in Biological and Stepfamily Relationships Although parents of multiple children would most likely claim to invest equally in each of their children, research indicates that they rarely do. Several studies have instead shown that parents invest discriminately, giving more resources to children who are the most likely to contribute the parents’ genetic materials to succeeding generations and less to those children who are not likely to do so, either because they are unlikely to reproduce (as in the case of homosexual or reproductively infertile children) or because they do not carry the parents’ genes to begin with (as in the case of stepchildren). Daly and Wilson’s (1987, 1993) theory of discriminative parental solicitude explains this pattern as being an adaptation by which parents are motivated to invest their resources in ways that maximize their return in the form of reproductive success. Several studies have demonstrated this pattern. Anderson, Kaplan, and Lancaster (1997) looked at patterns of parental investment in children’s college educations and found that parents were nearly six times as likely to give money for college to biological children as compared with stepchildren; moreover, they gave biological children an average of $15,000 more than they gave stepchildren. In two studies, Floyd and Morman (2001) found that men received less affectionate communication from their stepfathers than from their biological fathers, net of the effects of relational closeness, satisfaction, and involvement. Other studies have examined the investments made by grandparents in their grandchildren and have reported results consistent with the theory of discriminative parental solicitude (e.g., Euler & Weitzel, 1996). These are but three illustrative applications of TNS and evolutionary theories to the study of family communication. Although we have provided examples related to parent-child interaction here, researchers can use the evolutionary approach to illuminate the full range of family relationships.

318

Floyd, Dinsmore, & Pavlich

Evaluation of the Theory of Natural Selection Like any other approach, the evolutionary approach offers particular strengths and entails particular liabilities. We begin this section by discussing three strengths of the approach—its breadth, depth, and parsimony—all of which are among the most commonly cited criteria for good scientific theories (Reynolds, 1971). We then discuss two limitations—accessibility of the causal mechanism and the specificity of derived hypotheses—that researchers must take into account when working within this theoretical perspective. Theoretic Strengths Breadth. The evolutionary approach to human behavior is exceedingly broad in the range of family relationships and behaviors it can explain. Whereas many family communication theories are specific to particular relationships (such as marital or parental relationships) or to particular behavior patterns (e.g., conflict, exchange, attachment), the evolutionary paradigm is neither relationally nor behaviorally bound. Rather, because evolution and natural selection influence so many aspects of physical and psychological life, they likewise influence multiple types and aspects of relationships (see Kenrick & Trost, 2000). To be certain, TNS is not a “theory of everything;” however, it can be used to explain and predict multiple types of behaviors in a wide range of family relationships, offering greater breadth than some other theories used to study families. Depth. Importantly, the evolutionary approach does not sacrifice depth for breadth. In addition to its capacity to explain a broad range of family relationships and behaviors, the evolutionary perspective provides a depth of explanation that transcends the level of the individual, the interaction, the relationship, and the social, political, religious, or cultural contexts. Many other theories used to study family communication explain behaviors with reference to theoretically constructed concepts, such as family rules or roles, cultural prescriptions, or relationship “types.” Such constructs may be difficult to locate in the natural world and may be highly subject to, and constrained by, the operational definitions used to measure them. In contrast, evolutionary theories explain family relationships with reference to enduring motivations to survive and procreate that affect all humans and all other living organisms. The evolutionary paradigm places human behavior within a deep and broad understanding of the life cycle, illustrating their connection to two goals— survival and procreation—without which more proximal explanations for behavior would be less compelling. Parsimony. Because its causal mechanism—natural selection—embodies two omnipresent motivations (survival and reproduction), explanations for behavior derived from evolutionary theories are relatively parsimonious (i.e., simple and straightforward). As noted previously, evolutionary analyses require attention to two fundamental questions: How the characteristic to be explained

Theory of Natural Selection 319 contributes to survival and/or procreation success, and to what extent the characteristic is heritable. Often, engaging in evolutionary logic to explain a relational behavior requires assumptions to be made explicit and erroneous preconceptions to be corrected. However, the deductive process is a parsimonious one, precisely because the motivations to survive and procreate are so enduring and not subject to shifts in the cultural, social, or political context. Theoretic Limitations Causal Mechanism. One limitation of the evolutionary approach is that the causal mechanism—natural selection—is not easily accessible to researchers, because it is, in almost all instances, an extraordinarily slow process. Physical and psychological adaptations do not typically occur in a matter of generations, or even dozens of generations, but over millennia. One result is that researchers using TNS to predict human behavior do not assess the adaptability of physical or psychological characteristics for modern living. Rather, they assess adaptability for what they term the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA), which is the time period in which the characteristic would have been adaptive (see Tooby & Cosmides, 1992). Humans have spent more than 99 percent of their history as hunter-gatherers (Morris, 2001). Agriculture was invented only about 10,000 years ago, and civilization—let alone modern civilization—is an even more recent phenomenon. This is an extremely short period of time on an evolutionary time scale. When appealing to natural selection as a causal mechanism, therefore, evolutionists must deduce how a given characteristic would have advantaged the organism in the EEA, even if the characteristic is benign or even maladaptive in the modern environment. Because the EEA is not accessible to modern researchers (except through archeological records and other artifacts), the evolutionary approach has been criticized as being nonfalsifiable. In truth, however, this is misplaced criticism. Even though the causal mechanism is not directly accessible, hypotheses deduced through evolutionary logic (e.g., conflict varies by genetic relatedness; stepchildren receive fewer resources than do biological children) are empirically verifiable and falsifiable. Specificity. A second limitation of the evolutionary approach is that its level of abstraction makes it more useful for predicting macro-level behavior patterns than for predicting micro-level behaviors that are often of interest to communication scholars. For instance, Trivers’s (1972) parental investment theory posits that women are more selective than men when choosing a potential sexual partner because women have a greater required investment in potential offspring. Such a theory can be used to deduce broad hypotheses regarding sex differences in mate-seeking behavior, such as the prediction that women are less likely than men to solicit prostitutes or engage in “one-night stands.” However, it would be less useful at predicting minute-to-minute changes in a conversational encounter, such as whether an acute increase in intimacy will be reciprocated.

320

Floyd, Dinsmore, & Pavlich

This is not to suggest that no micro-level behaviors can be explained by evolutionary theories, only that such theories are often more predictive of macro-level behavioral patterns. Despite these limitations, evolutionary theories have been extremely fruitful tools for understanding the family, and they have the potential to inform family communication research in novel ways. To end this chapter, we look ahead briefly to future research and offer ideas on how family scholars might incorporate evolutionary principles in their work.

Continuing the Conversation One important application of the evolutionary perspective in future research is in studying the physiology of family communication processes. Investigating communication physiologically helps researchers understand the links between social behavior and bodily responses. Why does conflict cause stress, affection lead to calm, or transgression prompt guilt? Physiological psychologists acknowledge that all communicative behaviors, including family interactions, engage the body in physical, as well as mental and emotional, ways. Thus, when scholars investigate only the social or cultural influences on such behaviors, they risk missing a large part of the picture that evolutionary theories can help illuminate. Using evolutionary theories leads researchers to focus on (among other things) the ways in which the body functions to reinforce certain behaviors that are advantageous for survival and/or procreation, while mitigating behaviors that are disadvantageous. Consider romantic love as an example. From the perspective of TNS, love serves an enormously important function: It helps to form and maintain pair bonds, which are useful for procreation. Although norms for the expression of love may be largely culturally derived, research suggests a number of ways in which the brain, autonomic nervous system, and endocrine system act to make love a physically rewarding experience. For instance, the secretion of hormones such as vasopressin, oxytocin, and dopamine is associated with the experience of romantic and sexual attraction (Panksepp, 1998). Because these hormones impart pleasurable sensations when elevated in the body, they may reinforce bonding and attachment processes and help to form and maintain romantic pair bonds that can further reproductive success (for review, see Floyd & Afifi, 2012). Conversely, relational conflict or distress is often associated with heightened nervous system arousal and secretion of the hormone cortisol, which helps the body deal with acute stress but can be damaging to the immune system over time (e.g., Miller, Dopp, Myers, Stevens, & Fahey, 1999). Using evolutionary theories as a guide, family communication researchers can investigate these and other links between relational emotions or behaviors and patterns of physiological response. Although increasing empirical attention is being paid to negative aspects of family communication, such as conflict, aggression, and abuse (see Olson, Baiocchi-Wagner, Wilson-Kratzer, & Symonds, 2012), TNS and associated

Theory of Natural Selection 321 theories can add a great deal of understanding to the origins of several family problems and may also suggest effective clinical and therapeutic interventions. Families may face an array of behavioral problems as a result of evolutionary pressures (e.g., sexual coercion, obsessive relational intrusion, infidelity, sexual addiction) that evolutionary theories can explain and illuminate. A third important direction for future research is the further examination of communication in relationships outside the nuclear family. As Floyd and Morman (2014) have noted, many in the field of family communication direct their efforts at understanding marriage and parent-child relationships, and for good reason, as these are perhaps the most significant relationships in the life course. However, the family is a rich array of relationships that are much more infrequently the focus of empirical attention, including those with siblings, grandparents, in-laws, steprelatives, adoptive relatives, cousins, aunts and uncles, and godparents. Existing research still offers little understanding about what is consistent across all these family relationships; however, they may all contribute in various ways to individual survival and procreation success. Therefore, researchers working with evolutionary theories can offer understanding about these less frequently studied relationships, thereby adding to a more complete comprehension of the family communication experience. In sum, TNS offers a number of strengths. First, it is broad enough to account for all family relationships; thus, it is not relationally bound. Second, it offers explanations as to why particular relational behaviors occur, rather than just a description of those behaviors. Third, and perhaps most important, it links family communication patterns to enduring motivations—survival and reproduction— that transcend social, cultural, racial, gender, and class boundaries and illuminate the “bigger picture” into which family communicative behavior belongs.

References Anderson, J. G., Kaplan, H. S., & Lancaster, J. B. (1997, June). Paying for children’s college: The paternal investment strategies of Albuquerque men. Paper presented at the meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, Tucson, AZ. Booth, A., Carver, K., & Granger, D. A. (2000). Biosocial perspectives on the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1018–1034. Buss, D. M. (2015). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (5th ed.) New York, NY: Psychology Press. Buss, D. M., Larsen, R., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. Cappella, J. N. (1991). The biological origins of automated patterns of human interaction. Communication Theory, 1, 4–35. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Clutton-Brock, T. H. (1991). The evolution of parental care. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1987). The Darwinian psychology of discriminative parental solicitude. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 35, 91–144.

322

Floyd, Dinsmore, & Pavlich

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1993). Stepparenthood and the evolved psychology of discriminative parental solicitude. In S. Parmigiami & F. vom Saal (Eds.), Infanticide and parental care (pp. 121–134). London, England: Harwood. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. London, England: Murray. Ekman, P. (1972). Universals and cultural differences in facial expressions of emotions. In J. R. Cole (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 1971 (pp. 207–283). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Euler, H. A., & Weitzel, B. (1996). Discriminative grandparental solicitude as reproductive strategy. Human Nature, 7, 39–59. Floyd, K., & Afifi, T. D. (2012). Biological and physiological perspectives on interpersonal communication. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The handbook of interpersonal communication (4th ed., pp. 87–127). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Floyd, K., & Haynes, M. T. (2005). Applications of the theory of natural selection to the study of family communication. Journal of Family Communication, 5, 79–101. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (2001). Human affection exchange: III. Discriminative parental solicitude in men’s affectionate communication with their biological and nonbiological sons. Communication Quarterly, 49, 310–327. Floyd, K., & Morman, M. T. (Eds.). (2014). Widening the family circle: New research on family communication (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Floyd, K., Sargent, J. E., & Di Corcia, M. (2004). Human affection exchange: VI. Further tests of reproductive probability as a predictor of men’s affection with their fathers and their sons. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 191–206. Grammer, K., & Thornhill, R. (1994). Human facial attractiveness and sexual selection: The roles of averageness and symmetry. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 108, 233–242. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behavior. I & II. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, 1–52. Jankowiak, W., & Diderich, M. (2000). Sibling solidarity in a polygamous community in the USA: Unpacking inclusive fitness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 21, 125–139. Kenrick, D. T., & Trost, M. R. (2000). An evolutionary perspective on human relationships. In W. Ickes & S. Duck (Eds.), The social psychology of personal relationships (pp. 9–35). New York, NY: Wiley. Koerner, A., & Floyd, K. (2010). Evolutionary approaches to interpersonal communication. In S. W. Smith & S. R. Wilson (Eds.), New directions in interpersonal communication (pp. 27–47). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mikkelson, A. C., Floyd, K., & Pauley, P. M. (2011). Differential solicitude of social support in different types of adult sibling relationships. Journal of Family Communication, 11, 220–236. Miller, G. E., Dopp, J. M., Myers, H. F., Stevens, S. Y., & Fahey, J. L. (1999). Psychosocial predictors of natural killer cell mobilization during marital conflict. Health Psychology, 19, 262–271. Morris, R. (2001). The evolutionists: The struggle for Darwin’s soul. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman. Olson, L. N, Baiocchi-Wagner, E. A., Wilson-Kratzer, J. M., & Symonds, S. E. (2012). The dark side of family communication. Cambridge, England: Polity. Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective neuroscience: The foundations of human and animal emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Theory of Natural Selection 323 Reynolds, P. D. (1971). A primer in theory construction. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs Merrill. Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (1992). Psychological foundations of culture. In J. Barkow, L. Cosmides, & J. Tooby (Eds.), The adapted mind (pp. 19–36). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Eds.), Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971 (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine. Trost, M. R., & Alberts, J. K. (1998). An evolutionary view on understanding sex effects in communicating attraction. In D. J. Canary & K. Dindia (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in communication (pp. 233–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Turner, L. H., & West, R. (Eds.). (2015). The Sage handbook of family communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Workman, L., & Reader, W. (2013). Evolutionary psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

29 Theory of Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL) Understanding Families as Systems of Stress and Calibration Tamara D. Afifi and Kathryn Harrison

How do you communicate with your loved ones when you are stressed? Do you become easily irritated and blame one another for the stress? What makes the stress more manageable? Imagine giving your relationship a “booster shot” on a regular basis that would help protect it from some of the negative effects of stress. We argue that relationship maintenance is a booster shot that helps manage stress and foster resilience in relationships. Resilience, or the ability to adapt positively when faced with adversity (Luthar, 2003), is one of the most profound constructs of interest to researchers, clinicians, health care professionals, and the lay public alike. The key question is why some people, relationships, and families adapt positively and even thrive when confronted with adversity and others do not. Even though an extensive amount of research has focused on identifying the factors that promote resilience, the underlying theoretical structures connecting these factors is severely lacking. A better theoretical understanding of how and why resilience is created and maintained in relationships and its effects on personal and relational health is required. The theory of resilience and relational load (TRRL, Afifi, Merrill, & Davis, 2016) was developed to fill this void in the literature. It is a new theory that was created to better understand families and relationships as communicative, dynamic systems of stress and resilience. The theory bridges communicative, perceptual, and physiological aspects of stress within the context of social relationships to explain personal/relational risk, resilience, and thriving. The primary focus of the theory is how people maintain their relationships on an ongoing basis, which affects how stressed they feel and how they communicate with their loved ones when they are stressed. This chapter describes the intellectual tradition behind the TRRL. We then outline some of the assumptions and propositions of the theory, as well as the role of communication in it. Finally, we examine how it has been tested so far and its practical contributions, strengths and limitations, and possible future directions.

Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL) 325

Intellectual Tradition of the Theory of Resilience and Relational Load Whereas the main intellectual tradition of TRRL is post-positivist in orientation, it also lends itself to an interpretivist approach. It is an axiomatic theory that predicts certain outcomes, but it can also be used to better understand the richness of people’s lived experiences with stress, how they manage it relationally, and the role of relationship maintenance in this process. The TRRL relies on assumptions from several theories that came before it, including the notion of allostatic load (McEwen, & Stellar, 1993), family systems theory (Minuchin, 1974), attachment theory (Bowlby, 1982), affectionate exchange theory (Floyd, 2002), and broaden and build theory (Fredrickson, 1998). One of the basic assumptions of the TRRL is that people are social beings who long to feel appreciated, loved, respected, and included in the world around them. As attachment theory (Bowlby) attests, people ultimately want to know that someone is there for them when they face life’s challenges. Similar to family systems theory (Minuchin, 1974) and other family stress theories (e.g., family adjustment and adaptation response (FAAR) Model; Patterson, 2002), the TRRL also assumes that social relationships have the power to significantly alter an individual’s stress trajectories—either positively or negatively—because the individual is inherently embedded within larger relational systems that influence those trajectories. The TRRL is based on the notion that even though individuals cope with stress psychologically, they often talk to others about their stress (Lyons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1998). In fact, many stressors people experience are jointly owned and acted upon together in relationships (Afifi, Hutchinson, & Krouse, 2006; Lyons et al., 1998). The social system itself becomes a stress ameliorator or a stress multiplier and sometimes it does both simultaneously. One’s romantic relationship and/or family and the individuals within it are part of a stress system, with one affecting, and being affected by, the other. The TRRL focuses on relationship maintenance as the primary means through which couples and families manage stress. This underlying assumption builds on the theory of emotional capital (Feeney & Lemay, 2012). The theory of emotional capital states that when couples create emotional capital over time through sharing positive emotional experiences, it protects them from relational threats. Feeney and Lemay use a banking metaphor in their theory and argue that when couples’ “relational bank account” has reserves in it, it allows them to draw from those reserves when they need it. When the bank account is overdrawn, there are no reserves from which to draw upon when the relationship becomes threatened. We extend the theory of emotional capital in significant ways in the TRRL. One way the TRRL is different from the theory of emotional capital is that the TRRL is a theory about stress and resilience instead of relational threats. The TRRL also focuses on relationship maintenance, rather than simply positive emotional experiences, as a way to manage the stress. In addition, although the

326

Afifi & Harrison

TRRL can be tested without addressing the biological component of stress, it emphasizes the intersections among the body’s physiological and perceived stress responses and communication patterns in relationships. Most theories of stress only examine people’s perceptions of stress and do not address the research that demonstrates the importance of the body’s physiological stress responses for people’s personal and relational health. The TRRL articulates one way in which communication patterns and perceptions when people are stressed influence stress responses and how these stress responses impact communication patterns. The TRRL also identifies resilience is a cyclical process of calibration in relationships. Resilience is a predictor of how people manage stress, a process, and an outcome. But, it is ultimately a process of constant calibration in one’s relationships by gathering feedback about stress and adjusting the relationship accordingly by reinvigorating it. Even though couples and families enter into stressful situations already resilient to varying degrees, resilience is a process that is created and maintained through communication. As such, it is a process that can be learned and changed over time. If people do not calibrate their relationships, it can lead to what we refer to as relational load. The TRRL is also different from the theory of emotional capital in that it focuses on who is likely to invest in their relationships in the first place and what happens if people have different desires for those investments. Not everyone is able or wants to maintain their relationships equitably. According to equity theory (Walster & Walster, 1975), however, conflict and stress can be created when people give more to their relationship than they receive. The key is whether people’s desires for relationship maintenance are met. Some people might not also want or need a lot of relationship maintenance. Ultimately, however, relational partners and family members want to know that they can face their stressors together as a team and that someone is there for them when they are stressed. This is what we refer to as a communal orientation.

Main Goals and Features of the Theory of Resilience and Relational Load The TRRL emerged out of years of observing families communicating when they are stressed, but it crystalized from a study on the Great Recession of 2007–2009 (Afifi, Davis et al., 2017). Most research on financial hardship has found that financial strain negatively affects children because it creates stress and conflict in marriage, affecting the couples’ mental health and ability to effectively parent their children (Conger & Elder, 1994). Unlike traditional financial hardship, however, couples in the Great Recession had something other than each other (e.g., banks, the U.S. government, Wall Street) to blame for their financial hardship. Many couples were resilient and even grew from their experiences with the Great Recession. The families were not alone in their fight against it. Entire communities joined forces to combat the Great Recession,

Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL) 327 giving them greater coping efficacy as a social unit. The couples in this study that communicated in ways that uplifted their partner and blamed outside sources were more likely to experience better mental health, lower physiological stress, and less divorce proneness. It also appeared as if the families came to the Great Recession already resilient and that the recession only made them stronger. What we were left wondering from this investigation was what contributed to their resilience in the first place. For the answer to this question, we turn to the TRRL. As an overview, the TRRL explores how relational partners’ and family members’ communal orientation and maintenance of their relationships on a regular basis influence their appraisal of stress and communication patterns during stressful moments. Partners and family members who have a stronger communal orientation should invest more in their relationships by maintaining them, which affects the extent to which they perceive something as stressful and how they communicate when they are stressed. The theory also outlines how these communication patterns and appraisals influence stress, personal and relational health, and resilience. When relational partners or family members lack a communal orientation and fail to maintain their relationships, repeated patterns of stressful communication begin to develop and slowly wear away at the health of the individuals and their relationships. The concept of relational load is set forth, which is “the wear and tear that chronic stress and depletion of one’s emotional, psychological and relational resources through repeated, stress-related conversations can have on relationships” (Afifi et al., 2016, p. 1). People need to continually calibrate their relationships and invest in them to foster resilience and possible thriving and prevent relational load from occurring. The TRRL begins with the proposition that when people invest in their relationships by maintaining them over time, it builds emotional reserves that can be drawn from during relationally stressful moments (proposition 1). Investments in the TRRL are the “prosocial, strategic, and routine or habituated experiences, behaviors and actions people use to maintain their relationships” (Afifi et al., 2016, p. 11). This could include affectionate behaviors, such as physical touch, saying “I love you,” spending quality time together, and showing effort in everyday tasks that communicate to one’s partner or family member that he/she is valued. When these maintenance behaviors, positive moments, and actions occur over time, emotional reserves accrue that relational partners and family members can rely on to protect the relationship from the negative effects of stress. The TRRL also suggests that couples/families who have a strong communal orientation, or who view one other as a team with regard to their stress and life in general, are more likely to invest in their relationships (i.e., maintain them) and build emotional reserves (proposition 2). For example, when relational partners feel like the other person has “their back” and is there for them when times get tough, they want to spend time with this person and do things for him/her that show love and appreciation. Likewise, if partners experience a discrepancy

328

Afifi & Harrison

in their communal orientation where they feel like they desire more of a communal orientation than they currently have, they are going to invest less in the relationship. When couples and families take the time to maintain their relationships, it makes them feel a stronger communal orientation. Perceptions of a communal orientation and maintenance of one’s relationships, as well as discrepancies in that communal orientation and maintenance, affect the extent to which people experience events as stressful (proposition 3). When family members have invested in their relationships, they likely do not see things as stressful compared to others who have not accrued as many emotional reserves. Maintenance behaviors could also be used to ward off the negative effects of stress before the stress even occurs. For example, if you know that something stressful is about to happen (e.g., a surgery, an exam, being overloaded at work), family members can spend more quality time together or make more concerted efforts to show their appreciation for one other in preparation for this stressor. When family members positively maintain their relationships, especially over time because it shows repeated patterns of behavior, it makes them feel connected, appreciated, loved, and secure. These feelings soften the negative effects of stress. When people fail to invest in their relationships or experience discrepancies in their investments where one person desires more maintenance than he/she receives, the stress can begin to build and affect their communal orientation and the extent to which they want to maintain their relationship. Having a communal orientation and maintaining one’s relationships on a regular basis, as well as discrepancies in that communal orientation and maintenance, also affects people’s appraisals and communication patterns when they are stressed (proposition 4). These communication patterns and perceptions, in turn, affect personal and relational health, efficacy, resilience, and stress. For example, when family members have a strong communal orientation, they know they will be there for one other when something stressful happens. This perception makes them want to invest in their relationships by being together, doing things as a family, and showing affection. When people have accrued emotional reserves, they then likely appraise relationally stressful situations from a more positive, broader mindset (see also broaden and build theory; Fredrickson, 1998) and use communication patterns that uplift their partner and preserve the relationship. More secure appraisals and behaviors during stress are likely to foster resilience and possible growth, minimize perceived and physiological stress, and promote health. From an evolutionary perspective, when individuals feel like they have been abandoned in their relationships, their first instinct is to protect themselves in stressful and potentially threatening situations. Conversely, individuals who have developed secure and trusting relationships with close others will turn toward them rather than away from them when they are stressed. Couples/family members who lack investments, and/or whose standards or expectations for investments are unmet, are likely to engage in more threatening appraisals and conflict behaviors when they are stressed. Their emotions and communicative responses become more restricted and

Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL) 329 narrow. They are more likely to blame their partner for their stress rather than external circumstances. More threatening appraisals and communication patterns are likely to deplete a person’s cognitive, emotional, and relational resources, and exacerbate the stress. The TRRL assumes that every relationship will experience stress. When something stressful happens, secure appraisals and communication patterns prevent the depletion of relational resources (i.e., emotional, psychological, cognitive, and relational) because people feel validated (proposition 5a), whereas threatening appraisals and communication patterns deplete those resources because people spend a lot of time defending themselves and regulating their emotions (proposition 5b). Emotional reserves protect relational partners from stress by providing more positive energy during stressful and conflict inducing situations. For instance, when in conflict, relational partners must maintain self-control in order to keep the conversation respectful and considerate. Self-control is conceptualized in TRRL as a scarce resource that can become depleted if there are no emotional reserves from which to draw. Engaging in negative forms of conflict can be exhausting emotionally, psychologically, cognitively, and relationally, especially if they happen on a regular basis. These depleted resources can create relational load (proposition 6), or the burnout that is experienced from the wear and tear of the chronic stress on the relationship (Afifi et al., 2016). The consequences of the depletion of relational resources, including emotional, psychological, and cognitive resources, can have an impact on one’s personal and relational health (proposition 7). If the depletion occurs over longer periods of time, it can lead relational partners to feel as if they are exhausted or burned out in their relationship. The relationship that was once a source of inspiration has become a major source of stress and can affect people psychologically and physiologically. In contrast, secure perceptions and behaviors facilitate resilience, the ability to thrive, and promote health (mental and physical health, relational health, efficacy, healthy behaviors) (proposition 8). Relational load can influence perceptions of a communal orientation with their relational partner, making individuals feel as though they are no longer unified (proposition 9). This can also make partners feel as though there is a discrepancy in how much they are investing in the relationship verses how much their partner is investing. Relational load prompts partners to lose touch with one another emotionally and slowly invest less and less in the relationship. To mitigate this, the TRRL proposes that partners must continually assess and reassess the relationship and make adjustments when necessary by maintaining their relationship. These maintenance behaviors and actions provide constant awareness of the state of the relationship, creating a healthy space for resilience and thriving. If relational load is experienced, partners are able to identify it and utilize prosocial behaviors to manage it. This benefits the relationship by lessening stress, reinvigorating the relationship, and improving mental and physical health. As such, the TRRL argues that maintenance strategies can be learned (proposition 10).

330

Afifi & Harrison

How Communication is Conceptualized in the Theory of Resilience and Relational Load Communication is at the heart of the TRRL and is realized through (1) maintenance behaviors, (2) focusing on how people communicate when they are stressed as a function of their communal orientation and maintenance behaviors, and (3) resilience and relational load as created through communication during stress. The theory also demonstrates the transformative and complex nature of communication in relationships and the intersections among communication, perception, and biological stress responses. In the TRRL, most of the maintenance behaviors are communicative in nature. Positive relational maintenance behaviors involve pro-social, verbal, and nonverbal behaviors. These maintenance behaviors are what foster certain perceptions and communication patterns during stressful times, building resilience. Communication also reveals itself in the model when examining how people communicate when they are stressed. This can be operationalized in numerous ways, but the most obvious concepts that could be examined are social support and conflict behaviors. For example, when relational partners have not maintained their relationships, they should be more likely to engage in negative forms of conflict (e.g., demand-withdraw, blaming, contempt, criticism, defensiveness, extreme avoidance, passive aggressiveness) and lack social support. All of these behaviors are inherently communicative. These maintenance behaviors and communication patterns during stress create resilience. Alternatively, stressful communication patterns that build over time, due to a lack of a communal orientation and lack of maintenance, create relational load when relationships are not maintained. Therefore, communication is at the heart of the TRRL. Even though we did not touch very much on the biological aspects of the theory in this chapter, the TRRL explains how communication affects people’s physiology and vice versa. In short, individuals respond differently to stress depending on how the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical (HPA) axis and the locus coereleus-norepinephrine/sympathetic nervous system (LC-NE/SNS) communicate with one another in response to stress. The HPA releases hormones into the body to combat the harmful consequences of stress and helps to return the body to a more natural state. Chronic stress can break down these regulation systems, creating allostatic load. Allostatic load is the notion that chronic stress can wear and tear on the body, breaking down its ability to adapt to stress in a positive manner. With enough chronic stress, allostatic load can put an individual’s health at risk (Evens, Kim, Ting, Tesher, & Shannis, 2007). Even when an individual is experiencing chronic stress, TRRL suggests that if individuals invest in their relationships over time by building emotional capital and a communal orientation, they are better able to overcome the negative effects of physiological and perceived stress. These communication patterns influence people’s personal and relational health— placing them at risk or making them more resilient to physiological and

Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL) 331 perceived stress responses. The stress also affects whether people want to maintain their relationship, feel connected to their family members, and communicate in secure and/or destructive ways.

Research and Practical Applications of the Theory of Resilience and Relational Load Because the TRRL is a new theory that is still in press, it has only begun to be tested. Nevertheless, four studies have recently been conducted that have applied the TRRL. These studies help illustrate the multitude of ways the theory can be tested methodologically and its practical implications. To date, the theory has been tested in contexts of marriage and cancer, long-term dating couples, fast-paced families, and chronic illness in families. Currently, Afifi and colleagues only have the data from the chronic illness study analyzed and will discuss some of the findings from that study after we briefly explain the methods of the other studies. Whereas three of the aforementioned studies are post-positivist, the study on marriage and cancer is a triangulated study that is interpretive and postpositivist in nature. The purpose of this study was to understand how elderly, married couples in rural populations are able to thrive when one of them has colorectal cancer (Afifi, Afifi et al., 2017). Individual interviews were conducted with the married couples about how they maintained their relationship over the years, their stress and uncertainty related to the cancer, and their coping. When interviewing the couples about relationship maintenance, we asked them about what things they say and do (or don’t say/do) that make their partner feel loved and appreciated. They then completed a survey about their maintenance over the past month and other health and relational measures, engaged in an interaction with each other about their uncertainty and stress related to the cancer, and then completed a post-interaction survey that asked them about the support, stress, and conflict tendencies in the interaction that just occurred. The primary point of this study is to investigate how the couples’ maintenance of their long-term marriage reveals itself in the way they talk about the uncertainty and stress related to the cancer, as well as how it affects their ability to manage the cancer. Although the theory is probably most applicable to long-term partnerships/marriages and families, Afifi and colleagues wanted to see if it could also be applied to dating partners who had been dating for at least a year (Afifi, Acevedo Callejas, & Harrison, 2017a). They had 90 dating couples complete an initial survey online that asked them about their maintenance behaviors over the past month. We then had them complete online diary logs to assess their daily maintenance behaviors, feelings of communal orientation and discrepancies in their communal orientation, conflict-inducing conversations they might have had during the week, and other relational measures (e.g., loneliness, happiness, relational burnout) for seven days leading up to a visit to our laboratory. Once they arrived at our laboratory, they completed a brief

332

Afifi & Harrison

survey about their current feelings about their relationship and then engaged in a conversation with each other about something stressful in their relationship. They then completed a brief survey afterward that asked them about how they felt during the conversation. The partners were then separated into private rooms and watched the videotape of their conversation, stopping it every minute. In this video assisted recall session, at each minute segment the partners were asked to numerically indicate how much they felt blamed, criticized, and supported and how much they thought their partner felt this way. They were asked to free flow write about what they were thinking and what they thought their partner was thinking during each minute. Finally, after they left the lab, the couples completed five more days of diary logs. This study design allows us to assess the partners’ attributional biases about their stress and observe their communication patterns (e.g., conflict, support) with the video recall procedure. The longitudinal nature of the data also enables us to assess the bi-directional influence of communal orientation and maintenance strategies and their impact on communication patterns before, during, and after stressful conversations. We can also determine how stressful conversations over time can foster relational load and how relational load can be prevented with relational maintenance. In the fast paced families study (Afifi, Acevedo Callejas, & Harrison, 2017b), we investigated how dual income, full-time employed parents, and their teenagers balance the fast paced nature of family life and work, infused with technology and multiple youth activities. In particular, we wanted to examine how technology can be used to maintain positive family relationships in this fast paced lifestyle, as well as produce more stress. In this study, 60 families with two parents and one of their adolescent children completed an initial online survey, online daily diary logs for seven days and then a post-survey. They also took saliva samples immediately after waking up, 30 minutes after they awoke, at noon, and then before bedtime during two consecutive days in the middle of this week to measure the family members’ diurnal rhythms in their cortisol. Cortisol is a stress hormone that follows a natural rhythm throughout the day, rising to its highest point 30 minutes upon waking and slowing declining throughout the day and reaching its lowest point around midnight. One hypothesis is that families that maintain their family relationships better, whether it is through technology or non-technological means, should have a healthier diurnal rhythm or a steeper diurnal slope during the day and a better rise in the cortisol after they wake, compared to other families. In this study we are also investigating adolescents’ and parents’ maintenance and the extent to which adolescents’ desires for more maintenance from their parents is rooted in technology and a fast paced lifestyle. Finally, we conducted a study with 60 families with two parents (or stepparents/parental figures) who had a teen (ages 12–18) with Type I diabetes (Afifi, Granger et al., 2017). The study consisted of a home visit where all three family members completed a survey about their relationship maintenance, stress, and personal and relational health. The parents then engaged in a conversation with

Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL) 333 each other where they talked about something stressful and conflict inducing in their relationship related to their child’s diabetes. The parents then completed a survey that asked them about their perceptions of conflict and support during the interaction, as well as their mood and stress. At the end of the home visit, the parents were randomly assigned to an intervention or a control condition. The couples in the intervention were asked to do four things every day over the next two weeks: (a) hug their partners; (b) tell them you love them (e.g., verbally, through the use of technology, writing it); (c) spend 15 minutes of quality time with each other with no children or technology; and (d) do something thoughtful for each other that shows love, gratitude, and appreciation. The last part of the intervention was inductive in that the researcher asked the relational partner to articulate to each other what they liked about what their partner says or does that communicates he/she loves and appreciates the other. They were also asked what they were not getting from their partners that they wanted them to do more. They were asked to brainstorm creatively together and use this as an opportunity to “spice up” their relationship. The couples in the control group were not given any instructions. All of the couples and their child then completed daily online diary logs over the next two weeks that asked about their relationship satisfaction, maintenance behaviors, stress, resilience, and relational load. At the end of the two weeks, the researcher traveled back to the families’ homes. At the initial visit (before the conversation and several points after it) and the follow-up visit, the researcher took the parents’ saliva samples to test for various biological indicators of stress (cortisol, salivary alphaamylase, cholesterol, blood pressure, heart rate), and immune system strength (Il-6, c-reactive protein). Preliminary findings from the Type I study support the basic propositions of the TRRL. For instance, the more that husbands and wives felt a communal orientation with each other, the more they perceived that the other person engaged in behaviors that maintained their relationship over the past month. For wives, these accrued emotional reserves, which in turn, mediated the association between communal orientation and stress about the child’s diabetes. That is, the more that wives felt a communal orientation toward their husband, the more they felt like their husband maintained their relationship. This maintenance, in turn, helped wives feel less stressed about their child’s diabetes. For husbands, the more they felt a communal orientation toward their wives, the more they felt like their wife maintained their relationship. The husbands’ perception of maintenance, however, did not affect how stressed they felt about their child’s diabetes. Interestingly, the wife’s stress about her child’s diabetes was positively associated with the child’s perception of stress about his/her diabetes, but the husband’s stress about the child’s diabetes was not significantly associated with the child’s perception of his/her diabetes. Also, the husband and wife’s stress levels were not correlated with each other. In essence, the wife and child’s stress about the child’s illness were strongly connected, but were separate from the husband.

334

Afifi & Harrison

Another analysis also revealed that wives’ perception that their husbands maintained their relationship predicted less conflict (i.e., criticism, defensiveness, contempt) in the conversation, which, in turn, predicted less stress for the wives during the conversation and greater efficacy about their child’s illness (or feeling like they have the ability to manage the illness). The same pattern emerged for husbands. In addition, the wife’s efficacy was associated with the child’s efficacy about his/her illness, but the husband’s efficacy was not associated with the child’s efficacy. The husbands’ and the wives’ efficacy were also unrelated. Therefore, perceptions that one’s partner puts forth effort to maintain the relationship over time makes one experience less conflict when talking about the child’s diabetes, which makes one feel less stressed about the illness and have greater efficacy. The child’s efficacy and stress, however, appear to be connected to the mother but not the father.

Evaluation of the Theory of Resilience and Relational Load The TRRL is unique in that it focuses on relationship maintenance as an underlying mechanism for managing stress and building resilience in relationships. It is the only theory we know of that places relationship maintenance at the center of relational resilience. This also makes it a very practical theory. Maintenance strategies are behaviors and actions that relational partners and family members can be taught. People can also learn how to feel more unified with one other. The TRRL is also one of the only theories that bridges perceptual, behavioral, and physiological elements of stress as set within larger social systems of stress. The theory matches the complexity of the stress experience that occurs in relationships. This complexity is also realized in the cyclical way that stress and resilience is discussed in the theory. At the same time, this complexity is a limitation of the theory. Because of the numerous components of the theory, only parts of it should be tested at one time. Moreover, even though the theory is cyclical by nature, it does not mean that longitudinal data are necessary to test it. For instance, partners and family members can reflect back on their maintenance strategies over the past month (or whatever time frame is desired) in a cross sectional study. Finally, the theory is meant to be tested within close relationships where people have an emotional attachment. It could be applied to groups, such as close friendships, but it is probably most applicable to romantic relationships and families. It can also be applied to entire families and different family types (e.g., single parent families; extended family). However, discrepancies in communal orientation and maintenance are likely most appropriate with relationships where equity is assumed. For instance, parents typically would not expect their child to invest in their relationship as much as they do (except maybe as they become adults and/or roles become reversed in older age). In this case, the sheer amount of relationship maintenance and communal orientation would be a better test of the theory than discrepancies.

Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL) 335

Continuing the Conversation The TRRL can be used to examine why some couples and families are more resilient than others when faced with a variety of situations that could affect their relationships (e.g., divorce, a natural disaster, financial hardship, balancing work and family, moving, bullying, daily life stressors, career transitions, longdistance relationships). Couples and families that maintain their relationships better over time should be less stressed in these situations, have better health, see one other in more benevolent ways, and communicate in a manner that preserves their relationships rather than tears them apart. The TRRL could also have indirect effects on health behaviors. For example, the theory could be used to explain healthy eating and exercise patterns. One could examine obesity and/or type II diabetes and how parents who maintain the stress in their marriage indirectly affect the eating and exercise habits of themselves and their children. Or, it could be used to explain emotional eating after conflict episodes with one’s family members. Families that are less stressed are also probably healthier in other aspects of their lives. The ultimate test of the theory is the development of interventions that can foster resilience and thriving. The TRRL proposes that interventions can be designed to help couples and families learn maintenance skills that can promote resilience and potential thriving. These interventions could involve identifying problem areas in relationships and coaching people on better ways to interact with one other. The main goals of the intervention would be to help families communicate more effectively (especially while stressed), build a communal orientation, and regularly express love, affection, and appreciation for one another through various maintenance techniques. For example, there has been little theoretical explanation for why marital satisfaction declines and why it increases after children leave the household for some couples and not others. This context provides a perfect test of the TRRL. The theory could argue that the couples who maintain their marriage on a regular basis while their children are in the home will be better able to maintain a happier, healthier marriage. Those who do not invest in their marriage will likely deplete their personal and relational resources and perhaps experience relational load, making them more susceptible to sexual dissatisfaction, loneliness, the empty-nest syndrome, and divorce. The TRL is ripe for interventions where family members can be shown how to use maintenance strategies on a regular basis to better manage the stress in their family and ultimately affect their personal and relational health.

References Afifi, T. D., Acevedo Callejas, M., & Harrison, K. (2017a). Resilience and relational load in long-term dating couples: A test of the TRRL. Manuscript in preparation. Afifi, T. D., Acevedo Callejas, M., & Harrison, K. (2017b). Fast paced families: Maintenance of family relationships amidst stress, technology and balancing work and family. Manuscript in preparation.

336

Afifi & Harrison

Afifi, T. D., Afifi, W. A., High, A., Shahnazi, A., Buehler, E., & Crowley, J. (2017). Relationship maintenance, resilience, and colorectal cancer. Manuscript in preparation. Afifi, T. D., Davis, S., Merrill, A., Coveleski, S., Denes, A., & Shahnazi, A. (2017). Resilience in the New Economy: Couples’ communication about financial uncertainty and associations with mental health, divorce proneness, and biological stress responses. Manuscript submitted for publication. Afifi, T. D., Hutchinson, S., & Krouse, S. (2006). Toward a theoretical model of communal coping in post-divorce families and other naturally occurring groups. Communication Theory, 16, 378–409. Afifi, T. D., Merril, A., & Davis, S. (2016). The theory of resilience and relational load. Personal Relationships, 23, 663–683. Afifi, T. D., Granger, D., Ersig, A., Davis, S., Shahnazi, A., Harrison, K., & Acevedo Callejas, M. (2017). The theory of resilience and relational load (TRRL) in the context of Type I diabetes. Manuscript in preparation. Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment theory and its therapeutic implications. Adolescent Psychiatry, 6, 5–33. Conger, R. D., & Elder, G. H. J. (1994). Families in troubled times: Adapting to change in rural America. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter. Evans, G. W., Kim, P., Ting, A. H., Tesher, H. B., & Shannis, D. (2007). Cumulative risk, maternal responsiveness, and allostatic load among young adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 43, 341–351. Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P. (2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1004–1017. Floyd, K. (2002). Human affection exchange V: Attributes of the highly affectionate. Communication Quarterly, 50, 135–152. Fredrickson, B. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319. Lee, J., Nam, S., Kim, A., Kim, B., Lee, M., & Lee, S. (2013). Resilience: A meta-analytic approach. Journal of Counseling and Development, 91, 269–279. Luthar, S. S. (Ed.). (2003). Resilience and vulnerability: Adaptation in the context of childhood adversities. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K., Sullivan, J. L., & Coyne, J. C. (1998). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579–607. McEwen, B. S., & Stellar, E. (1993). Stress and the individual: Mechanisms leading to disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 153, 2093–2101. Minuchin, S. (1974). Family and family therapy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family resilience and family stress theory. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 349–360. Walster, E., & Walster, W. (1975). Equity and social justice. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 21–43.

30 Uses and Gratifications Theory Considering Media Use in the Context of Family Communication Jeffrey T. Child and Paul Haridakis

Researchers do not necessarily think about the applicability of media theories to study family communication. But, how families use and communicate around a TV, a radio, or through online communication and media sources has often been of interest to both media and family communication scholars. Whereas some media theories focus on exposure or media channel attributes, others focus specifically on how individuals use media to gratify their own needs and desires. Interaction with family represents an important gratification, or motivation, that influences media use and selection by individuals. Uses and gratifications (U&G), in particular, is a theory that focuses on people’s use of media and other forms of communication (e.g., interpersonal or family) to satisfy their own needs and desires. U&G offers a theoretical explanation for the use and selection of media and other communication channels for mediated and face-to-face communication. The theory focuses less on the amount or frequency of media use and more on the effects that individual psychological and social differences, motivations, and levels of communication activity have on individual media use. In this chapter, we review representative research in the family communication context and its applications to the U&G theoretical framework. We also explore how and why family members use media to communicate, and some effects of media use and selection.

Intellectual Tradition of Uses and Gratifications Theory U&G originates from functionalist studies of the 1940s and 1950s, when communication scholars began investigating the functions that media serve for people—such as surveillance, cultural transmission of values, and entertainment, among others (e.g., Lasswell, 1948; Rubin, 2009; Wright, 1960)—and the gratifications they seek and/or obtain from various media (e.g., Berelson 1949; Herzog, 1940, 1944). This type of research led scholars to conclude that understanding media use and effects required more than just focusing on content and/or exposure. It included the need to consider how and why people select media and media fare, and the role that individual differences play in that selection. Katz (1959) referred to this functional approach to considering media use and effects as “uses and gratifications.” The uses and gratifications perspective

338 Child & Haridakis provided mass communication researchers with a theory that accounted for the social and psychological needs of media users (Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1973–1974). Over the years, researchers have considered the influence of a host of social and psychological characteristics, level and types of audience activity, and motives for using media on media effects. The theory has been used to study the uses and effects of virtually all media channels. The U&G theoretical perspective acknowledges that individuals may use a combination of family communication practices and media interchangeably to satisfy the gratification of individual needs and desires (Rubin, 2009). As such, the theory is useful for family communication scholars to consider when attempting to understand the role, meaning, and use of media in different families.

Main Goals and Features of Uses and Gratifications Theory A central premise of the theory is that people are active communicators and therefore use media actively. U&G focuses on how, and more specifically on why, people choose media to gratify their needs and desires. It places the person at the center of the media use and effects process. Haridakis (2013) explains: Uses and gratifications suggests that people’s social and psychological characteristics influence their needs and desires which are manifested in their motives for using communication channels. Audience background characteristics and motives, in turn, influence media-use activity before, during and after use; attitudes about the media and their content; and, ultimately, effects. (pp. 148–149) Katz, Blumler, and Gurevitch (1974) authored one of the most-cited articulations of the uses and gratifications model, noting its focus on: the social and psychological origins of (2) needs, which generate (3) expectations of (4) the mass media or other sources, which lead to (5) differential patterns of media exposure (or engagement in other activities), resulting in (6) need gratifications and (7) other consequences, perhaps mostly unintended ones. (p. 20) Because U&G is an audience-centered (as opposed to media-centered or content/message-centered) perspective, media users are viewed as goal-directed, purposive, variably active, and selective in their choice of communication. They develop expectations regarding which channels best satisfy their needs and desires. They choose from among various communication channels in response to those expectations. These channel choices (face-to-face, mediated, mass, and interpersonal) are seen as functional alternatives to one another. Thus, media

Uses and Gratification Theory

339

are in competition with other forms of communication for selection by people to gratify needs and desires. Although U&G theory has not been used often by family communication researchers, prior uses and gratifications research has identified family communication-related factors influential in the media use and effects process. In addition, U&G research on the use of media and interpersonal channels for social connectivity is important to consider in the family context.

How Communication is Conceptualized in Uses and Gratifications Theory Within a U&G framework, communication is viewed as the vehicle through which people seek and obtain gratification of their needs and desires, and they use various forms of mediated and face-to-face communication to do so. That choice is based, in part, on availability and expectations of which channel/ medium will be most effective in meeting communication goals sought by individuals. Thus, the various possible types of communication channels are all seen as functional alternatives for achieving goals. If a particular desired channel is not available, an individual will turn to another channel that he or she feels will be functional in meeting the same goals and outcomes. So, for example, a mother may want to talk to her daughter face to face about a personal issue. But, if her daughter is not available for a face-to-face conversation (e.g., the daughter is away at college), she may turn to a mediated form of communication (Facetime, Facebook, Snapchat) as a reasonable alternative in assisting her in meeting the goal of discussing the personal issue with her daughter. Much U&G research has focused on the role of communication motivation. According to U&G, the motives people have for communicating reflect the needs and desires they seek to satisfy and are related to the level of communication activity employed. Motives, in turn, influence the selection of media and other communication activity. Most of the research has focused on media selection. Whereas earlier research focused on movies (radio and television), researchers in the 1980s and 1990s began to focus more on the uses and effects of newer media such as the Internet. Finally, the growth of social media since the mid-2000s has drawn the attention of U&G researchers in recent years to these mediated forms of communication. Some of that research has identified important family communication functions carried out through social media channels.

Research and Practical Applications of Uses and Gratifications Theory Communication Motivation We often think about the media as something we turn to for entertainment, information, to relax or pass the time, and even to escape from the tribulations

340

Child & Haridakis

of daily life. In fact, these are some of the reasons that have been identified for using media. But, people also use media for social reasons, such as to connect with family and friends. Social-oriented motives for using media have been identified in studies of media use ranging from radio and TV, to the Internet, cell phones, and social media. These motives are manifested slightly differently, depending on the scales used to uncover motives and the terminology used to describe them. Nevertheless, U&G researchers have identified motives such as sociability, relationship maintenance (Ku, Chu, & Tseng, 2013), affection, inclusion, control (Rubin, Perse, & Barbato, 1988), social interaction, interpersonal connection, co-viewing (Haridakis & Hanson, 2009), and companionship (Rubin, 1983). Many of these U&G studies were not conducted in family contexts. However, it is easy to see that social reasons for using media are relevant in familial contexts. In the context of family communication, for example, Lull (1980) identified various relational functions of family use of TV in the home. These included facilitating communication, social learning, and competence/dominance (e.g., reinforcing family roles, gatekeeping). Some of the early U&G studies also indicated that people watched TV, at times and in part, to have something to do with friends and family (Rubin, 1981). This also has been the case with watching particular content, such as watching a football game on TV with family members. People often attend sporting events or watch sports on television for family-related reasons, such as family connection (Haridakis, 2010). At times, people watch sports, for example, simply to be with and connect with a spouse or parent who is interested in that sport or event. In fact, in a study of adolescents’ motives for TV use, Roe and Minnebo (2007) asserted that the family social context was an important antecedent to consider in the study of motives for watching TV, because older family members (such as parents and grandparents) are primary socialization agents in adolescents’ lives. Adolescents who experienced more tensions with their parents were more likely to use TV for mood management than were adolescents who experienced less tension in their home life, although the relationship was not as strong among older adolescents. Although families have long listened to radio together or gathered around the TV to watch together, the emergence of social media forums has provided users with new ways to augment communication with family members. In newer media environments, U&G researchers have expanded on the role of media use among family members. This has particularly been the case in studies of social media. The top two reasons parents of adolescents use SNS are to communicate with their children and with their extended family members (Doty & Dworkin, 2014). Parents also used SNS to communicate with their children’s friends and the parents of those friends. This corresponds with research by Child and Westermann (2013), who found that young adults are more motivated to accept a Facebook friend request from their mothers without scrubbing prior content when their parents have socialized all members of the family to openly share private information with one another, regardless of how that private information is shared.

Uses and Gratification Theory

341

A family’s orientation toward privacy is an important background characteristic that illuminates how individual family members make decisions about social media communication with other family members (Child & Westermann, 2013; Child, Haridakis, & Petronio, 2012). Recently, Child, Duck, Andrews, Butauski, and Petronio (2015) found that family members who share private information more freely within the family are also more motivated to talk with siblings, parents, and grandparents offline about content they discover through Facebook posts. Family members are also more motivated to use the various online Facebook conversations features with their own parents (such as Facebook instant messaging, wall posts, or e-mailing through Facebook), when those parents cultivate more openness in the sharing of private information with other family members (Child et al., 2015). These findings demonstrate how engagement in intergenerational communication about and through Facebook can be tied to the motivation socialized by parents for protecting (or sharing) private information with other members of the family. Social media communication is also affected when young adults worry that their parents are engaging in mediated lurking and primarily interested in being Facebook friends only to monitor interactions with other Facebook friends. For example, family members share less private information through social media when they are concerned about someone engaging in mediated lurking; that is, being part of a Facebook network but wishing to go largely undetected (Child & Starcher, 2016). These types of studies are important because they illuminate how media use and communication are shaped by the motives that drive individual family members and are perceived to be influencing other members of the family unit. Use of media for family connection is not just the province of younger people and their parents. Jung and Sundar (2016) found that seniors used Facebook for social bonding (items comprising this motive related to connecting with friends, and most specifically, with family), social bridging, and responding to family members’ requests. Other research has suggested that seniors like to use SNS to share pictures, in part to stay in touch with geographically dispersed family members (see Jung & Sundar, 2016, for a review of studies). In a study of the use of an online care site for social support by people who are themselves experiencing health care concern, or who have a loved one experiencing such an issue, Anderson (2011) found salient family-related activity. Two of the perceived benefits of using the site—psychological support and spiritual support—pertained to support for oneself or one’s loved ones. Anderson also noted that approximately half of the pages created on the online site were created by women for their children. Choice of Media The above research also highlights the relationship between media-use motives and media selection, particularly the selection and use of media for family connection-related reasons. U&G assumes that people’s expectations of the

342

Child & Haridakis

usefulness of different media to satisfy their desires (reflected in their communication motives) will drive their media and other communication choices. At times, that might mean attending the same events, watching the same programs, or co-watching online content enjoyed by other friends and family members. At other times it means using various interpersonal or group media that fulfills each party’s expectations. For example, Ledbetter, Taylor, and Mazer (2016) suggested the importance of the selection of various interpersonal media (e.g., instant messaging, e-mail, SMS) and use of those media for interaction among family members. They found that among extended family members, enjoyment of media use predicted the frequency of medium use. Child and Westermann (2013) also found a positive relationship between the level of relational satisfaction with a child and his or her mother and the overall willingness to interact with the mother through social media channels. Although these family communication and media use findings seem intuitive, they suggest that the family and media selection environment matters in understanding media use. If a relationship is satisfying and gratifying, more media will be used to support it. Furthermore, the variety of media available for family members to use for communicating with other family members means those that each person enjoys the most get chosen most frequently. This family-oriented media-selection dynamic also can be seen in the different media use choices a range of family across the globe make. Not surprisingly, people tend to use the media with which they and their family members are familiar. For example, people in the U.S. often use Facebook to connect with family and friends (Edison Research, 2012). Chinese students often choose forums such as Weibo and WeChat (VincoBlog, 2012). Japanese and Taiwanese often choose Line to connect with family members (VincoBlog, 2012). The growth in newer media has been particularly valuable in helping diasporic communities and others geographically separated from family members (e.g., students studying abroad or away from home) with new ways to maintain connectedness and immediacy with family members. Gratifications Obtained and Other Effects As a media effects perspective, U&G has among its principal assumptions that variably active and goal-oriented communicators obtain the gratifications they intend. However, sometimes their use of media and face-to-face channels leads to both intended and unintended consequences and to both positive and negative effects. Thus, family influences not only motives for media use, but also outcomes of media use. For example, Hanson, Haridakis, Cunningham, Sharma, and Ponder (2010) found that the overall family context (the influence of family and friends) was an important predictor of outcomes of media use. Specifically, those whose family and friends provided more robust political socialization tended to be less politically cynical than their counterparts. SMS use and using media for gainful companionship also were negative predictors of cynicism.

Uses and Gratification Theory

343

Using media—ranging from TV to the Internet and social media—for social gratifications has been linked with relational satisfaction (Pornsakulvanich, Haridakis, & Rubin, 2008). More frequent communication through a medium of interaction has been linked with positive relational outcomes such as relational closeness. For example, focusing on extended family relationships, Ledbetter et al. (2016) found that the frequency of use of a medium predicted relational closeness among extended family members when the medium chosen was mutually enjoyable. Use of older media such as the telephone also has been suggested to assist in maintaining family and friend cohesion (Aronson, 1971). Similarly, cell phone use can facilitate social relationships, including the maintenance of family bonds (Wei & Lo, 2006). Wei and Lo found that using the cellphone for purposes of affection predicted frequency of contact with family members. Women tended to call family members more than did men. Those communicating for affection and accessibility also tended to be less lonely. Media use among family members can also have unintended and arguably less positive outcomes. For example, Lee, Lee, and Jang (2011) found that international students (Chinese students studying in Korea) whose Internet use reflected a more homeland orientation (e.g., staying in touch with and getting support from family and friends in the homeland) tended to have poorer emotional adjustment to college in their newer environment than did those who used the Internet to build social networks in their new environments. Media use can cause conflict in a family, and parents sometimes respond to this by controlling the media content to which their children have access (Lull, 1980). Parental control of access to sexual and violent content, for example, was one of the motivations behind the passage of the current television rating system and the requirement that all new television sets be equipped with a V-chip. The problem of family conflict arising from media use goes beyond content selection, however. Combining U&G with privacy management theory, Child et al. (2012) found that concern about family-related conflict was one of the motives people had for deleting material they had previously allowed to be on their own social media page. Child et al. found a range of different reasons why individual users ultimately were motivated to rethink an original intention to share information publically on a social media site such as Facebook. Thus, people can experience unintended consequences and outcomes as opposed to the effects and gratifications desired that explain their evolving media use choices and behaviors.

Evaluation of Uses and Gratifications U&G is ultimately a theory of media effects. As an audience-centered media effects theory, it has received some criticism for some of its central tenets about media use. One criticism is focused on its assumption that media users are active and goal-directed (Rubin, 2009). Over the years, U&G research has clarified

344

Child & Haridakis

that people are variably active, not universally active in their media use. At times, for example, media users are more instrumental and purposive in their media use and at other times they are more passive and ritualistic in their media use (Haridakis, 2013). Another criticism of U&G has been directed at the conceptualization of media use motivation. U&G assumes that people’s needs and desires are reflected in their motives for using media to satisfy those needs and desires. But identifying all motives that a person may have for using media is difficult. Over the years, though, researchers have found that there are rather consistent motives for using media such as entertainment, for information, to relax and pass the time, etc. (Haridakis, 2013; Rubin, 2009). Nonetheless, with the rise of new media, various motives continue to be identified and people may have different motives for attending to different kinds of media and content. Therefore, finding one consistent uniform typology of motives is elusive, if not impossible. Despite the difficulty in conceptualizing variables like activity and motivation, accounting for these factors has proven to be valuable, extended our knowledge of the role of individual differences in influencing media effects and some of the reasons why media effects are not uniform (because audience members are not uniform). Rather than focusing solely on media in media effects, one strength has been that U&G tries to account for a number of factors in the media-use process ranging from the individual differences of media users, their motives for using the media, the types of media and media content they choose, and ultimately the effects of all of those factors working in tandem (Haridakis, 2013). Specifically, prior research has demonstrated the value of applying U&G in family-related contexts. Its audience-centered focus makes it particularly valuable for considering family-related factors at each step of the communication process. It is not surprising that research has shown that family-related factors are important background characteristics that influence media use and effects. Families are social structures. In the parlance of U&G, this means they are part of the social circumstances of people that form the first part of a U&G model. U&G specifically suggests that such psychological and social factors drive our communication choices and are important individual characteristics to consider in the audience-centered theoretical framework of U&G. Motives for using media often reflect social-related goals sought by media users. Many of these goals reflect family communication considerations. People not only watch TV together, they watch and talk about YouTube videos with family members (Haridakis & Hanson, 2009). Family members often discuss TV and other media fare they consume for a host of family interaction-based gratifications. Family members select media, such as SMS, to maintain a stronger connection when not physically together. Family members use a panoply of newer media to acquire information for later discussion. All of these familyrelated activities that we see in our daily lives support central tenets of U&G. Thus, U&G offers a valuable theoretical framework within which to study family members’ communication patterns, practices, and outcomes, because, ultimately,

Uses and Gratification Theory

345

gratifications people obtain from media use often revolve around important family-related considerations.

Continuing the Conversation U&G begins with the premise that people’s social and psychological circumstances drive media use and effects. That is, individual needs and desires sought to be satisfied through communication activities emanate from the individual background characteristics of communicators (e.g., media users). This chapter did not devote a great deal of attention to audience members’ background differences, electing instead to focus on media-use motivation, media selection, and media effects in the context of family communication. This is because research has evidenced the importance of media use in family communication. However, greater attention needs to be paid to a wide array of individual family differences, because family dynamics are not uniform across families. Obviously, family communication researchers have identified different family orientations, family communication patterns, various types of family socialization processes, as well as other family differences. These differences need to be accounted for in future U&G research to understand better how family dynamics influence media use and effects. This leads us to consider other ways we should continue the conversation pertaining to the value of U&G in family communication contexts. Obviously, families also are composed of members of different generations. Future research should focus on generational differences in media use among family members. Future research needs to look at some of the social reasons for using media that have not yet become a strong enough part of family communication and media use scholarship. Family members of different generations often have different levels of experience, familiarity, and comfort with different media. This affects expectations people have of various media, which, in turn, influences motives for using specific media, selection, and outcomes of use. In short, a wealth of family-related factors need to be accounted for and considered in our research to understand better media use, particularly family use of various media and their selection to connect with one another. U&G provides a viable framework for doing so. Its audience-centered focus to studying media use and effects is uniquely applicable in accounting for the impact of family-related factors in family communication. It is also important to recognize that family differences and generational differences may differ across cultures. This can affect media use differentially, particularly in terms of the media people select for family-related communication. Thus, media-use expectations affected by differences in cultural attitudes that lead to selection of different media for similar purposes need to be considered. Even more importantly, as media change and newer forms of media emerge, future research should study in greater depth how families migrate from using

346

Child & Haridakis

one media tool to another. Exploring identity considerations, disclosure, and varied social media use practices is another fruitful line of future U&G inquiry. People often use social media to control identity management in desired ways. Some aspects of self-presentation are reserved just for family members and close friends. Others are reserved for communication with groups other than family. More research about managing conflicting identities through social media could contribute deeper insight about how people use media in ways to try to untangle the fuzzy boundaries made possible by connecting with all types of people and communicating with them on social networks (Child & Starcher, 2016). The interface between uses and gratifications theory and family communication practices presents unlimited possibilities for researchers in advancing how family members use media in a constantly evolving and connected era of digital communication.

References Anderson, I. K. (2011). The uses and gratifications of online care pages: A study of CaringBridge. Health Communication, 26, 546–559. Aronson, S. (1971). The sociology of the telephone. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 12, 153–167. Berelson, B. (1949). What “missing the newspaper” means. In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Communication research 1948–1949 (pp. 111–129). New York, NY: Harper. Child, J. T., Duck, A. R., Andrews, L. A., Butauski, M., & Petronio, S. (2015). Family members’ management of privacy on Facebook. Journal of Family Communication, 15, 349–367. Child, J. T., Haridakis, P. M., & Petronio, S. (2012). Blogging privacy rule orientations, privacy management, and content deletion practices: The variability of online privacy management activity at different stages of social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1859–1872. Child, J. T., & Staracher, S. C. (2016). Fuzzy Facebook privacy boundaries: Exploring mediated lurking, vague-booking, and Facebook privacy management. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 483–490. Child, J. T., & Westermann, D. A. (2013). Let’s be Facebook friends: Exploring parental Facebook friend requests from a communication privacy management (CPM) perspective. Journal of Family Communication, 13, 46–59. Doty, J., & Dworkin, J. (2014). Parents’ of adolescents use of social networking sites. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 349–355. Edison Research. (2012, June). The social habit. Retrieved from http://socialhabit.com/ research/ Hanson, G., Haridakis, P., Cunningham, A., Sharma, R., & Ponder, J. D. (2010). The 2008 presidential campaign: Political cynicism in the age of Facebook, Myspace, and YouTube. Mass Communication and Society, 13, 584–607. Haridakis, P. M. (2010). Rival sports fans and intergroup communication. In H. Giles, S. Reid, & J. Harwood (Eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 249–260). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Uses and Gratification Theory

347

Haridakis, P. M. (2013). Uses and gratifications: A social and psychological perspective of media use and effects. In A. N. Valdivia & E. Scharrer (Eds.), International encyclopedia of media studies: vol. 5, media effects/media psychology (pp. 148–169). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell. Haridakis, P., & Hanson, G. (2009). Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53, 317–335. Herzog, H. (1940). Professor quiz: A gratification study. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Radio and the printed page (pp. 64–93). New York, NY: Duell, Sloan & Pearce. Herzog, H. (1944). What do we really know about daytime serial listeners? In P. F. Lazarsfeld & F. N. Stanton (Eds.), Radio research 1942–1943 (3–33). New York, NY: Duell, Sloan & Pearce. Jung, E. H., & Sundar, S. S. (2016). Senior citizens on Facebook: How do they interact and why? Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 27–35. Katz, E. (1959). Mass communication research and the study of popular culture. Studies in Public Communication, 2, 1–6. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1973–74). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37, 509–523. Katz, E., Blumler, J. G., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of mass communication by the individual. In J. G. Blumler & E. Katz (Eds.), The uses of mass communications: Current perspectives on gratifications research (pp. 19–32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Ku, Y. C., Chu, T. H., Tseng, C. H. (2013). Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 226–234. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Harper. Ledbetter, A. M., Taylor, S. H., & Mazer, J. P. (2016). Enjoyment fosters media use frequency and determines its relational outcomes: Toward a synthesis of uses and gratifications theory and media multiplexity theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 149–157. Lee, E. J., Lee, L., & Jang, J. (2011). Internet for the internationals: Effects of Internet use motivations on international students’ college adjustment. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 433–437. Lull, J. (1980). The social uses of television. Human Communication Research, 6, 197–209. Pornsakulvanich, V., Haridakis, P., & Rubin, A. M. (2008). The influence of dispositions and Internet motivation on online communication satisfaction and relationship closeness. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 2292–2310. Roe, K., & Minnebo, J. (2007). Antecedents of adolescents’ motives for television use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 51, 305–315. Rubin, A. M. (1981). An examination of television viewing motivations. Communication Research, 8, 141–165. Rubin, A. M. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37–51. Rubin, A. M. (2009). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 165–184). New York, NY: Routledge.

348

Child & Haridakis

Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14, 602–628. VincoBlog (2012, June). World map of social networks. Retrieved from http://vincos.it/ world-map-of-social-networks/ Wei, R., & Lo, V. H. (2006). Staying connected while on the move: Cell phone use and social connectedness. New Media & Society, 8, 53–72. Wright, C. R. (1960). Functional analysis and mass communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 605–620.

Index

abuse and attributions: relationship between 57 accidental dilemmas 94 action tendencies 31 adoptive families 273–274 affection exchange theory 17–26: affection as resource contributing to survival 20–21; affectionate communication adaptive with respect to human viability and fertility 18; affectionate communication and relationships 20–21; affectionate feelings and expressions as distinct experiences 18; conceptualization of communication 19–20; direct nonverbal affection 19; evaluation 23; forms of affection display 19–20; genetic and neurological substrates 24; genetic relatedness 20–21; health 22–23; inborn need and capacity for affection 18; indirect nonverbal affection 19–20; intellectual tradition 17–18; main goals and features 18–19; marital relationships 21–22; optimal tolerance, and 19; practical applications 20–23; reproductive viability 21; verbal communication of affection 19 agency: structuration theory, and 303 alternative logics 102 analytical approaches: interactionality 179 angry feminist 117–119 ANOVA cube 52 appraisal theories of emotion 27–37: action tendencies 31; children observing conflict between parents 32–33; components or dimensional models 28; conceptualization of

communication 30–31; criticism of 34; divorce, and 33; evaluation 33–34; forgiveness, and 35–36; future developments 34–36; hurtful messages exchanged between mothers and children 32; intellectual tradition 27–28; main goals and features 28–30; politeness theory, and 35; practical applications 32–33; primary appraisal 30; reappraisal 30; research applications 32–33; samples 29; scope of applicability 33–34; secondary appraisal 30; self-conscious emotions 31; self-reflection 31; sequential or process models 29–30; understanding by children 35 attachment styles 40–42 attachment theory 38–50: attachment styles in adults 41–42; attachment styles in children 40; climate conducive to 39; communication as cause of 43–44; communication as consequence of attachment style 44; communication as mediator of attachment and relationship quality 44; communication as reinstatement of attachment style 45; conceptualization of communication 42–45; conflict communication 45–46; continuity and change 42; emotional regulation and expression 46; evaluation 46–47; future research 47; intellectual tradition 38–39; main goals and features 40–42; movement of attachment style from insecure to secure 47–48; psychological theory, as 39; reactions to strange situation 40; research and practical applications 45–47

350

Index

attribution theory 51–61: ANOVA cube 52; attributions 51; bias models 53; causal locus 52; child-parent interactions 57; conceptualization of communication 54–55; couples’ behaviours 56; distress-maintaining attributions 56; evaluation 58; explanations for communication behaviours 55; family-of-origin experiences 56; future exploration 59; intellectual tradition 51–54; main goods and features 54; married couples 55–57; multi-dimensional models 53–54; normative models 51–52; overall relational satisfaction 56; relationship between abuse and attribution 57; research and practical applications 55–58 aunts 118 authorised co-owners 89 autonomy face 135 balance of power 122 bereavement process: meaning-making during 169 bias models 53 cancer: marriage, and 331 catalyst criteria 89–90 Caughlin’s Multiple Goals Theory of Personal Relationships 202–203, 206 causal locus 52 chronicity 227–228 cognitive and emotional constructs 238 communicated narrative sense-making theory 62–74: benefit to participants 69; benefits for individuals and families 69; communicated perspective–taking 67; conceptualization of communication 69–70; content of retrospective storytelling 65; content of story 64; evaluation 71; exemptions 63–64; flexibility 71; functions of storytelling 64; future developments 71; heuristics 64; intellectual tradition 62–63; interactional storytelling 66; links to health and well-being 63; main goals and features 63–69; narrative as communication 63; orientation to storytelling research 68; positive stories 65–66; research and practical applications 70; retrospective storytelling 64–66; sex-talk

conversations 68; stepfamily origin stories 65; storytelling 62–74; translational storytelling 67–69 communication: breadth of discipline 2–3; history of study of 2–3; nature of 3–4 communication accommodation theory 75–86: conceptualization of communication 78; convergence 77; divergence 77; evaluation 79–80; future developments 83–84; identity layers 81; intellectual tradition 76, 80; interfaith families 79; interpersonalintergroup orientation 76; main goals and features 77–78, 80–81; personal-enacted identity gap 81; personal-relational identity gap 81; post-positivist tradition 76; psychological accommodation 77; relational identity 80–81; research and practical applications 78–79 communication theory: nature of 5 communication theory of identity 75–86: conceptualization of communication 81–82; diverse family experiences 82–83; enacted identity layer 82; evaluation 82–83; future developments 83–84; interdependence of layers, and 83; research and practical applications 82 communication privacy management theory 87–97: accidental dilemmas 94; authorised co-owners 89; basic definition of privacy management 89; catalyst criteria 89–90; children, and 92–93; conceptualization of communication 90–93; confident dilemmas 93–94; co-ownership status 90; core criteria 89–90; disclosure of family secrets 92; dishonesty dilemmas 94; early development 88; evaluation 95; family privacy dilemmas 93; future dilemmas 95; high permeability orientations 91; illicit dilemmas 94; importance of family privacy 87; intellectual tradition 88; interdependent dilemmas 94; interior privacy boundaries 91; linkage privacy rules 90; low permeability 91; main goals and features 89–90; metaphoric boundary 89; moderate permeability 91; negotiation of privacy rules 91–92; permeability rules 90; personal privacy boundary 89;

Index 351 privacy language 88; privacy relationship 87; privacy turbulence 90; research and practical applications 93–95; self-disclosure 88; stepfamilies 92; synchronisation of privacy rules 93 communication theory of resilience 98–109: alternative logics 102; communication networks 102; conceptualization of communication 103–104; crafting normalcy 101; differences from other theories 99; evaluation 105–106; foregrounding productive action 101; growth of 99; identity anchors 101; intellectual tradition 98–100; main goals and features 100–103; milspouses 103; research and practical applications 104–105; resilience as processes 106; social constructionist tradition, and 100; trigger events 100 computer-mediated practices 219–220 crafting normalcy 101 critical feminist family communication theory 110–121: angry feminist 117–119; aunts 118; conceptualization of communication 114–115; creativity in family forms and practices 112; danger of essentialism in identity politics 116–117; discursive struggles 115; empiricist research 111; evaluation 119; feminist theorizing 111–112; future developments 119–120; intellectual tradition 111–112; intersectionality 117; main goals and features 112–114; new research methods 113–114; nuclear family, and 112; perceived reality 114–115; praxis 113; problematizing assumptions 112–113; process-oriented definition 114; reflexivity 113; research and practical applications 115–119; standpoint theories 111 critical perspective 7–8 dating couples 331–332 defining family communication 3–5 desert survival problem 127 dialogism 244 Dillard’s Goals-Plan-Action model 201–202, 205–206 direct nonverbal affection 19 discourse, nature of 5 discourse dependence 4 discourse dependent families 270 dishonesty dilemmas 94

divorce: appraisal theories of emotion, and 33 dyadic power theory 122–131: balance of power 122; conceptualization of communication 125–126; control attempts 124, 126; curvilinear relationship 125; desert survival problem 127; evaluation 128–129; explanatory power 129; intellectual tradition 122–123; interactional factors 123–124; long-term effects of power 125; main goals and features 123–125; parsimony 128–129; postinteractional factors 124–125; power of partners 127–128; pre-interactional factors 123; research and practical applications 126–128; scope 129; social exchange theories, and 125–126; stages 123; testability 128 emotional capital 325–326 empty nest 262–263 equity theory 283 ethnically diverse families 274 evolutionary psychology 314 evotypical families 269–270 face: concept of 132; meaning 133 facework theory 132–141: autonomy face 135; competence face 135; conceptualization of communication 135–136; conversational contexts and situations 137; co-presence 136; corrective facework 134; defensive orientation of face 134; descriptive value 139; evaluation 139–140; facesaving practices 133; fellowship face 135; future developments 140; heuristic value 139–140; intellectual tradition 132–133; main goals and features 133–135; negative face needs 134; parents 136–137; parsimonious aspects 139; politeness theory, and 134; postdivorce couples 138; preventive facework 134; protective orientation of face 134; relational face 138; research and practical applications 136–139; romantic partner, and 137–138; two realms of practice 135 family: definition 4–5 family communication: distinct and important field study, as 12 family communication patterns theory 142–153: conceptualization of

352

Index

communication 146–147; conformity orientation 145–146; contexts 142; conversation orientation 145; evaluation 149–150; first generation of research 147–148; future developments 150; goals 144; history of 143–144; intellectual tradition 142–144; laissez-faire families 147; limitation 149; main goals and features 144–146; media messages 143; military families 148; protective families 147; research and practical applications 147–149; scientific realism, and 142; second generation of scholarship 148; sense–making strategies 144; sharing social reality 144 family communication research: implications for 11–14; metatheoretical commitments 9–10; theoretical commitments 10 family privacy dilemmas 93 family storytelling 210–220 family systems theory 165 fast-paced families 332 fellowship face 135 FOO experiences 56 forgiveness: appraisal theories of emotion, and 35–36 Forgiveness Tree Project 240 Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse 154–163: clinical scholarship reporting 159; communicative behaviours 158–159; complaints 156; conceptualization of communication 158–159; conflict-avoiding relationships 155; contempt 156–157; criticism 156; defensiveness 157, 159; dyad 161; evaluation 160–161; family conflict, and 154–163; hostile couples 155; hostile-detached couples 155; individual, and 161; influence on larger family system 161; intellectual tradition 154–155; main goals and features 155–158; relational context 155; research and practical applications 159–160; stonewalling 157–158; volatile couples 155 general systems theory 164–174: conceptualization of communication 168; critique 170; equifinality 167–168; evaluation 170; family systems theory 165; feedback 166–167;

future directions 171–172; hierarchy/ subgroups 167; influence of 164; intellectual tradition 164–165; interactive complexity 167; interdependence 166; limitation 170; main goals and features 165–168; meaning-making during bereavement process 169; meta-theory paradigm, as 169; openness 166; organismic worldview 164; Palo Alto Group 165; patterns/self-regulation 166; research and practical applications 168–169; wholeness 166 Goldsmith’s normative theory 203–204, 206–207 grounded-theory construction 7 health: affectionate communications, and 22–23 humanist scholars: intersectionality, and 181 identity: meaning 75 identity anchors 101 illicit dilemmas 94 indirect nonverbal affection 19 inequity 283–284 interfaith families: communication accommodation theory, and 79 intergenerational transmission of communication norms 6–7 interpersonal violence 295–296 interpretive perspective 6 intersectionality 175–186: analytical approaches 179; challenges 182; conceptualization of communication 179–180; definition 175; emancipatory historiography 178; empowerment and power 177; evaluation 181–183; future inquiry, and 183–184; humanist scholars, and 181; importance concepts 176–178; intellectual tradition 175–176; locational 178; main goals and features 176–179; matrix 177; matrix of domination 177; political 178; politics of location 177; privilege 177; representational 178; research and practical applications 180–181; resistance 177; social identity 177; social location and/or social category 177; strengths 182–183; structural 178; theoretical tenets 176; typologies 178

Index 353 laissez-faire families 147 language convergence / meaning divergence theory 187–198: challenges 196; conceptualization of communication 193; emergence of 187; evaluation 195–196; feminist standpoint theory, and 188; future developments 197; group identity, and 194–195; Heaven’s Gate cult 190; identity, and 193–194; illusion of shared meaning 192–193; intellectual tradition 187–188; language convergence 189; main goals and features 188–193; managing conflict 195; meaning divergence 189–192; primacy of context 188; research and practical applications 193–195; strengths 195–196; subtle cluster divergence 190–191; total cluster divergence 189–190 LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer) families 272–273 linkage privacy rules 90 maintenance behaviors 330 marital relationships: affection exchange theory, and 21–22 married couples: attribution theory 55–57 matrix of domination 177 media messages 143 media use: family conflict from 343 meta-theoretical discourses 5–8 milspouses 103 multiple goals theories 199–209: Caughlin’s Multiple Goals Theory of Personal Relationships 202–203, 206; conceptualization of communication 125–126; Dillard’s Goals-Plan-Action model 201–202, 205–206; evaluation 207; future directions 208; goals 199, 200; Goldsmith’s normative theory 203–204, 206–207; intellectual tradition 200–201; main goals and features 201–204; multiple goals 199–200; post-positivist research 200–201; research and practical applications 205–207 narrative performance theory 210–220: advantages 217–218; computermediated practices, and 219–220; conceptualization of communication 212–214; content of storytelling 213; default settings 217; disadvantages

218–219; evaluation 217–219; family storytelling 210–220; functions of storytelling 213; group-ordering 216; identities of bodies as family 214; intellectual tradition 210–211; main goals and features 211–212; participation in storytelling 213; performance studies 216; research and practical applications 214–217; strengths 217–218; task-ordering 215–216 necessary convergence communication theory 221–232: chronicity 227–228; communication enacts family relationships 224; conceptualization of communication 229; convergence communication 22; degree 227; dimensions of convergence communication 225–227; disequilibrium 225; evaluation 230; future developments 230–231; intellectual tradition 221–224; interactivity 221; interpersonal deference 225–226; interpersonal scripts 223–224; interpretive schemes 222; intersubjectivity 221; main goals and features 224–229; motivation 226–227; personal and relational identities 224; process dimensions 227–228; relational culture 223; research and practical applications 229–230; theoretical assumptions 222–224; theoretical prepositions 228–229 negotiated morality theory 233–243: assumptions 235–236; cognitive and emotional constructs 238; community application 239; conceptualization of communication 237–239; evaluation 240–241; forgiveness 240; Forgiveness Tree Project 240; future developments 241–242; implicit values 235; intellectual tradition 233–235; interpretative paradigm 234; main goals and features 235–237; message 238; moral emotions 234; moral functions 236–237; moral negotiation 238; moral violations 235; relational communication 237; research and practical applications 239–240; tree metaphor 239–240 Palo Alto Group 165 parent-child conflict 316–317

354

Index

parenthood 262 politics of location 177 positive motherhood identities 251 post-positive perspective 5–6 relational communication 237 relational culture 223 relational dialectics theory 244–254: centripetal and centrifugal discursive struggles 247; conceptualization of communication 248–249; criticisms of 251–252; dialogic view of communication 249; dialogism 244; distal links of utterance chain 250; evaluation 251–252; future developments 252–253; hybrids and aesthetic moments 248; intellectual tradition 244–245; interplay 247–248; main goals and features 245–248; meaning-making 250; positive motherhood identities 251; power 247; relational 245; research and practical applications 249–251; strengths 251–252; transformative interplay 248; utterance 246; utterance chain 246–247 relational face 138 relational turbulence theory 255–266: conceptualization of communication 260–261; cumulative outcomes 259–260; empty nest 262–263; evaluation 263–264; experiences of specific episodes 259; future growth 264; importance of 263; intellectual tradition 257; interdependence 258; interpersonal communication 260; main goals and features 257–260; parenthood 262; reciprocal effects 256; reintegration after development 262; relational uncertainty 257–258; research and practical applications 261–263; transition 255 resilience 98–109, 324–335 roots of family communication 1–3 scientific realism 142 sex-talk conversations 68 sexually abused children 282–283 social construction theory 267–278: adoptive families 273–274; conceptualization of communication 271; discourse dependent families 270; ethnically diverse families 274; evaluation 274–275; everyday

interaction 269; evotypical families 269–270; intellectual tradition 268–269; LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer) families 272–273; main goals and features 269–271; research and practical applications 272–274; translational goals 275–276 social exchange theory 279–289: comparison level 282; conceptualization of communication 281; economic exchange 280; equity theory 283; evaluation 284–285; falsifiable propositions 279; fundamental premise 279–280; future developments 285–287; inequity 283–284; intellectual tradition 279; interdependence 280; main goals and features 279–281; perceptions of rewards and costs 283; reciprocity 280; research and practical applications 282–284; sexually abused children 282–283; social exchange 280 social learning theory 290–299: communication as explanatory variable 293; communication skills 293–294; conceptualization of communication 292–293; conflict 294; differential reinforcement 292; evaluation 296–297; formulations 290–291; future developments 297; intellectual tradition 290–291; interpersonal violence 295–296; main goals and features 291–292; nature of 290; psychosocial problems 294–295; research and practical applications 293–296; self-efficacy 292; social support 294; stages of observational learning 291–292 social media communications 341 stonewalling 157–158 storytelling 62–74 structuration theory 300–311: agency 303; conceptualization of communication 303–304; connecting family communication to public disclosure 306–307; connecting family to public institutions 305; duality of structure 301; evaluation 307–308; exploring families as social systems 307; future developments 308–309; grand theory, as 300; intellectual tradition 300–301; main goals and features 301–303; power 302;

Index 355 practical consciousness 302; research and practical applications 304–307; resources 302; rules 301–302; structure of legitimation 303; structure of signification 302; types of structure 301 subtle cluster divergence 190–191 theory of natural selection 312–323: breadth 318; causal mechanism 319; conceptualization of communication 314; depth 318; evaluation 318–320; evolutionary explanation of communication behaviour 313; evolutionary psychology 314; future research 320–321; intellectual tradition 312–313; main goals and features 313–314; maternal and paternal care 315–316; parent-child conflict 316–317; parsimony 318–319; research and practical applications 315–317; resource allocation 317; specificity 319–320; theoretic strengths 318–319; theoretic limitations 319–320 theory of resilience and relational load 324–336; biological aspects 330; communal orientation 327–328; conceptualization of communication 330–331; dating couples 331–332; desires for relationship maintenance 326; emotional capital 325–326; evaluation 334; fast-paced families 332; future developments 335; intellectual tradition 325–326;

investments 327; main goods and features 326–329; maintenance behaviors 330; marriage and cancer 331; nature of 324; relational load 329; relationship maintenance 325; research and practical applications 331–334; resilience 324; stress, and 325, 329; teen with Type I diabetes 332–334 total cluster divergence 189–190 TV: family use of 340 Type I diabetes 332–334 uses and gratification theory 337–348: choice of media 341–342; communication motivation 339–341; conceptualization of communications 339; conceptualization of variables 344; evaluation of uses and gratifications 343–345; family conflict from media use 343; future research 345–346; gratifications 342–343; intellectual tradition 337–338; main goals and features 338–339; media effects perspective 342–343; media use 337–348; motives for using media 344; online care site 341; privacy 341; research and practical applications 339–343; social media communications 341; TV, family use of 340; use of older media 343 utterance chain 246ß247 volatile couples 155