Family Communication (Routledge Communication Series) [3 ed.] 0815354525, 9780815354529

Citation preview

Family Communication

Family Communication carefully examines state-of-the-art research and theories of family communication and family relationships. In addition to presenting contemporary cutting-edge research, it also includes extensive presentation and application of classic theories and findings in family science that have informed current day understandings of essential family processes. With over 2,500 references, 800 of which are new to this edition, Family Communication represents a current and comprehensive presentation of principled research conducted throughout the world for both students and teachers of family communication. Professionals who work with families and seek an evidence-based understanding of functional and dysfunctional family processes will also find this text useful. The third edition addresses long-standing questions (e.g. how to maintain a marriage, how to build resiliency in remarriages and stepfamilies) and prioritizes research on a variety of family relationships beyond the couple and parent-child relationship, while also exploring new research on romantic relationship pathways, same-sex marriage and divorce, parenting trends, as well as military families, adoptive families, and families with a transgender member. It also examines the complex relationship between family communication and mental health as well as powerful and potentially surprising findings on the connections between family interaction and physical health. This edition provides instructors and students with a rich set of online resources including:

• Chapter Specific Resource Guides (chapter outlines, guiding questions, multiple choice, essay, and discussion questions, as well as numerous media resources and links)

• Chapter Specific PowerPoint Slides • Sample Syllabus

Chris Segrin is Steve and Nancy Lynn Professor of Communication and Communication Department head at The University of Arizona. His research is on interpersonal relationships and mental health and can be found in journals such as Human Communication Research, Communication Monographs, Journal of Abnormal Psychology, Family Relations, Journal of Family Psychology, and Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. This research has been funded by the  American Cancer Society, The National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Nursing Research, and the Livestrong Foundation. Jeanne Flora is Professor of Communication Studies at New Mexico State University. Her research and teaching focuses on interpersonal and family relationships, with an emphasis on relationship development and maintenance. Her research can be found in journals such as Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Journal of Family Psychology, Journal of Family Communication, and Human Communication Research.

Routledge Communication Series Jennings Bryant/Dolf Zillmann, Series Editors

Selected titles include: Balancing the Secrets of Private Disclosures Edited by Sandra Petronio The Business of Sports Off the Field, in the Office, on the News, 3rd Edition Mark Conrad Advertising and Public Relations Law, 3rd Edition Carmen Maye, Roy L. Moore, and Erik L. Collins Applied Organizational Communication Theory and Practice in a Global Environment, 4th Edition Thomas E. Harris and Mark D. Nelson Public Relations and Social Theory Key Figures, Concepts and Developments, 2nd Edition Edited by Øyvind Ihlen and Magnus Fredriksson Family Communication, 3rd Edition Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora Advertising Theory, 2nd Edition Shelley Rodgers and Esther Thorson An Integrated Approach to Communication Theory and Research, 3rd Edition Edited by Don W. Stacks, Michael B. Salwen, and Kristen C. Eichhorn For a full list of titles please visit: https://www.routledge.com/Routledge-Communication-Series/ book-series/RCS.

Family Communication Third Edition

Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora

This edition published 2019 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt 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 © 2019 Taylor & Francis The right of Chris Segrin and Jeanne Flora to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them 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 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. 2005 Second edition published by Routledge 2011 British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-​in-​Publication Data A catalog record has been requested for this book ISBN: 978-​0-​8153-​5452-​9  (hbk) ISBN: 978-​0-​8153-​5453-​6  (pbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​351-​13259-​6  (ebk) Typeset in Minion Regular by Out of House Publishing   Visit the companion website www.routledge.com/cw/segrin

Contents

Figures Tables Preface Part I  Introducing Family Communication and Basic Family Processes 1 Defining Family Communication and Family Functioning

vii ix xi 1 3

2 Theoretical Perspectives on Family Communication

26

3 Family Discourse and Identity: Stories, Secrets, and Rituals

47

4 Family Communication Patterns and Processes: Power, Decision Making, and Conflict

70

Part II  Communication in Family Subsystems 5 Romantic Relationship Development and Mate Selection

95 97

6 Marriage and Committed Relationships

125

7 Parent–​Child Communication

154

8 Sibling Communication

181

9 Extended Family Relationships

200

Part III  Communication during Family Stress

221

10 Models of Family Stress and Coping

223

11 Normative and Nonnormative Family Stressors

245

v

vi • Contents

12 Divorce

268

13 Renegotiating Family Communication: Remarriage and Stepfamilies

294

Part IV  Family Interaction, Health, and Well-​Being

323

14 Family Interaction and Mental Health

325

15 Family Interaction and Physical Health

351

16 Family Violence and Abuse

380

17 Improving Family Communication and Family Relationships

407

References Author Index Subject Index

434 545 582

Figures

1.1 Median age at first marriage: 1890 to present 1.2 The Circumplex Model of Family Functioning 2.1 The Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) model of attachment styles 4.1 Family interaction networks 4.2 Family types based on conversation and conformity orientations 5.1 The SVR Model 7.1 Processes of overparenting 8.1 Typology of support in siblings with divorced parents 9.1 Socioemotional selectivity theory: Three salient social motives across the lifespan 10.1 Hill’s (1949) ABC-​X Model of Family Stress 10.2 McCubbin and Patterson’s (1982) Double ABC-​X Model of Family Stress 10.3 Patterson’s Family Adjustment and Adaptation Response Model 10.4 Karney and Bradbury’s Vulnerability-​Stress-​Adaptation Model of Marriage 11.1 Carter and McGoldrick’s stages of the family life cycle 12.1 Gottman’s Behavioral Cascade Model of marital dissolution (a.k.a. “The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse”) 12.2 Gottman’s distance and isolation cascade 12.3 Elam et al.’s profiles of non-​residential father involvement and associated family communication variables 13.1 Dialectic tensions in remarriage 13.2 Stepfamily origin stories 13.3 Papernow’s (1993) phases of stepfamily development 13.4 Classes of parent–​child relationships in stepfather families 14.1 Constantine’s model of family conflict, attachment, and depression 15.1 Psychophysiological processes implicated in negative marital interactions and health 15.2 Family processes in the Psychosomatic Family Model 15.3 The Biobehavioral Family Model

13 22 40 75 76 108 163 191 201 227 229 233 237 247 276 278 285 297 299 301 311 327 357 361 363 vii

viii • Figures

15.4 Family processes surrounding adolescent substance use 15.5 Maternal concerns about talking with teens about birth control 15.6 Family caregiver communication typology 16.1 Family environment risk factors and psychosocial consequences of physical child abuse 16.2 The Ecological Model of child abuse processes 16.3 Family environment risk factors and psychosocial consequences of child sexual abuse 16.4 Individual, relational, and family history factors in intimate partner violence 17.1 Aims and targets of intervention for major primary prevention programs 17.2 Assumptions, objectives, delivery, and techniques of secondary prevention programs 17.3 Comparison of behavioral and structural family therapy

368 370 376 384 387 390 396 411 420 428

Tables

1.1 Levels of family adaptability in Olson’s Circumplex Model of Family Functioning 1.2 Levels of family cohesion in Olson’s Circumplex Model of Family Functioning 2.1 Concepts and processes from family systems theory 5.1 Relationship stage descriptions 6.1 Stafford’s typology of relationship maintenance behaviors 6.2 Levels of Gottman’s Sound Relationship House (SRH) Model 6.3 Gottman’s volatile, validating, and conflict-​avoiding couples 6.4 Fitzpatrick’s traditional, independent, and separate couples 7.1 Parenting styles 7.2 Emotion coaching steps 8.1 Sibling types in adulthood 9.1 Typology of grandparenting styles 10.1 Burr and Klein’s conceptual framework of family coping strategies 11.1 Carter and McGoldrick’s stages of the family life cycle with associated social/​relational tasks 13.1 Baxter et al.’s (1999) taxonomy of stepfamily development trajectories 13.2 Dialectic tensions experienced in stepfamilies 13.3 Gross’s (1987) typology of children’s perceptions of family membership 13.4 Schrodt’s (2006b) relational typology of stepfamilies 13.5 Ahrons and Rogers’ (1987) typology of postdivorce relationships 14.1 Thematic Apperception Test communication deviance scoring system 14.2 Interactional communication deviance scoring system 14.3 Summary of family processes implicated in mental health problems 16.1 Family violence and abuse concepts and definitions 17.1 Examples of programs and techniques to improve family relationships 17.2 Examples of PREP research studies with selected findings

20 21 31 111 130 131 148 149 156 160 197 208 241 246 302 305 308 309 310 334 334 349 382 410 413

ix

Preface

Few, if any, relationships are more important, salient, long lasting, and central to people’s well-​being than their family relationships. These include spouses, parents, children, and siblings to name but a few. Although these relationships are often defined by genes and institutionalized ceremonies such as marriage, they are built, maintained, and destroyed by communication. The third edition of Family Communication carefully examines state-​of-​the-​art research and theories related to family communication and family relationships. In addition to presenting cutting-​ edge research, we focus as well on classic theories and research findings that have influenced and revolutionized the way scholars conceptualize and understand family interaction. The observations and arguments presented in this book are entirely evidence-​based and often grounded in classic or contemporary theories of human and family social interaction. This book was written to fulfill the need for a text that presents a thorough and up-​to-​date presentation of research and theory in family communication for both teachers and students of family communication as well as professionals who work with families. Toward that end, we critically selected and evaluated research, and translated that knowledge into a language that is understandable to a broad range of readers. Student readers should find the information clearly organized and easy to understand. Advanced readers, such as graduate students and professionals, will find it a useful and comprehensive reference to classic and contemporary research on family communication and relationships. The research findings presented in Family Communication are as diverse as families themselves. Even though much of the research presented in this book was conducted in the United States, we present research findings from around the world. Family Communication contains information acquired from research conducted on six of the world’s seven continents:  Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, North America, and South America. This book also includes a great deal of social scientific research, often but not always, conducted with quantitative methodologies. At the same time, a great deal has been learned about family processes from qualitative research, and such findings are also covered in Family Communication. Finally, it is important to understand that research, whether it is conducted in North America or Asia, with quantitative or qualitative methods, is based on people. The people who participated in the thousands of studies referenced in this book cover an expansive xi

xii • Preface

range of human representations. They are young and old, Black and White, gay and straight, healthy and ill, married and divorced, parents and nonparents, satisfied and distressed, and so on. Because of the sheer volume of research findings cataloged in this book, it is not always feasible to mark each finding with all of these possible descriptors. For this reason, it is our hope that interested readers will consult the book’s reference section and look up the primary sources of research findings that they are interested in. They may be surprised to learn that a familiar sounding research finding such as “couples with a longer courtship have lower odds of divorce” was actually documented in a study conducted in New Zealand. Updates to the third edition of this book appear in a number of forms. First, each chapter of the new edition is updated with the latest research. To be specific, there are about 2,500 references in the third edition of this book, over 800 of which are new to this edition. Family Communication is truly a sourcebook for cutting-​edge research on family interaction. Readers will find research on new trends that affect and reflect the way families communicate. These include, for example, demographic trends regarding delays in emerging adulthood and marriage, increasing rates of cohabitation, the de-​linking of marriage and parenthood, as well as trends in parenting (e.g., overparenting as a new parenting style) and trends in partnering (e.g., the use of dating apps to find a partner). The third edition presents current research on communication within diverse families (e.g., new coverage of same-​sex marriage and divorce, families with a transgender member) as well as new applications of existing theories to explore communicative challenges to family identity (e.g., in adoptive families and foster families). The revised version also presents innovative research that addresses long-​standing questions (e.g., what to avoid and what to do in order to maintain a marriage, what promotes positive postdivorce relationships, how to manage tensions present in some remarriages, and how to build resilience in stepfamilies). The third edition continues to prioritize research on a variety of family relationships beyond the couple and parent–​child relationship (e.g., exploring new developments in sibling, grandparent–​grandchild, and in-​law communication) as well as a variety of theoretical perspectives, including added coverage of uncertainty reduction theory. Along with updated material on common family stressors like divorce or the transition to parenthood, the third edition highlights new research findings on pressing but less understood family stressors such as how military families cope with deployment or how families manage caregiving efforts. Adding to existing coverage on family communication and mental health issues such as loneliness, depression, feeding and eating disorders, schizophrenia, and alcoholism, the third edition delivers important new material on bipolar disorder. Readers will also learn about powerful and potentially surprising findings regarding the influence of family communication on physical health. The third edition of Family Communication is divided into four main sections. Part I, “Introducing Family Communication and Basic Family Processes” introduces readers to fundamental issues in the study of family communication. These include, for example, questions of how “family” is defined, dominant theories in family science, basic family communication processes (e.g., conflict, decision making, and power) and family interaction forms (e.g., stories, secrets, and rituals). Part II, “Communication in Family Subsystems” explores what is known about communication in different types of families or family relationships. Consequently, this section contains chapters on topics such as courtship and mate selection, marriage, parent–​child, sibling, and extended family relationships. Parts III and IV examine more problematic issues in family communication. Our experience teaching family communication suggests that people are often interested in the topic not to learn why their family is so happy and content, but rather to

newgenprepdf

Preface • xiii

gain a better understanding of some problematic issue in their family. Part III therefore covers “Communication during Family Stress.” In this section, we look at theoretical models of how families react to and handle stress, normative and nonnormative family stressors, divorce, remarriage, and the creation of stepfamilies. Throughout this section, we note where “stressors” can actually have positive consequences for the family, and how family communication patterns can mitigate some of the ill effects of family stressors. Finally, in Part IV, “Family Interaction, Health, and Well-​B eing,” we consider the role of family communication in mental and physical health, in addition to the role of communication in family violence and abuse. This section concludes with critical analysis of organized efforts at improving aspects of family communication through therapies, enhancement, and enrichment programs. Readers who wish to learn more about the research methods and measures used to study family will find an overview of family research methodologies in the associated online appendix on family research methods. As readers of Family Communication will learn, this area of inquiry is truly interdisciplinary. Researchers from the fields of Communication, Family Studies, Nursing, Psychology, Social Work, and Sociology have made remarkable contributions to our current knowledge of family communication processes. Even with our specific emphasis on communication in families, works from these different academic disciplines are evident throughout the book. We appreciate the support of our editors at Routledge, Felisa Salvago-​Keyes and Christina Kowalski, along with Jo North and the editorial and production staff members at Routledge for their diligent work on this book. We thank Kendra Jacobs, Timothy Watkins, and members of New Mexico State University’s spring 2018 COMM 562 Family Communication course for support with associated instructional materials, as well as Yejin Shin, Amanda Cooper, Alice Fanari, Eunjoo Choi, Pengfei Zhao, and Heather Gahler (University of Arizona) for their production assistance. Both the University of Arizona and New Mexico State University have supported our efforts in writing this book. We also thank these institutions for the opportunity to teach and conduct research in the area of family communication, with the hope that the material in this book enriches students’ academic experience and personal lives.

PART I Introducing Family Communication and Basic Family Processes

1

Defining Family Communication and Family Functioning

It is often said that there are no individuals in this world, only fragments of families. This idea reflects the fact that interactions and experiences in the family shape the course of our entire lives and are forever carried with us. Shortly after most people physically depart from their family of origin, they initiate a new family of orientation. The family is therefore an unending cycle in which people are constantly involved at multiple levels. The study of family communication has a long tradition. Some of the most influential works in the field were conducted around the time of World War II and are still influencing the way scholars think about families today. In recent decades, exciting new developments in the field of family communication have fundamentally reshaped the way people think about functional and dysfunctional family interaction. New developments are providing badly needed information about current family problems. With recent attention and increased focus on problems such as divorce, child abuse, domestic violence, and mental health problems, scholars, therapists, members of the clergy, and students of communication have begun to realize that these problems are in fact communication problems. If not caused by communication, these issues certainly affect the course of family communication. By better understanding the forms, functions, and processes of family communication, people hope to be able to comprehend how and why these problems exist, and perhaps begin to take steps toward preventing them in the future. In addition to concerns about family problems, people also hope to understand issues such as what makes for a happy marriage, what parenting techniques are associated with positive child outcomes, and how to maintain meaningful relationships with family members over the entire lifespan. These too are fundamentally communication issues. Although personal experience is a valuable teacher, and there is often a kernel of truth in cultural folklore and media portrayals of family, we believe that answers to many pressing questions about family communication are evident, or emerging, from the scientific research conducted by family communication scholars. Indeed, as we illustrate throughout this book, the evidence from scientific studies regarding family interaction sometimes contradicts the messages people receive from the media or other sources. In this book, we carefully examine state-​of-​the art research and

3

4  •  Introducing Family Communication

theories, as well as classic research and theories that contribute to the understanding of complex family interactions. In the past decades, literally thousands, if not millions, of families, parents, stepparents, spouses, partners, children, siblings, grandparents, and in-​laws from all walks of life have been studied by family researchers. One primary theme stemming from this research is that there is no “one” version of the American family. Further, there is not one path to healthy family relationships. The concept of equifinality refers to the fact that the same end state may be reached in many different ways. For example, there may be common themes to satisfying marriages, but there are many different ways couples can go about their courtship, negotiate roles, or deal with conflict and still achieve a satisfying marriage. In this opening chapter, we address basic questions about families and family interaction. We explore “What does the word ‘family’ mean?” and “Why is it important to define family?” This analysis will show there is not one universally accepted definition of family, but each definition has distinct advantages, disadvantages, and implications. In studying definitions of family, we encounter other questions, such as “What tasks and resources are family members expected to perform and provide for one another?” “What kind of interaction defines ‘family’?” and “How is family interaction different from interaction in other relationships?” In answering these questions, we also discuss how communication constitutes family and is situated at the heart of family processes. Next, we present demographic data and highlight family trends related to family form and size, marriage and partnering, as well as parenting and family lifespan transitions. We point to diverse family contexts and experiences that we will explore in more depth in later chapters of the book. From our discussion of the demographic data and family diversity, we also prompt consideration of whether media portrayals of family are representative of demographic trends. Finally, people often ask, “What makes for optimal family interaction or family functioning?” In this chapter, we present two models of family functioning, Olson’s circumplex model and the McMaster model, both of which start us on the path toward answering this question. Examining Definitions of Family What is family? Must members be related by blood? Is a legal or religious ceremony necessary or sufficient to the definition of family? Are children necessary or sufficient for family? Is a certain degree and type of affection or interaction necessary for family? What makes a family group different from any other social group we belong to? Answers to these questions vary dramatically by individual. Our goal is to describe different ways family is defined. In doing so, we illustrate that defining family depends on the context, goal, and person or organization. Further, how family is defined has serious legal, scientific, and social implications. Types of Family Definitions: Structural, Task, and Transactional Definitions Wamboldt and Reiss (1989) classified definitions of family into three types, distinguished by their attention to form, function, and interaction. Structural definitions define family by form, addressing who is “in” the family and by what objective biological or legal means they are connected (e.g., marriage, blood, adoption). Structural definitions tend to be the most exclusionist, narrow, and in many cases traditional (Powell, 2014). Task-​orientation definitions apply

Defining Family Communication  •  5

the label of family to people who perform family tasks and functions expected by society. They tend to stress behavior more than blood/​legal ties or interaction/​emotions. Transactional definitions define family primarily by the communication and emotional processes that connect, establish, and maintain family relationships. Scholars often study the discourse that families use to establish these relationships. Transactional definitions rely mostly on discourse, or language, to name and establish members as family. This means of defining family is critical, especially for people who feel the validity of their family ties is questioned by others and that traditional structural definitions are not fitting (e.g., Galvin, 2006). Transactional definitions are the most subjective, inclusionist, and broad (Powell, 2014). As we discuss in the next pages, most people use aspects of each of these types of definitions of family when they define family. Similarly, research by social scientific scholars and decisions in the legal system reflect an increasing level of awareness for how aspects of each of these types of definitions intersect as people construct their meaning of family (Suter, Baxter, Seurer, & Thomas, 2014). Structural definitions. Structural definitions lay out specific, objective criteria that make it clear who is in the family and who is not (Fitzpatrick & Badzinski, 1994). Most structural definitions do not depend on the quality of the family interaction or task performance, and they are not dependent on subjective feelings of group identity or affection. Rather they define family simply by form. The U.S. Census Bureau relies on a structural definition of family: “A family consists of a householder and one or more other people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage or adoption” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015, p. 1). In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau’s definition of family has remained relatively unchanged since 1930. Interestingly, the 1870 census definition of family was more fluid in structure than the 1930 definition. The 1870 definition of family read: “Under whatever circumstances, and in whatever numbers, people live together under one roof, and are provided for at a common table, there is a family in the meaning of the law” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015, p. 1). However, by 1930 there was a desire to distinguish a “household” from a “family.” The objective and verifiable blood and legal ties of the 1930 structural definition of family made the monumental task of defining and counting families easier. The simplicity of structural definitions makes them appealing to people who are forced to make external decisions about what family is, how to count family on a large scale, and how to award rights without much information about the inner fabric of the family. Structural definitions have thrived with demographers, policy makers, and those in the legal arena. Popenoe’s (1993) narrow definition of family, “a relatively small domestic group of kin (or people in a kin-​like relationship) consisting of at least one adult and one dependent” (p.  529), stands as another example of a structural definition that makes the task of counting families easy, but arguably does not capture what family means to many people. It is common for lay people and scholars to use labels that identify families based on structure. Just a few examples of these labels include the following. The label, single-​parent family, refers to a parent, who may or may not have been married, and one or more children. The term stepfamily refers to spouses, at least one of whom was previously married, living with the child(ren) of at least one of the spouses. Some people also use the term blended family to reflect a family, with or without children, in which at least one of the spouses was previously married, either with or without children (DeGenova & Rice, 2002). The term nuclear family usually refers to two parents and one or more children, with the label traditional nuclear family often insinuating a heterosexual, married relationship. The term extended family is used to describe family, whether legal or fictive, who are beyond the immediate partner or children. Finally, the term family of origin refers to the family into which

6  •  Introducing Family Communication

one is born and/​or raised. A family of orientation is thought of as the family one chooses (e.g., mate) and/​or creates (e.g., a child). Just as the simplicity of structural definitions and labels seems useful, limitations are very apparent. People get left out. Common structural definitions have not been adequate enough to encompass some family forms, for example nonresidential stepfamilies, foster families, or intimate partners or caretakers without a legally recognized relationship. In turn, some people get counted in as family structurally, even though they do not seem to deserve the honor of being labeled as family due to negative behavior or frequent absence. This feeling in itself hints at the social and cultural privilege associated with the label “family.” Task-​orientation definitions. Are objective criteria sufficient for defining family? Perhaps “behavior trumps biology” in defining family (Sappenfield, 2002). Task-​orientation definitions define family by how the members behave: the functions or the tasks they perform. Many examples of task-​orientation definitions view family as at least one adult and one or more other persons who perform certain tasks of family life such as socialization, nurturance, development, and financial and emotional support. In one classic example of a task-​orientation definition, Lerner and Spanier (1978) define family as a social unit that accepts responsibility for the socialization and nurturance of children. According to this definition, there are no structural limits on the social unit that accepts responsibility for the child. The social unit may involve one mother, two grandparents, or an adult who is not even related to a child biologically or legally. What becomes controversial for many task-​orientation definitions is deciding what tasks must be performed, for what members, and how well they must be performed in order to term someone family or to maintain legal status as family. Sociologists are credited with first viewing the family as a social institution that functions to meet the needs of the individual and society. Nurturing and socializing children have traditionally been viewed as primary functions of the family (Murdock, 1949; Reiss, 1980). Traditional task-​orientation definitions are often focused on task expectations for raising children. Provision of at least basic care and support is not only a biological necessity, a social and moral expectation, but also a legal obligation because the legal system can remove a child from a family, or certain family members, if they do not provide sufficient care. Compared to other animal species, human beings have one of the longest periods of abject dependence on a caregiver in order to survive and develop (Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). Upon birth and for many years beyond, children rely on their families for food, clothing, and shelter. Emotional support provides family members with a sense of belonging, love, affection, kinship, companionship, and acceptance. While the courts may step in to remove a child from a family for neglecting tasks of basic care in a way that threatens a child’s well-​being, there is much less consensus regarding tasks expected in the care of other family members, such as adults or elderly members. In addition, expectations regarding parental responsibility for provision of care after divorce can become complicated. Child support laws attempt to spell out legal expectations and requirements for parents. Divorcees who actively co-​parent must negotiate how to share the parenting tasks. Besides basic tasks of care and support, families are often expected to socialize members, although this is a sociocultural expectation and not a legal obligation. For certain, there is considerable variance in how and whether children are socialized. Some children receive socialization in the form of basic manners, social skills, or early education (e.g., learning ABCs or how to count). Recreation is even a form of socialization in which children learn important roles for functioning inside and

Defining Family Communication  •  7

outside the family. Parents also pass on a variety of cultural traditions and values, including cultural stories, holiday rituals, political ideologies, or religious convictions. It is important to note that not all families fulfill expected functions of care and socialization. As a result, educational, governmental, and religious organizations have taken on some tasks once left exclusively to the family (Ganong & Coleman, 1999; Hareven, 1991). Many children rely exclusively on their school for breakfast and lunch, before and after school care and emotional support, along with socialization and intellectual development. The debate between public and private responsibility for the young and old remains charged. Transactional definitions. Transactional definitions represent a third approach to defining family, and they give central importance to the communication among individuals and the subjective feelings generated by interaction. Burgess and Locke (1953) proposed one of the first transactional definitions when they defined family as “a unit of interacting personalities.” Naturally, many family communication scholars favor the transactional definitions. Transactional definitions do not intend to ignore the tasks demanded of family members. Rather, they extend the task-​orientation definitions, arguing that a family is more than a group of people who perform certain tasks and behaviors for one another. Although the distinction is not perfect, task-​orientation definitions place more emphasis on the instrumental role of family, and transactional definitions highlight the interaction and subjective feelings among members. For example, Wamboldt and Reiss (1989) define family as “a group of intimates [whose interaction generates] a sense of home and group identity; complete with strong ties of loyalty and emotion, and an experience of a history and a future” (p. 728). The meaning and boundaries of family are often symbolized through family stories, family rituals, and other forms of discourse. Overall, the focus is on the interaction among communicators characterized by the following: intimacy, interdependence, commitment, feelings of family identity, emotional ties, self-​defined symbols and boundaries for family membership, and an ongoing history and future (Whitchurch & Dickson, 1999). An advantage of transactional definitions is that they are more fluid and inclusive than most structural definitions. They allow people to define and socially construct family for themselves. Many people find this way of defining family appealing, freeing, and sensible. Some families rely on discourse or language exclusively to define family, especially when the people they feel are family do not fit neatly within prescribed boundaries of structural definitions (e.g., a couple who is not legally married or a child who has not been formally adopted). Galvin (2006) terms these families discourse dependent. According to Galvin’s framework, when family membership is questioned by outsiders, language choices serve to label, explain, legitimize, and defend family relationships (Galvin & Braithwaite, 2014). Baxter, Henauw, et al. (2009) argue that people are highly attuned to the privilege and respect that society offers to those who are labeled family. Calling a child a “daughter,” and verbally explaining or defending why, can be as powerful emotionally as producing a birth certificate. Not only is discourse used to establish a sense of family to outsiders, but it is also used to establish, reinforce, and maintain family identity ties among members internally. In ­chapter 3, we detail how family stories and rituals are used for these purposes. Most all families build their identity through social interaction, but in ­chapter 3 we examine the unique and crucial ways that families socially construct their identities particularly when they feel their family identity or form is threatened either by external or internal sources.

8  •  Introducing Family Communication

Scientific and Legal Perspectives on Defining Family Why do we need to define family anyway? On one hand it seems that each individual should define for himself or herself what family is. However, people are motivated and pressured to define family for scientific, political, legal, economic, and social reasons. For instance, social scientists must take the task of defining family seriously, because what is known about the dynamics of families and treatment of perceived problems of families is highly influenced by one’s definition and theoretical lens (Settles, 1999, p. 147). For example, if family is only defined in research by using a structural definition with a traditional nucleocentric bias, then the result is an overwhelming number of studies of intact heterosexual couples raising children in nuclear families, and the findings may not apply to other types of families (McHale & Grolnick, 2002). As researchers grapple with how to apply definitions of family, they are reminded that any good scientific definition must specify what something is and what it is not in order to make appropriate comparisons and recommendations. Definitions that are too broad or too narrow may be useless for scientific purposes. Defining family is also important for political and legal reasons, because being counted as “family” influences access to health care, housing, financial aid, family and medical leave, immigration, inheritances, and numerous other benefits, as well as responsibilities. Some people even forge “fraudulent family relationships,” as termed by the American Bar Association, to gain access to benefits such as immigration, inheritance, or health care (Young, 2014). Definitions of family are also critical in legal decisions regarding protection of contractual relationships between cohabitants, biotechnological developments such as in vitro fertilization and surrogate parenthood, visitation rights of grandparents, or land-​use laws that recognize family-​like living arrangements such as group homes within the meaning of “single family” land use (Melton & Wilcox, 1989). With respect to child custody and visitation, Holtzman (2006) makes the case that legal definitions of family should be expanded to protect children’s attachment relationships. The legal system has historically favored the use of traditional structural family definitions where blood and legal ties make custody decisions clear-​cut (DiFonzo & Stern, 2013). However, there is increasing legal precedence for custody decisions that follow “best-​interests” standards to safeguard children’s interests and emotional attachments, even if that means awarding custody and/​or visitation rights to a nonbiological caregiver (DiFonzo & Stern, 2013). For example, the California Supreme Court made a custody decision that stands as an early and commonly referenced example of a best-​interests decision. The court awarded legal custody of a child to a man, Thomas, who had no biological relation to the child, was never married to the child’s mother, and the mother did not even want him to have anything to do with her son. According to Sappenfield (2002, p. 2): Thomas had met the child’s mother when she was already three months pregnant. They moved in together a few months before the birth in 1995, and Thomas’ name was on the birth certificate. After an on-​again, off-​again relationship [for four years] … the biological father nowhere to be found and the mother struggling with drug abuse, Thomas took custody of the boy and sought to become his permanent and legal provider. Putting unprecedented scrutiny on blood ties, the court ruled that Thomas was indeed the boy’s legal father (with no adoption processes necessary) because he had lived with the child for long periods of time, consistently referred to the child as his son, and offered significant financial and emotional support to the child.

Defining Family Communication  •  9

DiFonzo and Stern (2013, p.  113) encourage the family court system to consider three best-​ interests issues in custody and visitation decisions: (1) whether the petitioning party claiming legal parenthood status was accorded that status by the other legal parent during the time they lived together as a family with the child; (2) whether that adult has been performing as a parent for a sufficiently long period of time; and, critically, (3) whether that adult and the child have established a parent–​child relationship. To what extent are best-​interests standards actually used in court decisions? Holtzman (2011) examined 23 cases of custody disputes between litigants who had been raising a child jointly in a marriage-​like relationship where only one partner was a biological parent. In 8 of the 23 cases, judges overlooked the nonmarital union of the couple and focused instead on the best interests of the child. In all eight of these cases, joint custody was awarded. Courts still favor blood and legal ties, but decisions that overlook these ties are more common today, at least with regard to custody and visitation rights. With regard to immigration decisions that influence family reunification, biological ties remain the legal standard, even though there are increasing calls to consider children’s best interests in such decisions that involve a parent or caregiver who is outside the traditional definition of family (King, 2010). Lay Perspectives on Defining Family For practical reasons, people want to be able to explain to others who is in their family. Many people have very complicated answers to seemingly simple questions about who their family is. Even in personal conversations, people often use phrases such as “they are like family to me” to describe close friends, or people commonly distinguish, for example, their biological father from the person they really consider to be their “dad.” In a study of children’s perceptions of family, Newman, Roberts, and Syrè (1993) explored whether children define family by form, function, interaction, or all three. They asked children who ranged in age groups of 4–​6, 7–​9, 10–​12, 13–​15, and university age, “If a person [from another planet] asked you, what would you say to help him or her figure out what a family is?” (Newman et  al., 1993, p. 954). Responses were coded to determine how many made reference to biological ties (e.g., people bonded through blood relations), legal ties (e.g., a man and a woman who are married), coresidence (e.g., people with whom you live), affective ties (e.g., people who love each other), shared activities (e.g., people with whom you eat your meals), family roles (e.g., a dad, mom, brother, or sister), or other (e.g., a whole bunch of people). The children defined family in several ways. However, affective ties were most frequently mentioned by participants (60  percent), while coresidence was second most frequently mentioned (38 percent). Responses varied by age, with older children more likely to mention affective ties. That is, affective ties played a stronger role than structural ties in constituting their perception of family. When Baxter, Henauw, et al. (2009) asked people to determine whether various units of people had family status or not, they found that the presence of certain structural features increased the likelihood that people would label a group as having family status. However, interaction among the people mattered along with these structural features. Structural features that affected judgments of who was family included, for example, the presence of children, an intact marriage, shared residential status, and blood relations. Yet the amount of communication contact (frequent versus limited)

10  •  Introducing Family Communication

also affected perceptions of family status. Further, the presence of frequent communication increased perceptions of family status regardless of how the units of people were structured. In reality most lay people consider both affective and structural ties to some degree, and it is not always clear which one matters more. The struggle to honor both affective ties and structural ties is illustrated in a clever study by Holtzman (2008), in which university students responded to the following question:  “You discover your wonderful one-​year-​old child is, because of a mix-​up at the hospital, not yours. Would you want to exchange the child to try to correct the mistake?” (p.  168). In their initial responses, students reflected a desire to honor both traditional, structural definitions and psychosocial definitions. For example, a majority of students struggled to find some balance in their decision (e.g., mentioning that they wanted to find a way to see both children). However, when pressed to reach a final conclusion, students favored correcting the mistake slightly more than not (i.e., concluding the physical, biological connection between parent and child mattered more). There are also cross-​cultural differences that influence children’s definitions of family. When comparing definitions of family among children who ranged in age 6–​12 from China, Turkey, Ecuador, and the United States, children from the United States had a more diverse view of what constituted family (Qiu, Schvaneveldt, & Sahin, 2013). In comparison to the children from other countries, the “American children were much more likely to define a couple without children as a family, grandparents as family, aunts, uncles, and cousins as family, a single mother or father as family, and a cohabiting boyfriend as a member of the family. In fact, a few American children defined a neighbor and a school friend as family whereas children from other cultures did not” (Qiu et al., 2013, p. 659). Family Demographics It is important to understand family demographic trends that are influenced by and influence family communication. Events such as the birth of a child or the death of a family member fundamentally reshape interaction in the family system. Processes such as marriage and divorce are essentially communication processes. Rich demographic resources like the U.S. Census Bureau help describe frequencies and trends regarding family size, marriage and partnering, divorce, parenting, and family lifespan transitions (Rosenthal, 2001). Family Size and Lifespan Trends Children in the family. After World War II, birthrates climbed to a high level and remained high for the next 20 years (from 1945 to 1965), producing a group of people termed baby boomers. Since the baby boomer era, birthrates have fallen. Delays in marriage, birth control, increases in voluntary childlessness, and the economic implications of raising children are some of the factors contributing to smaller family sizes. The Pew Research Center (2015a) summarizes a Gallup poll in which 65 percent of American couples cited the economic costs of having a child as the reason they were not having more kids. In the same survey, close to half of Americans said their ideal is two children, while in 1936 only a third said two children was the ideal and most others said they wanted three, four, or more. In 1976, 40 percent of women age 40–​44 had four or more children; in 2014, women of that same age averaged just over two children (Pew Research Center, 2015b).

Defining Family Communication  •  11

Further, estimates suggest a total fertility rate of 1.9 for US women in 2017 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017a). As a result, average household size (note that “household” is defined more broadly than “family” by the U.S. Census Bureau) has decreased from 3.1 in 1970 to 2.6 in 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013), with the most dramatic declines in family size from the mid-​1970s to the mid-​ 1990s. Women’s educational attainment is strongly related to the number of children they have, such that only 8% of mothers with a postgraduate degree have four or more children, compared to 26% for those without a high school diploma (Pew Research Center, 2015b). Along with fewer large families in general, one-​person households increased from 17% to 27% from 1970 to 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Family size is influenced not only by having children, but how long those children remain in the home. The 2012 General Social Survey asked Americans what experiences were important to becoming an adult. Just 25% said that moving out of a parent’s home was an important part of becoming an adult, while around 60% felt it was important to finish school and around 50% felt that it was important to have a full-​time job and be economically secure. These attitudes, along with economic challenges, may explain why 31% of young adults age 18–​34 lived in a parent’s home in 2016, compared to only 26% in 1975 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017b). The U.S. Census Bureau generates a larger argument that many milestones of adulthood that people once experienced in their 20s (e.g., finishing school and finding a job, moving out of a parent’s home, and finding a spouse) are now occurring in their 30s. Multigenerational living. Multigenerational households are counted by the U.S. Census Bureau as family households with three or more generations. Nearly 6% of total US households are multigenerational, and there is some variance in the percentage of multigenerational households by race/​ethnicity:  Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 13%, Hispanic and American Indian and Alaska Native 10%, Black 9%, Asian 9%, and non-​Hispanic White 3.7% (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). In addition, poverty is more common in multigenerational households, making it difficult to determine the extent to which such households are formed by choice or as a coping mechanism to deal with financial struggles. The U.S. Census Bureau (2013) reports that 64 percent of multigenerational households consist of a householder living with a child and grandchild. Increases in nonmarital childbearing, along with loosening expectations that conception would lead to marriage, likely contribute to this type of living arrangement (Hayford, Guzzo, & Smock, 2014). Indeed, Pilkauskas (2012) studied a nationally representative sample of mothers over a period of nine years and found that 60  percent of single mothers lived in a three-​generation family household at some point over the first nine years of their first child’s life. Of the total number of multigenerational households, another 34  percent consist of a householder living with a child and their parent, a pattern more common with Asian householders (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Indeed, the overall percentage of parents living in the homes of their adult children increased by 67 percent from 2000 to 2007 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). Life expectancy. The National Center for Health Statistics (2016) reports life expectancy at birth for the US population in 2015 as 76.3 years for males and 81.2 years for females. Life expectancy in the United States actually decreased overall by 0.1 from 2014 to 2015. Even though the gap between male and female life expectancy has been decreasing since 1979, women can still expect to live 4.9 years longer than men. Because women tend to marry men who are, on average, two years older (Manning, Brown, & Payne, 2014), and live longer (by about five years), many women can expect to live the last seven years of their lives as a widow.

12  •  Introducing Family Communication

Partnering Trends Cohabitation. Cohabitation rates represent one of the fastest changing family demographics in the last few decades. From 2007 to 2016, the number of cohabiting adults in the United States increased from 14 million to 18 million, a 29 percent increase (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017b). About half of those in cohabiting relationships are younger than 35 and around a quarter are over age 50, representing an especially large spike in older adults cohabiting (Pew Research Center, 2017a). According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2017b), 9.2 percent of young adults age 18–​34 lived with an unmarried partner in 2016, compared to only 0.7  percent in 1975. Attitudes toward cohabitation have also changed dramatically over the last few decades. In 2002 roughly a third of people age 15–​44 agreed with the statement: “A young couple should not live together unless they are married” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2016). By 2013, only a quarter of people in the same age range agreed with the statement. Further, it is estimated that over two-​thirds of marriages begin with cohabitation (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). Age and education are also interesting factors in understanding cohabitation trends. Age is one aspect of cohabitation demographics that has not changed much. From the 1980s to the late 2000s, average age of first cohabitation changed by less than a year, in the direction of a younger age of first cohabitation in the late 2000s, at age 21.8 for women and 23.5 for men (Manning et  al., 2014). As for education, mothers with low education, and to some degree, mothers with moderate education, are increasingly likely to have their first child within the context of a cohabiting union (Gibson-​Davis & Rackin, 2014). Mothers with high education are much more likely to have their first child within a marriage that was formed prior to conception. Gibson-​Davis and Rackin also explain that in the late 1980s women who became pregnant outside of marriage were almost four times more likely to marry rather than cohabit. However, by 2005–​2010, they were 1.2 times more likely to cohabit than marry in response to pregnancy. Gibson-​Davis and Rackin describe this trend as the “displacement of marriage with cohabitation … [which] speaks to the mainstream role of cohabitation” (2014, p. 516). Marriage. Although marriage rates have declined slightly, marriage is still a central force in the lives of many families. The likelihood that one will marry remains high. In 2009, by age 70, around 96 percent of people in the United States had been married (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011). One of the most dramatic demographic changes with regard to marriage is the increasing average age at which people first marry. Since 1970, people have been delaying the age that they first marry. Figure 1.1 depicts changes in average age at first marriage over the last century. Average age at first marriage was lowest for both men and women in 1956 –​at ages 22.5 and 20.1, respectively. By 2008, average age at first marriage was 27.4 for men and 25.6 for women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). By 2016, average age of first marriage was 29.4 for men and 27.4 for women (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). There are some other interesting points to consider regarding age at marriage. First, the average age at first marriage for men in 1890 (26.1  years) was higher than the average in the mid-​1900s, suggesting an interplay between the economy and marriage age. Second, although people are delaying marriage, they are not delaying the formation of serious relationships, as evidenced by the relatively stable average ages of first cohabitation discussed previously. Finally, education level plays a pivotal role in age of union formation. In a careful analysis of age and union formation, Manning et  al.  (2014) concluded that men and women with the lowest levels of education were delaying marriage, but not cohabitation. However, those who had the highest levels of education

Defining Family Communication  •  13 Age (years) 30 28 26

Men

24 Women 22 20 18

1890

1900

1910

1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010 ‘16

Figure 1.1.  Median age at first marriage: 1890 to present Source: Adapted from U.S. Census Bureau, Families (2017c). Historical marital status visualization (Figure MS-​2).

were delaying marriage and delaying cohabitation, with around a six-​year difference in age at first cohabitation between the most and least educated. Other dramatic changes in the demography of marriage pertain to same-​sex marriage. To better collect information about same-​sex relationships, the U.S. Census Bureau introduced new relationship response categories in 2010. Prior to 2010, the relationship response categories were either “husband or wife” or “unmarried partner.” The term “unmarried partner” could have included cohabiting couples, whether same-​sex or opposite-​sex. New relationship categories expanded to include:  “opposite-​sex husband/​wife/​spouse,” “opposite-​sex unmarried partner,” “same-​sex husband/​wife/​spouse,” or “same-​sex unmarried partner.” In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-​sex marriage throughout the United States in 2015 (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015), contributing to a subsequent surge in the number of same-​sex marriages. According to the Pew Research Center (2017b): “about one-​in-​ten LGBT Americans (10.2%) are married to a same-​sex partner, up from the months before the high court decision (7.9%). As a result, a majority (61%) of same-​sex cohabiting couples are now married, up from 38% before the ruling” (p. 2). Rates of interracial marriage have also increased significantly in recent decades, to the extent that 17 percent of all marriages in the United States are classified as interracial, compared to just 3 percent in 1967 (Pew Research Center, 2017c). The most common intermarriage pairing is between a Hispanic spouse and White spouse, with the next most common between an Asian spouse and White spouse. Although intermarriage pairings involving a Black spouse are also on the rise, there is a gender gap, such that Black men are twice as likely as Black women to intermarry (Pew Research Center, 2017c). Divorce and remarriage. Divorce causes even more marital dissolutions than death. Nearly half of all marriages initiated in recent years will end in divorce, a probability that has changed little

14  •  Introducing Family Communication

over the last few decades (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012). In ­chapter 12, we further discuss trends in divorce and reasons for dramatic increases in divorce rates over the last 30–​40 years. Most divorced people and many widowed people remarry. As a result, almost half of all marriages are remarriages for one or both partners, and many remarriages involve children from one or both partners (Bumpass, Sweet, & Castro Martin, 1990; Ganong & Coleman, 1999). The average amount of time between divorce and remarriage is three years for women and four years for men (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001). Parenting Trends Union formation, divorce, and remarriage restructure families. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2016), 69% of children under age 18 live in two-​parent families, which represents a 19% decrease from 1960. Of those children who live with two parents, 87% of them live with their biological mother and biological father, while 10% live with a biological parent and stepparent, and 2% with one or both as an adoptive parent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Before reaching adulthood, 30% of all children are estimated to live with a stepparent (Bumpass, Raley, & Sweet, 1995). Further, 44% of people age 18–​29 have a step sibling (Pew Research Center, 2014). Behind two-​parent families, the second most common living arrangement for children is with a single parent. Nearly a quarter (23%) of children live only with their mother (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Of single parents, 17% are fathers (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017d). The Pew Research Center (2014) also reports that 41% of births in 2011 were to unmarried women. Of those births to unmarried women, 72% were to Black women, 53% to Hispanic women, and 29% to White women. However, regardless of race, only 9% of births to unmarried women were to women who had a bachelor’s degree (Pew Research Center, 2014). Finally, parenting trends have changed in other important ways related to parents’ identity and age. According to the Williams Institute (2013) approximately 37 percent of LGBT adults have had a child, whether biological, step, adopted, or foster, at some point in their lives. About 6 percent of all children live in a grandparent-​maintained household (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Family Representations in the Media While demographic data provide one portrayal of families, television and film provide an often fictional and entertaining portrayal of families. Media portrayals are sometimes representative of the actual make-​up of families and other times are driven more by a desire to entertain, explore the new or extreme, or maintain stereotypes. Television sitcom portrayals of families have changed over time. In a thorough and detailed analysis of these changes by decade, Tyus (2015) explains that sitcoms from the 1950s tended to feature primarily White married couples adapting to comical events and challenges (e.g., The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet and The Honeymooners). Some shows from the 1950s also featured children, who misbehaved in ways innocent enough to be humorous and always resolvable by the end of the episode (e.g., Leave It to Beaver). In the 1960s and 1970s, sitcoms continued to lightheartedly portray well-​functioning, traditional nuclear families that promoted gender and racial stereotypes. However, producers began to experiment with some degree of diversity in family form and interaction. For

Defining Family Communication  •  15

example, Tyus identifies shows that depicted diversity in family form (e.g., The Andy Griffith Show featuring a male widower and single parent, The Brady Bunch featuring a stepfamily, or The Jeffersons featuring an African American family). Producers also introduced some diversity in family interaction, as with All in the Family, where family arguments and controversial topics were common. According to Tyus, sitcoms in the 1980s and 1990s continued to push the limits, slowly representing different types of families, family interaction, and introducing topics that reflected current issues such as race, gender, work/​family balance, working-​class struggles, adoption, older adults, LGBTQ identity, and young adults partnering or delaying marriage (e.g., consider The Cosby Show, The Golden Girls, Diff ’rent Strokes, Roseanne, Will and Grace, Friends). From 2000 to today, television sitcoms and television reality shows continue to explore and present family diversity, with some praise and some criticism. Modern television portrays increasing diversity in family interaction, such as expanding examples of problematic family interactions, as in Shameless. Similarly, family sitcoms such as The George Lopez Show, Modern Family, and Fresh Off the Boat have been hailed as significant and trailblazing in their portrayals of cultural diversity and diverse family forms. Also in the 2000s, producers focused heavily on depictions of families in television reality shows. While the premise of many historical television sitcoms was to portray a supposedly “normal” family, modern reality television has thrived on depictions of unusual or extreme families, largely in an effort to either understand or be entertained by them. For example, The Learning Channel (TLC) has or continues to feature reality shows depicting large families (19 Kids and Counting, Counting On, KateEight, and Outdaughtered), different ways of partnering (e.g., 90 Day Fiancé, Sister Wives, The Spouse House), and uncommon or novel family issues (e.g., I am Jazz, depicting a family with a transgender child, or Long Lost Family, depicting families who have experienced long-​term separation often through adoption). Although our discussion thus far has focused on television portrayals, film portrayals mirror much of the same historical progression, creating many stereotypical and traditional portrayals of families, but also devoting increasing attention to family diversity. Family Diversity in Research People have implicit, personal theories of family life that are shaped by experiences in their own families, interactions with other families around them, their cultural background, and the media. In both implicit and explicit ways, these interactions influence scholars’ and lay people’s views of optimal family interaction. Current knowledge about family communication is, in part, a reflection of the types of families that have been studied, which until this century has focused primarily on intact European American middle-​class couples raising children in nuclear families (Flanagan et al., 2002; McHale & Grolnick, 2002). Recently, however, family communication scholars have systematically explored family diversity and how it is intertwined with family interaction. Family diversity has been explored in three primary ways: diversity in (1) family form, (2) family/​cultural values, and (3) family experiences. In this opening chapter, we preview just some of the issues that appear later in the book with regard to family diversity. Readers of this book will be presented with numerous typologies of families and family interaction in the chapters to come. Students of family communication sometimes wonder why there are so many different typologies and the answer is in part because families are so diverse.

16  •  Introducing Family Communication

Diversity in Family Form Throughout this book we present research by family communication scholars on several of the family forms introduced in the sections on family demographics and family definitions. We explore how communication varies in different family forms, namely how communication is influenced by family form or how communication is used to establish and maintain the identity of a family form. Exploring how communication varies by family form is challenging because, in some cases, we find that communication within some family forms (e.g., married couples) can vary just as much or more than communication between various family forms (same-​sex versus different-​sex married couples). It can also be difficult to tell if differences in communication are attributed to family form (e.g., a single-​parent household) or some other variable (e.g., poverty in a household), although sophisticated statistical techniques allow for some degree of control in exploring such nuances. In ­chapter 3, we explore how communication is used to establish and maintain identity in various family forms (e.g., in adoptive families or gay and lesbian families). In most cases, family communication scholars examine the discourse (i.e., the stories, secrets, rituals, and everyday talk) that family members use, and how it shapes or reflects their identity both within and outside the family. Diversity in Family/​Cultural Values Throughout the book, we also examine how family and cultural values influence and are influenced by communication. For example, such values strongly influence parenting styles (­chapter 7), union formation (­chapter 5), extended family relationships (­chapter 9), and how families cope with stress as well as the stressors they experience (­chapters 10 and 11). Cultural values are often intertwined with basic family communication processes involving power, intimacy, and conflict. Some family communication research takes a cultural variability approach to the study of family communication (Gudykunst & Lee, 2001; Hofstede, 1980). For example, individualism-​collectivism refers to a person’s focus on the self versus the group. This cultural dimension affects, for example, individual perceptions about appropriate family cohesion. It may also influence perceptions about the extent to which parents should nurture their young and teach them to contribute to the common family good or instead teach them to be independent and stand out from the crowd. Lynch (1999) states: “What one person views as nurturance, another may view as spoiling” (p.  59). Family values are also intertwined with family structure issues. For example, familism, defined by “values such as strong family identification, attachment, mutual support, family obligation, and familial interconnectedness,” influences the structure and role of extended family in activities such as caretaking, shared housing, and socializing (Mendez-​Luck, Applewhite, Lara, & Toyokawa, 2016, p. 813). Familism, as a family value, has often been studied among traditional Latino families, though it is a value that can be reflected in various family types. Masculinity-​femininity refers to values regarding sex roles in families, for example, whether they are defined and differentiated (i.e., masculine) versus flexible and interchangeable (i.e., feminine). Naturally, this dimension relates to perceptions about roles and rights in marriage, as well as socialization of children. Power-​distance refers to the extent to which a person respects authority and hierarchy (i.e., high power-​distance) versus viewing all persons as equal in status (i.e., low power-​ distance). Power-​distance influences family rules and negotiation, as well as respect for family members and family tradition.

Defining Family Communication  •  17

Family values may also be influenced by religious values (Diggs & Socha, 2004). In some cases, religious values indirectly influence family interaction, playing a role in the formation of family relationships (e.g., choice of a mate, whether to have children) and the maintenance of relationships (e.g., roles in the family and attitudes about divorce). However, some select studies have explored how families communicate about religion and how such communication relates to family well-​being. For example, Colaner, Soliz, and Nelson (2014) found that parents and children reported more relational satisfaction and shared family identity when parents used more accommodative communication, marked by messages that offered religious-​based support or showed respect for emerging religious values that were different. Nonaccommodative messages worked against family well-​being, as such messages highlighted religious differences and offered unwanted advice and inappropriate self-​disclosures. Diversity in Family Experiences Throughout chapters of the book, we also discuss diverse family experiences involving issues like immigration, discrimination, physical and mental health problems, and family separations related to careers and military service, all of which define families and shape the course of family interaction. For example, the immigrant experience can be marked by acculturative stressors that can influence family interaction. Some of these stressors include: discrimination, lack of social support, lack of familiarity with US norms, and tensions between first/​second generations regarding the pace and depth of appropriate acculturation or the new tasks that the acculturation process demands of family members (e.g., children involved in language brokering for their parents) (Bush, Bohon, & Kim, 2005; Kim, Lee, & Lee, 2015; Smokowski, Rose, & Bacallao, 2008; Tannenbaum, 2005). Discrimination is an example of another family experience that can influence family interaction. For example, Teufel-​Shone et al. (2005) attribute some of the conflicts of American Indian families to stress and oppression connected with loss of the native language, memories of relocation, problems with the reservation system, substance abuse, and lack of employment opportunities. In sum, diverse family forms, values, and experiences make for and reflect diverse family interaction. Scholars have developed important models and typologies to better identify and describe these diverse forms of family interaction. The remainder of the chapter seeks to define communication and present models of family interaction and functioning. Defining Communication and Its Characteristics Like definitions of family, there are numerous definitions of communication that reflect diverse perspectives in the communication discipline. We prefer a definition of communication that highlights many of the basic issues addressed by communication theorists:  Communication is a transactional process in which individuals create, share, and regulate meaning. Communication scholars have long been interested in the means by which humans communicate. Watzlawick, Beavin, and Jackson (1967) proposed that humans use both digital and analogic codes to communicate. In digital codes, meaning is conveyed symbolically. Symbols are arbitrary and conventional units of meaning. In other words, there is no necessary relationship between the symbol and the thing or idea that the symbol represents. Words and numbers are two common examples of symbols. As long as members of a language community agree that the word “hungry” represents that

18  •  Introducing Family Communication

physical state, then the word becomes symbolic. Members of a language community use the same symbols and recognize them as conventional units of meaning. One assumption inherent in family communication research is that each family is a unique miniculture (Whitchurch & Dickson, 1999). Minicultures develop their own symbols. The meaning assigned to those symbols is only understood by those who are a part of the miniculture. For example, families have nicknames, family jokes, or references that only members of the family understand. Analogic codes communicate meaning by being similar to what they convey. The code is the thing, not a distant representation of the thing. Thus, there is a direct relationship between the code and the meaning expressed. For example, a no smoking sign that uses an analogic code would show a picture of a cigarette with a diagonal line through the cigarette to indicate that cigarettes are not allowed. In contrast, a no smoking sign in a digital code would simply read “no smoking,” relying on symbolic words. Many nonverbal behaviors are analogic codes. For example, facial movements can be the expressions of real emotions, not just a distant representation of an emotion. A great deal of family communication occurs through nonverbal analogic codes. Parents communicate with their newborn infants almost entirely through analogic codes (e.g., the cry or yawn of a baby), and even as their children age, some parents become quite skilled at decoding their child’s expressions (e.g., knowing the child is distressed by the expression on his or her face). But is all behavior communication? Watzlawick et  al. (1967) originally proposed “one cannot not communicate.” That is, every behavior is communicative. Indeed in families, members may know each other so well that they can determine the intent behind many behaviors, or they think they can. Bavelas (1990) later conceded that not all behavior is communicative, though it may have informative value (p.  599). Thus, one individual’s interpretation is not the same as communication. Communication is a mutual process that extends beyond one person’s interpretations. Communication relies on intersubjectivity. Intersubjectivity refers to shared meaning, or a state where a person understands the other and is understood by the other. In families, a great deal of history and common experience allows individuals to reach a level of intersubjectivity that they would not otherwise achieve in more casual relationships. Long-​time married couples often report that they achieve this intersubjectivity –​they understand what their partners are thinking and feeling –​ even when few, if any, words are exchanged. However, even couples that know each other well often resort to lengthy exchanges in order to understand each other. Sometimes they never understand each other, and simply do the best job they can at attempting to understand and coordinate their behavior (Pearce, 1976). The success of communication is dependent on feedback, or the interpretations and evaluations one receives about the message. Using feedback, it is possible and in fact common for people to disagree about the meaning of any given symbol. As illustrated in subsequent chapters on marital communication or parent–​child communication, family members often become confused about what other members “meant” by their verbal or nonverbal behavior. For example, parents may define a “fun” activity very differently than their children, and they eventually are prompted by the child to clarify and regulate new, shared meaning. Watzlawick et al. (1967) term this process reframing, whereby family members step outside the situation or the norms of the family system and look at things in a new light. Watzlawick et al. (1967) proposed another axiom that is central to the study of family communication: “Every communication has a content and relationship aspect such that the latter classifies the former and is therefore a metacommunication” (p. 54).

Defining Family Communication  •  19

Content messages refer to what is said, and relationship messages refer to how it is said and the impact it has on the relationship. Relationship messages are often communicated through nonverbal behavior. To Watzlawick et al., relationship messages are always most important. Much of the study of family communication is the study of relationship messages. Marital partners in conflict may find they underestimated or overestimated the impact that their communication had on their partner. Parents may offer the same content message to two children, but the relationship message is sent or interpreted differently by each child. Metacommunication, then, refers to communication about communication, where the communicators say “This is how I see myself … this is how I see you … this is how I see you seeing me” (Watzlawick et al., 1967, p. 54). Metacommunication is an important skill for families, particularly when things go wrong in family communication. In distressed family relationships, metacommunication is typically absent or constant (i.e., the members are constantly battling over interpretations of content or the nature of the relationship). Our definition of communication also implies that people create, share, and regulate meaning in a transactional process. As a process, communication is an ongoing, complex, changing activity (Dance, 1967). Every family’s communication is continuous, with a unique history, present, and future. Past experiences in the family clearly influence present interactions. Communication defines the family’s present reality and constructs family relationships. Families are constantly renegotiating their reality into the future. Rather than attempting to understand the family from one specific instance of communication or from one family member, the family should be understood as a whole. Because many families are not just dyadic relationships, the transactional process is complex. Models of Family Functioning Olson’s Circumplex Model Perhaps the premier model of family functioning was developed by family systems theorist David Olson (Olson, 1993; Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979). Olson suggested that there are two primary dimensions of family behavior that are vital to their functioning. These are termed adaptability and cohesion. A third dimension of family behavior, communication, is presumed to allow families to change their degree of adaptability and cohesion in response to the demands they face. The adaptability dimension of family behavior refers to “the ability of a marital/​family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress” (Olson et al., 1979, p. 12). More recently, Olson has referred to this dimension of family behavior as “flexibility” (Olson, 1993). Families that are highly adaptive change easily in response to environmental demands. Families with low adaptability have a fixed or invariant style of functioning and interacting. In times of crisis or bounty, their behavior remains fairly constant. Family adaptability is manifested in how assertive family members are with each other, the amount of control in the family, family discipline practices, negotiation, how rigidly family roles are adhered to, and the nature and enforcement of rules in the family. In the circumplex model, there are four different levels of family functioning that represent different points on the highly adaptable to nonadaptable continuum. Running from low to high adaptability, these include the rigid, structured, flexible, and chaotic families. A profile of such families, as a function of the different family adaptability behaviors, is presented in Table 1.1. According to Olson, the mid-​level or balanced families (i.e., flexible or structured) are the most functional, whereas extreme families (i.e., chaotic or rigid)

20  •  Introducing Family Communication Table 1.1.  Levels of family adaptability in Olson’s Circumplex Model of Family Functioning

CHAOTIC (extreme adaptability) Assertiveness/​ Opposite styles Passiveness (rules unclear)

FLEXIBLE (high adaptability)

STRUCTURED (mod.–​low adaptability)

RIGID (no adaptability)

Generally assertive

Generally assertive

Opposite styles (vacillates)

Control

Limited leadership

Egalitarian (fluid leadership)

Democratic with clear leader

Authoritarian leadership

Discipline

Lenient

Democratic with unpredictable consequences

Democratic with predictable consequences

Autocratic and overly strict

Negotiation

Endless negotiation and poor problem solving

Good negotiation and problem solving

Good problem solving and rules for negotiation

Limited negotiation and poor problem solving

Roles

Dramatic role shifts

More fluid family roles

More defined family roles

Rigid roles (stereotyped)

Rules

Dramatic rule shifts and many implicit rules; rules arbitrarily enforced

Rule changes and more implicit than explicit rules

Few rule changes, mostly explicit rules; rules enforced

Rigid, extreme rules; rules strictly enforced

Source: Olson (1993), in F. Walsh (Ed.) Normal Family Processes (2nd ed., pp. 104–​137). New York: Guilford. Republished with permission of Guilford Press.

are assumed to be the least functional. This is because rigid families are unable to change their power structure and interaction patterns to appropriately meet the demands and challenges they face. At the same time, chaotic families represent something of a free-​for-​all with no clear idea on any given day of who is in charge or who is occupying what roles. The second major dimension of family behavior in Olson’s circumplex model is family cohesion. This dimension represents “the emotional bonding members have with one another and the degree of individual autonomy a person experiences in the family system” (Olson et al., 1979, p. 5). Like family adaptability, the family’s cohesion is evident in a number of family behaviors that include their emotional bonding to each other, the regulation and maintenance of boundaries, the nature of family coalitions, how the family shares time and space, family versus individual friends, and family decision-​making patterns. Very cohesive families spend maximum time together, make decisions as a family, and are strongly bonded to each other emotionally. Noncohesive families tend to have members who “do their own thing,” have their own friends, spend little time together, and maintain more personal than shared family space. As with the adaptability dimension, Olson and his colleagues suggest that there are four different family types on the cohesion dimension that represent different points on the continuum. From low to high cohesion, these family types are: disengaged, separated, connected, and enmeshed. A profile of such families, as a function of the different family cohesion behaviors, is presented in Table 1.2. Once again, Olson argues that it is the mid-​level or balanced

Defining Family Communication  •  21 Table 1.2.  Levels of family cohesion in Olson’s Circumplex Model of Family Functioning

CONCEPTS

DISENGAGED (no cohesion)

SEPARATED CONNECTED (low–​mod. cohesion) (mod.–​high cohesion)

ENMESHED (extreme cohesion)

Emotional bonding

Independent (low)

Low–​moderate

High–​moderate

Dependent (high)

Internal/​external boundaries

Open external boundaries

Open internal boundaries

Closed external boundaries

Blurred internal boundaries

Coalition

Weak coalition Clear marital (family scapegoat) coalition (husband–​wife stronger)

Strong marital coalition (united front)

Strong parent–​child coalition

Time

Maximum time away from family

Time alone (space) Time together more Maximum time and time together important than together important. space

Space

Maximum separate physical space

Maintain private space and family space

Friends

Few family friends, many individual friends

Some family and More time with individual friends family friends, some individual

Decision making

Individual decisions Most decisions Individual decisions All decisions made individual-​based; are shared; made by family able to make joint with family family decisions interests in in mind

Maximum family Minimum private space and space minimum private space Family friends more important; few individual friends

Source: Olson (1993), in F. Walsh (Ed.) Normal Family Processes (2nd ed., pp. 104–​137). New York: Guilford. Republished with permission of Guilford Press.

families (i.e., separated or connected) who are the most functional, with the extreme level families (i.e., disengaged and enmeshed) being the least functional. The reasoning is that disengaged families exhibit insufficient bonding to each other and excessive autonomy from the family. The enmeshed families on the other hand exhibit extreme emotional bonding to each other, overidentification with the family, blurred boundaries, and insufficient autonomy to function effectively outside of the family context. The communication that takes place between family members is considered to be a third important aspect of family behavior. In the circumplex model, family communication is seen as a facilitating dimension. By this Olson and his colleagues mean that communication allows the family members to move on the adaptability and cohesion dimensions. As families grow, develop, and change it is often necessary for them to adjust their adaptability and cohesion in order to maintain optimal functioning. Positive communication behaviors such as self-​disclosure, clarity, attentive listening, demonstration of empathy, and staying on topic are assumed to facilitate such adjustments in adaptability and cohesion (Olson, 1993). In research on specific family communication dimensions that affect family functioning, Schrodt (2005) found that perceptions of family expressiveness, the free

22  •  Introducing Family Communication

and open exchange of ideas and feelings, are positively associated with family functioning. On the other hand, negative family communication behaviors such as criticism, denial of feelings, excessive conflict, and failure to listen are assumed to impede the family’s movement on the adaptability and cohesion dimensions. Specifically, Schrodt found that perceptions of conflict avoidance and structural traditionalism (i.e., communication that reflects strongly defined role expectations and enforces societal expectations) were inversely related to family functioning. Consequently, when it would be optimal for families to alter their adaptability or cohesion, they remain stuck at one point on the continuum, unable to change their behavior. This contributes to dysfunctional responses to environmental stressors. By combining the adaptability (or flexibility) and cohesion dimensions, it is possible to plot families on a two-​dimensional space. This plot, depicted in Figure 1.2, constitutes the Circumplex Model of Family Functioning. Families who could be plotted on the periphery of the circumplex model are considered to be extreme families. That is to say that they have either very high or very low

COHESION

Low

High LEVELS OF FLEXIBILITY

High

F L E X I B I L I T Y

CHAOTICALLY DISENGAGED

CHAOTICALLY SEPARATED

CHAOTICALLY CONNECTED

CHAOTICALLY ENMESHED

CHAOTIC • Lack of leadership • Dramatic role shifts • Erratic discipline • Too much change

FLEXIBLE FLEXIBLY DISENGAGED

FLEXIBLY SEPARATED

FLEXIBLY CONNECTED

FLEXIBLY ENMESHED

• Shared leadership • Role sharing • Democratic discipline • Change when necessary

STRUCTURED STRUCTURALLY DISENGAGED

STRUCTURALLY SEPARATED

STRUCTURALLY CONNECTED

STRUCTURALLY • Leadership sometimes ENMESHED shared

• Roles stable • Somewhat democratic discipline • Change when demanded

RIGID RIGIDLY DISENGAGED

RIGIDLY SEPARATED

RIGIDLY CONNECTED

Levels of cohesion DISENGAGED

SEPARATED

CONNECTED

Low

I I–We balance: Closeness: Little closeness Loyalty: Lack of loyalty Interdependence – High independence Dependence:

I–We Low–Moderate Little loyalty Interdependent More independence than dependence

I–We Moderate–High Some loyalty Interdependent More dependent than independent

RIGIDLY ENMESHED

• Authoritarian leadership • Roles seldom change • Strict discipline • Too little change

ENMESHED We Very high High loyalty High dependency

BALANCED MID-RANGE EXTREME

Figure 1.2.  The Circumplex Model of Family Functioning Source: Olson (1993), in F. Walsh (Ed.) Normal Family Processes (2nd ed., pp. 104–​137). New York: Guilford. Republished with permission of Guilford Press.

Defining Family Communication  •  23

adaptability and/​or cohesion. These are assumed to be the least functional families. Families whose behavior places them somewhat closer to the middle of the circumplex model are characterized as mid-​range families. These families are moderately functional because they are balanced on at least one of the two dimensions of family behavior. Finally, the families whose behavior locates them at the center of the circumplex model are considered to be the most functional. Their location at the center indicates that they are balanced on both dimensions of family behavior. It is important to bear in mind that families can change their position on the circumplex as they evolve over time (Olson, 1993). In fact, the most functional families will alter their adaptability and cohesion to levels that are most appropriate to their stage of the family life cycle. For example, newlywed couples may be extremely high on the cohesion dimension but somewhat low on the adaptability dimension. However, as time passes and they have children, cohesion levels may naturally decline and adaptability levels may increase substantially. The presence of multiple children in the home ordinarily calls for substantial adaptability in order to keep the family functioning at an appropriate level. Keep in mind that it is the family’s positive communication skills that are hypothesized to allow for movement on the adaptability and cohesion dimensions. This is an important ability for maintaining family functioning during times of stress (see ­chapter 10 for more details on the circumplex model and family stress). In some of the original analyses of the circumplex model, Olson and his colleagues found that balanced or mid-​range families had the highest level of family functioning (e.g., Olson et al., 1979; Russell, 1979). Further evidence for this curvilinear (i.e., inverted U) relationship between adaptability or cohesion and family functioning has been documented in research conducted since then (e.g., Kawash & Kozeluk, 1990; Olson, 2000; Rodick, Henggeler, & Hanson, 1986; Thomas & Olson, 1993; Yahav, 2002). However, there is also some evidence to suggest that there is a linear relationship among adaptability, cohesion, and positive family outcomes (Farrell & Barnes, 1993; James & Hunsley, 1995; Perosa & Perosa, 2001; Shields & Clark, 1995). Especially for family cohesion, some research shows that more is better. At the present time, scientists do not completely agree on the exact nature of the relationship among adaptability, cohesion, and family functioning. It may be that the measures of family cohesion, for example, do not effectively discriminate between connected and enmeshed families. Another possibility is that enmeshed families may be rare in our society, so they may not show up in research studies very often. This could make it look like more cohesion is better for family functioning. Yet another idea is that high family cohesion has both positive and negative effects, depending on the context. While a distinctively high level of cohesion within many Hispanic families has been thought of as a protective factor against external stressors, high cohesion may also thwart the acculturation process (Rivera et al., 2008). We suspect that, at least in theory, families with extraordinarily high levels of cohesion probably do not function as well as those that are moderate in cohesion. The confused roles and boundaries that are associated with very high cohesion, the failure to develop a unique identity apart from the family, and the lack of friends aside from “family friends” would ordinarily not be conducive for optimal family outcomes. FACES IV is Olson’s most current version of the self-​report measure used to assess family adaptability and cohesion (Olson, 2011). The measure has been widely used among a variety of populations and generally well-​received in the scholarly and clinical community. Priest, Parker, and Woods (2018) point out, however, that the measure does not specify how respondents should define family or who they should think of when they take the assessment. In fact, in a random sample of 511 people who took the measure, Priest et al. found that just over half answered in reference to

24  •  Introducing Family Communication

their family of orientation, while the rest considered either their family of origin or both. Priest et al. caution that assessments can differ greatly depending on whether one thinks of family of origin versus family of orientation, and thus researchers and clinicians who use FACES IV might consider asking respondents to tell who they considered as family. The McMaster Model of Family Functioning Unlike Olson’s circumplex model that plots family functioning in a two-​dimensional space, the McMaster Model of Family Functioning (Epstein, Bishop, & Levin, 1978) is based on six conceptual dimensions of family functionality. Even though there are many more dimensions in the McMaster model, many of them are closely related to adaptability and cohesion (Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993), so it is more similar to Olson’s circumplex model than it may appear at first glance. The McMaster model was developed with attention to clinical application. One of the underlying philosophies of the McMaster model is that family functioning is better described by transactional and systematic properties of the family as opposed to intrapsychic characteristics of individual family members. Consequently, family assessment from the perspective of the McMaster model focuses on structural and organizational properties of the family, along with appraisals of the transactions between family members (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop, 1983; Miller, Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985). The first dimension of the McMaster Model of Family Functioning is problem solving, which is the family’s ability to resolve issues that threaten their functional capacity. It is assumed that the most functional families work through common stages of problem solving such as identifying the problem, deciding on alternative solutions, and monitoring actions. Like Olson’s model, the McMaster model has a communication dimension. This is the exchange of information between family members in a way that is both clear and direct. This dimension of family behavior is measured in the McMaster model with items such as “People come right out and say things instead of hinting at them,” “We are frank with each other,” and “When someone is upset the others know why” (Epstein et al., 1983). We should note that in the McMaster model, the general term “communication” is used to describe healthy, functional behaviors. Certainly, most communication scholars are careful not to use the term “communication” as loosely, given communication can also refer to dysfunctional behaviors (e.g., see ­chapter 16). The roles dimension of the McMaster model describes the established patterns of behavior in the family for handling various functions and tasks. In the McMaster model, the most functional families are those in which members each have a role and are accountable for performing the duties associated with that role. The fourth dimension is termed affective responsiveness and reflects the extent to which family members are able to experience and express a range of emotions. In the most functional families, the expression of emotion is accepted regardless of its nature. In more dysfunctional families, emotions are either suppressed, or only a limited range of emotional expression (e.g., only happiness) is tolerated. A related dimension called affective involvement represents the family’s interest in and connection to each other. This dimension is very similar to the cohesion dimension in Olson’s model. Affective involvement implies that family members place value on each other’s activities. Like the cohesion dimension of Olson’s circumplex model, in the McMaster model it is assumed that the relationship between affective involvement and family functioning is curvilinear. There is such a thing as too much affective involvement. Similarly, too little affective involvement would mean that family members generally do not care about each other, so this

Defining Family Communication  •  25

too would be seen as dysfunctional. The sixth and final dimension of the McMaster Model of Family Functioning is behavior control. This variable reflects the way that the family expresses and maintains standards for the behavior of its members. In the model, there are four different behavior control profiles:  flexible, rigid, laissez-​faire, and chaotic. The rigid and chaotic styles are seen as extremes in low or high flexibility, respectively. These are not considered to be functional profiles for a family’s behavior control. However, the laissez-​faire and flexible styles are less extreme. In the McMaster model, flexible behavior control is viewed as most functional. In this model, behavior control is seen as an issue in situations involving danger, expressing psychological needs and drives, and social behavior. Like the affective involvement dimension, there is such a thing as too much and too little behavior control. The best functioning families have moderate amounts of behavior control in most circumstances. Conclusion Defining family is a complicated issue. There is not one universally accepted definition of family, and in many cases it makes sense to define family differently depending on the purpose. Three categories of criteria that distinguish definitions of family include (1) form, (2) function, and (3)  interaction. Family communication scholars place special emphasis on interaction as a defining feature. We also examined labels for common family structures as well as common expectations for tasks performed and interactions exchanged among family members. These labels provide a language for describing families throughout the book. In addition, the family tasks and interactions hint at many of the family processes we will examine in subsequent chapters. To some, defining family seems mundane. However, important scientific, legal, and social implications rest on family definitions. In upcoming chapters, we will explore many of the family trends depicted by the demographic data on families presented in this chapter. We will also continue to explore defining features of family communication, including the complex nature of content and relationship messages and the role of communication in constituting family identity. In addition, the models of family functioning (Olson’s circumplex model and the McMaster model) point toward many of the issues concerning family interaction that we will explore in depth. Finally, diversity in family form, cultural values, and family experiences impact the way people define family and interact within the family. For more resources please visit the Companion Website: www.routledge.com/cw/segrin

2

Theoretical Perspectives on Family Communication

In this chapter we review a number of influential theories of family communication and relationships. A theory is simply an explanation of a fact pattern. Although not all of the theories discussed in this chapter were explicitly developed as theories of family interaction per se, each has been widely and fruitfully applied in the scientific study of families. This chapter contains a presentation and analysis of family systems theory, uncertainty reduction theory, social learning theory, attachment theory, and the dialectic perspective. These theories are presented because they provide basic and abstract conceptualizations of family processes that have application to a number of different family phenomena, and will therefore appear repeatedly in other chapters in this book. These theories appear throughout the remainder of the book because they are among the most popular theories of family communication. What is a theory, and why do social scientists develop theories? As we noted, a theory is an explanation of a fact pattern. Social scientists generally do not develop theories to explain individual cases or incidents. Rather, theories are developed to explain how and why certain things happen, particularly when those things happen repeatedly. For example, scientists and therapists realized that a lot of couples who get divorced exhibit certain patterns of destructive conflict. For that reason, they attempted to develop a theory that explains how and why conflict can harm a marriage (see ­chapters 6 and 12 for further analysis of this issue). If only a handful of divorced couples had problems with conflict, scientists probably would not have been motivated to develop an explanation for why conflict harms marriage. Scientific theories serve a number of useful functions. Perhaps the most basic function of a theory is to explain how and why a phenomenon occurs or operates. A related function of theories is to predict when a phenomenon might or might not happen. For example, in recent years there has been great interest in developing theories of divorce that allow for prediction of who will divorce and who will stay married. In addition, theories sometimes allow scientists and therapists to control a phenomenon. If a valid theory of divorce explains the phenomenon as caused by dysfunctional communication patterns, instituting training seminars or therapy techniques that address those communication problems might be a useful way to lower the divorce rate. 26

Theoretical Perspectives  •  27

When reading about different family theories, notice how each offers different explanations of how and why family interactions function as they do. It is important to keep in mind that no theory offers the one and only explanation for a fact pattern. There are often multiple explanations for why family interactions function as they do. The utility of a theory is therefore determined, at least in part, by how well it holds up under empirical scrutiny. In other words, are the available data consistent with the propositions of the theory? All of the theories discussed in this chapter have been associated with numerous studies that support the essential components and elements of the theory. Readers interested in more information on the theories presented in this chapter, as well as other theories developed to explain more specific family processes, may wish to consult Bengtson, Acock, Allen, Dilworth-​Anderson, and Klein (2005), Braithwaite and Baxter (2006a), Hamon, Ingoldsby, Miller, and Smith (2008), and White and Klein (2008). Family Systems Theory Historical Background As social scientific theories go, family systems theory has unique beginnings. In fact, family systems theory emerged from a line of work that was more closely related to engineering and biology than to families or human relationships. Family systems theory was derived from general systems theory (GST), which is a theoretical perspective developed for explaining how elements of a system work together to produce outputs from the various inputs they are given. A “system” is nothing more than a “set of elements standing in interrelation among themselves and with the environment” (Bertalanffy, 1975, p. 159). Two key figures in the development of GST were biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy and mathematician/​engineer Norbert Wiener (e.g., Bertalanffy, 1968; Wiener, 1948). Wiener is most noted for his work on cybernetics, which is the science of self-​correcting systems. An early application of GST came from work on antiaircraft gunnery during World War II. An essential realization of this work was the necessity to constantly compare the aim of the weapon, and the resultant course of its munitions delivery, to the position of the target. When the ammunition was being delivered too far ahead of the plane or too far behind, the operator of the weapon had to take this into consideration and adjust the aim of the antiaircraft gun. In the abstract, this concept is known as cybernetic feedback and would be an essential component of GST. Whitchurch and Constantine (1993) identified three basic assumptions of GST. First, systems theories can unify science. The principles of GST are thought by many to cut across traditional academic boundaries. That is to say, they apply to systems in the natural as well as social sciences. For this reason, concepts and processes that describe the functioning of an automobile engine (mechanical engineering) could be equally applicable to a description of the functioning of a family (family science), or the functioning of a particular ecosystem (biology). A  second assumption of GST is that a system must be understood as a whole. This concept, known as holism, is fundamental to all systems approaches. A system cannot be understood by merely studying each of its components in isolation from each other. There is little to be learned about the functions and outputs of an automobile engine by carefully examining the alternator and oil filter. That would not be much more useful than trying to learn about a family by carefully studying their cat and their daughter. The concept of holism implies that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” To understand the system, one must look at it holistically, considering all elements and how they relate to each other.

28  •  Introducing Family Communication

A third assumption of GST is that human systems are self-​reflexive. Self-​reflexivity means that we can develop our own goals and monitor our own behavior. This is inherent in the fact that human systems are cybernetic systems that can process feedback, which is what allows for adjustments in behaviors in order to reach a goal. The Family as a System At first glance, the connection between “family” and such concepts as engines, antiaircraft artillery, and ecosystems may not be obvious. However, the family is a system that operates in accord with many of the same principles as these other systems. At the same time, the family is a special type of system with some characteristics that set it apart from some other types of systems. The family is often characterized as an open and ongoing system (Broderick, 1993). Systems that are open take input from the environment and produce output back to the environment. The input that families take from the environment includes things as simple as food bought at the grocery store to more complex matters such as information on the best colleges to send their children to. Output also includes a vast range of things from garbage to professional work to children who become members of society. Although no family is truly a closed system, families vary in the extent to which they are open. Families that are extremely open are said to have permeable boundaries. Boundaries are simply dividing lines that determine who is in and who is out of the system (Yerby, Buerkel-​Rothfuss, & Bochner, 1995). The permeable boundaries of the very open family suggest that people can come and go with ease, into and out of the family system. Such a family, for example, may allow a distant cousin to move in for an extended period of time. At the same time, a teenage child might move out of the home to study in Europe as an exchange student. Families that are less open are more inclined to keep to themselves and send clear messages about the limited extent to which they will tolerate “outsiders” entering into the system. Any system that is ongoing has a past, present, and future. If one considers the extended family, most families could be viewed as perpetual. Obviously, we all have ancestors, and barring some catastrophe, our families will all continue long after we are gone. In the grand scheme of things, when people think about their families (e.g., parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles) they are really considering a mere snapshot in time. The greater ongoing system has a very long history and is sure to have a very long future. The fact that families are open and ongoing systems means that they have a number of qualities that distinguish them from other types of systems (Broderick, 1993). For instance, all open and ongoing systems are dynamic. The relationships among their elements and the environment are not static. Rather, they change over time. The way that a mother relates to her child at age 1 is very different than when her child is age 15. The qualities of open and ongoing systems are emergent. The elements of the family interact to produce something that is more than just a collection of individuals. Systems theorists often make an analogy to baking a cake. Combining eggs, flour, sugar, and milk and baking it results in something very different than a mere collection of the individual ingredients. Families have a similar quality of emergent properties. Families also exhibit regular patterns from which we can deduce rules. For example, observing a family over a long period of time might reveal that whenever a member has a birthday, he or she is excused from any household chores. To the extent that this pattern is evident, one could say that this is a “rule” in the family. It is also the case that these patterns of interaction, or rules, are hierarchically structured. This means that rules exist at different levels of

Theoretical Perspectives  •  29

abstraction, and some take precedence over others (see ­chapter 4). Open and ongoing systems also regulate relationships among their components. In order to maintain the integrity of the system, it is essential to have some rules or patterns that hold the elements together and allow for the smooth functioning of the overall system. Parents who scold their children for fighting with each other are, in the abstract, attempting to regulate their relationships. Constant and intense fighting among family members could otherwise threaten the family’s well-​being and ability to realize their goals. Finally, open and ongoing systems regulate relationships between the system and the environment. All families exist in a greater society ecosystem or suprasystem. Because they are open, interaction with elements outside of the immediate family system is essential. For this reason, families develop rules and patterns of conduct for these interactions, again, with the goal of protecting the integrity of the family system. A family rule that children cannot go out on dates until they are 15 is an example of a rule designed to regulate relationships between the family and the external environment. The family’s distinction as an open and ongoing system helps to delineate it from a variety of other systems. However, the family is not the only open and ongoing system. Many animal societies and environmental ecosystems could also be characterized as open and ongoing systems. To more fully appreciate the concept of family systems it is necessary to look closer at some of the family processes that are inherent in family systems theory. Major Processes in Family Systems Theory System processes are the characteristics that describe how the family system functions as a whole unit (Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987). One way to understand family systems theory is to examine the family processes that are assumed to play an important role in the family’s day-​to-​day functioning. Mutual influence. According to family systems theory all family components are interdependent. That is to say, what happens to one member affects all other members of the family. The actions of every family member will influence the actions of other family members. Family systems theorists feel that families are constantly in the processes of influencing each other, and that this process never ends. So for example, a child graduating from college is not just an individual achievement; it is a family event. For parents, it may represent the culmination of years of childrearing, a reduced financial burden, and the possibility of a more distant relationship with the child as he or she moves away to start a new job. To a sibling, this event may represent more freedom to use the family car, no longer having to share a bedroom, and the absence of a reliable tennis partner. Either way, the graduation of one member of the family impacts all other members of the family. Keep in mind however that there is no linear cause (child graduates) and effect (more distant relationship with the child) relationship in this hypothetical family. The act of going to college, graduating, and moving away to take a job is also influenced by the family. For example, a child without a close relationship to his or her parents might be more likely to move out of state after graduation. The concept of mutual influence suggests that all family members influence each other. Stability. All families seek some level of regularity in their lives. Regularity brings predictability, and at least some degree of predictability allows for smooth functioning of the family. The tendency to seek stability is called morphostasis. Patterns, routines, and rules all allow families to function with some level of stability. A total lack of stability, or chaos, could easily destroy a family system. In a state of chaos, family roles are unclear, the behavior of family members is unpredictable, and important tasks may go undone because everyone thought that someone else would do them. Alternatively,

30  •  Introducing Family Communication

family members may waste energy duplicating each other’s efforts. It is easy to see how such a scenario would make the family such an inhospitable place as to motivate most of its members to leave the system. Although some degree of flexibility and change is healthy for the family (see section on family functioning in ­chapter 1) all families need and seek some stability. Change. Just as families need some stability, healthy families must experience some change. In fact, families are also driven to seek change. This tendency is known as morphogenesis. Morphogenesis is the tendency to reorganize and evolve over time. As family members marry, have children, age, and die, the family evolves. This is a natural and unavoidable evolution. Families also exist in a larger society, and as society itself changes, so do most families. Fifty years ago family members may have looked down on a mother who took a full-​time job while her children were still young. Given the changing economic and social conditions of society, families today may be more inclined to not only accept but honor someone who takes on so many tasks. Feedback and calibration. Families are information processors. They perform the cybernetic function of examining their own behavior and trying to correct it so as to achieve goals. In a feedback loop, the family examines its output, and if that output is not meeting the goal or reaching some standard, they send a message (which becomes new input) to correct the behavior that led to the deviant outcome. An obvious example of this would be rearing children. Families will often correct or punish deviant behavior of their children in the hope that the children will ultimately grow up in accord with some standard defined by the family. The goal of feedback and control is to reach some level of homeostasis, or equilibrium. A married couple with full-​time jobs that often keep them apart from each other may plan a vacation together to allow them to reestablish some balance between separateness and connection in their relationship. Negative feedback, also known as error-​actuated feedback, occurs when the family initiates corrective action upon awareness of a deviation from some standard. This is the way that most thermostats operate. Once the temperature deviates from a set point, the thermostat sends a signal to the furnace or air conditioner to produce more heating or cooling. Parents who punish their children for bad behavior operate on negative feedback. Positive feedback, or deviation-​amplifying feedback, works to enhance changes from a set point. For example if a young adult child who lives with his parents and works a part-​time job suddenly starts looking into colleges to attend, the parents might respond by verbally encouraging him, offering financial assistance with tuition, and relieving him of household chores so that he can pursue his studies. In this way, the parents use feedback to actually encourage change in their son’s behavior, once they realize that he is contemplating a change from the norm of his part-​time job. Equifinality. The concept of equifinality refers to the fact that the same end state may be reached in many different ways. Different families can achieve the same goals by traveling down very different paths. Consider for example the goal of providing for the family. Some may do this through the father’s employment. In other families, both the mother and the father work. In still other families, teenage children may work and contribute some of their wages to the family. In all cases, the family system generates income to provide for their needs, but in very different ways. The family systems concept of equifinality is useful and important because it is a reminder that there is no single version of family well-​being and functionality. Instead, there are many different ways that families can pursue the same goal. A related systems concept, multifinality, indicates that the same set of inputs may lead to different outputs. Two middle-​class, suburban families with similar incomes and resources may end up raising very different children. This is because different families will process the same inputs differently. These, and additional concepts and processes in family systems theory, are assembled in Table 2.1.

Theoretical Perspectives  •  31 Table 2.1.  Concepts and processes from family systems theory

Family Systems Concept

Definition

• Boundaries • Enmeshment

–​ the border between the system and its external environment –​ a lack of differentiation between family members so as to minimize the development of individual identities –​ the idea that the same end state can be reached by many paths –​ the family’s response to a behavior or process that is observed –​ the family’s desired outcomes or end states –​ the family can only be understood by examining it in its entirety; the whole is more than the sum of its parts; also known as nonsummativity –​ maintaining a state of equilibrium through feedback and calibration –​ the idea that all components of the system are interrelated; what happens to one happens to all; the actions of one element affect the actions of the others –​ the family’s tendency to evolve and change with time –​ the tendency to seek stability or equilibrium –​ the idea that the same set of inputs can lead to different outputs in different families –​ family members influence each other –​ error-​actuated feedback that is engaged when actions deviate from a family standard; this feedback attempts to suppress the deviation –​ deviation-​amplifying feedback that is designed to stimulate and enhance deviation for a norm –​ having the necessary range of resources and responses to adequately address the demands encountered in the environment –​ prescribed patterns of behavior in the family; they contribute to the family’s stability –​ a smaller system within the family system such as husband–​wife or parent–​child –​ the larger system in which the family is embedded such as the extended family or society more generally

• Equifinality • Feedback • Goals • Holism • Homeostasis • Interdependence • Morphogenesis • Morphostasis • Multifinality • Mutual Influence • Negative Feedback • Positive Feedback • Requisite Variety • Rules • Subsytem • Suprasystem

Evaluation of Family Systems Theory Family systems theory is the dominant paradigm in family science. It has been noted that “Many, if not most, family communication specialists have a systems theory worldview” (Whitchurch & Dickson, 1999, p. 691). Nevertheless, family systems theory has been criticized on several grounds (see Klein & White, 1996 and Whitchurch & Constantine, 1993 for reviews). One position is that family systems theory is not really a true theory, but rather a philosophical perspective. There is some ambiguity and generality in family systems theory that makes it hard to generate concrete, testable hypotheses. Also, some people feel that family systems theory goes too far in emphasizing the role of all family members in influencing the phenomena that the family experiences. If a father loses his job, more often than not he is more responsible for that outcome than the family’s one-​year-​old child is. On a related point, family systems theory has also been criticized by feminist scholars who argue that systems conceptualizations do not recognize the fact that women and children often have less power and resources than men. For that reason, it may be unwise to view the contribution of women and children to family matters as equal to that of men. This criticism has become particularly heated when topics such as family violence and sexual abuse are discussed. Although systems

32  •  Introducing Family Communication

theorists would not “blame” the victim, they would try to understand family problems as a function of the relationships among family members, instead of the behavior of an individual perpetrator. Whitchurch and Constantine (1993) argue that this later critique is based on a misunderstanding of GST, and that recent developments in family systems theory actually recognize different levels of power in the family through the concept of hierarchy. Uncertainty Reduction Theory Description When two strangers meet, they know almost nothing about each other. The only information that they have available at the start of an initial encounter is that which is evident to the naked eye (e.g., hair color, height, clothing being worn). In such cases, people have maximal uncertainty about the other. In this context there are an infinite number of possible alternative predictions that could be made about that person, and this is what it means to have uncertainty about someone. Of course, this could never be the basis for an ongoing relationship. People gather information on others in order to be able to understand the beliefs and behavior of those other people. If they like what they find as they embark on this quest to reduce uncertainty, relationships will progress, perhaps into long-​term partnerships. Uncertainty reduction theory (Berger, 1987; Berger & Calabrese, 1975) was originally developed to explain this process of relationship development, starting with an initial encounter between perfect strangers. Since then it has been widely applied to a variety of relationship contexts, including family relationships. Uncertainty reduction theory is built around several assumptions about human beings in relationships. For starters, it is assumed that in the initial encounter and early stages of relationships, a primary motivation is the reduction of uncertainty about both the other person and our own interactions with this person. Individuals want to know what others are thinking, how they feel, and why they are behaving as they do. The two key types of uncertainty people are assumed to want to reduce are cognitive uncertainty (what other people think and believe) and behavioral uncertainty (how and why people act the way that they do). When uncertainty is high, people are assumed to be most active in information gathering to reduce that uncertainty. This is where communication comes into the picture. People are assumed to use different communication strategies to gather information from their conversational and relational partners in order to reduce their uncertainty about them. Passive strategies involve mere observation of the other person. Personal attributes evident to the naked eye and various nonverbal behaviors can be observed through a passive strategy. Active strategies also involve observation of the target, but in this case people seeking to reduce their uncertainty intervene in some way to structure the interaction environment so as to gain useful information on the person who they are observing. Although there is no direct interaction with the target, people seeking to reduce their uncertainty may ask a third party for information on the target (e.g., “What’s he like?”) or manipulate the environment to see how the target responds (e.g., playing a certain song and watching to see if the target acts like s/​he likes it). Finally, interactive strategies involve direct conversation with the target (e.g., “What is your major?” or “What do you do for a living?”). As one progresses from passive to interactive strategies the amount of information gathered goes up, while uncertainty goes down. Of course, the risks get higher at the same time. It takes a lot more nerve to

Theoretical Perspectives  •  33

start interrogating someone whom we know hardly at all versus merely sitting back and observing that person. Of course, attempts to gather information on other people, pursuant to uncertainty reduction, are not always met with success. Other people will sometimes engage in thwarting strategies. Offensive strategies involve things like changing the topic and trying to direct the conversation away from the self. Defensive tactics involve equivocating or giving evasive or minimal replies to the information seeker’s questions. Thwarting strategies are generally a sign that the relationship is unlikely to progress, at least in the foreseeable future, because both parties are not on the same page in terms of sharing information about themselves. A core assumption of uncertainty reduction theory is that people are motivated to reduce uncertainty about others in order to maximize predictability. However, common sense tells us that people will not go out and perpetually interrogate everyone whom they meet in order to reduce uncertainty. There are some contexts in which uncertainty is tolerated. Berger (1979) argued that people are most strongly compelled to reduce uncertainty about others when (1) they anticipate future interaction with the other person, (2) the other person acts in ways that deviate from our expectations and/​or social norms, and (3) the other person has incentive value, meaning that s/​he has the ability to deliver rewards, help us achieve our goals, and so forth. Absent all three of these conditions, uncertainty about another person is thought to be tolerable, if not irrelevant. As people reduce their uncertainty about a target person, they come to understand that person better. They can better predict how that person will think and behave. This is the basis for the development of intimacy. As people share their feelings, opinions, aspirations, and even basic descriptive information about themselves, others come to know them better and feel a sense of attraction, connection, and closeness to them (e.g., Kellermann & Reynolds, 1990). Obviously, this process is vital to successful courtship and the run up to commitment and long-​term partnerships. However, there is one important caveat here. According to uncertainty reduction theory, people find uncertainty about another person to be generally unpleasant. However, a complete lack of uncertainty is not particularly attractive either. When couples repeat the same dull routine over and over again, the relationship can get boring. So, at least some uncertainty can be desirable in a relationship. Evaluation and Application to Family Communication Many of the general principles articulated in uncertainty reduction theory provide a relatively accurate account of information gathering and exchange in developing relationships, and an understanding of the motivations that underwrite that behavior. At the same time, some of the assumptions of uncertainty reduction theory have not fared as well. For example, anticipation of future interaction appears to lessen tolerance for uncertainty, but targets’ deviance and incentive do not seem to influence information seekers’ tolerance for uncertainty (Kellerman & Reynolds, 1990). Also, as people reduce their uncertainty about others, they often engage in more, not less, information seeking (Gudykunst, 1985), contrary to what would be predicted by the theory. Uncertainty reduction theory provides a very plausible account of some of the cognitive processes that are ongoing as people initiate and progress through courtship (see ­chapter 5). For decades, it was one of the dominant cognitive models of relationship development. Uncertainty reduction theory has evolved extensively into a collection of theories that are based on basic principles of uncertainty. For example, Knobloch and Satterlee (2012) developed a model of

34  •  Introducing Family Communication

relational uncertainty that is useful for understanding processes in established relationships. Just as the reduction of uncertainty about another person can lead to attraction and the development of intimacy, the arousal of uncertainty can be potentially disastrous for a well-​established relationship. Spouses who find out that their partners have been cheating on them after 20 or 30 years of marriage experience extraordinary upswings in uncertainty about their partner and their relationship. Many such relationships simply cannot bear the weight of this uncertainty once trust has been eroded to such an extent. Knobloch and Satterlee’s conceptualization of relational uncertainty is an example of how modern extensions of the theory provide not just explanations for the development of close relationships perhaps leading to a family of orientation, but how uncertainty about a relationship can damage or end well-​established intimate relationships such as marriages (see ­chapter 12).

Social Learning Theory Background Social learning theory was developed by Stanford University psychologist Albert Bandura (Bandura, 1977). Bandura developed social learning theory, not as a theory of family communication per se, but rather as a more general theory of behavioral acquisition. More recently, Bandura has expanded social learning theory into the more general social cognitive theory (e.g., Bandura, 1986, 1994, 2001). However, for purposes of the present discussion we will contain our presentation largely to explanation of the basic principles of social learning theory. In the premier study of what was later to become social learning theory, Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963) documented that children will imitate a model who is reinforced for performing certain behaviors. To explore this issue, they randomly assigned nursery school students to watch a filmed portrayal of a child model. In one condition, the model behaved aggressively and was rewarded for doing so. In the second condition, the model behaved aggressively and was punished for doing so. In the control group, the model did not behave aggressively at all. Shortly thereafter, the children were allowed to play, and researchers measured their aggressive behavior during the play session. They found that children who observed the aggressive model get rewarded exhibited significantly more aggressive behavior themselves than either those in the aggression-​punished condition or those in the control group. Also, those who saw the model get punished for aggressive behavior behaved much less aggressively than those in the other conditions. Bandura and his colleagues theorized that the children learned the consequences of behaving aggressively by observing what happened when the model behaved aggressively. When the model was rewarded, the nursery school children imitated or enacted the same behavior that produced the reward for the model. When the model was punished, the children seemed to avoid performing the behavior that resulted in punishment for the model. This idea of observational learning through modeling would become a central element of Bandura’s social learning theory. One can think of the process of social learning as a search for “if-​then” relationships (Smith, 1982). Consistent with the more general principles of behavioral theory, according to social learning theory, people seek rewards and try to avoid punishments. Bandura notes that fortunately, people are able to learn what brings rewards and what brings punishments at least some of the time through observing what happens to other people. Imagine what life would be like if the only way we could

Theoretical Perspectives  •  35

learn about the consequences of driving without a seatbelt, playing with a loaded gun, picking up rattlesnakes, and drinking household chemicals was through direct experience. Most people would not live to see their 20th birthday. Fortunately, we are able to learn about the consequences of these behaviors by observing other people’s misfortunes. Similarly, we are able to learn about behaviors that bring more positive consequences by also observing others. Once the “if-​then” rule (e.g., “If I touch a hot stove, then I will burn my hand” or “If I scream and cry, then my mother will give me candy”) is learned, most people act accordingly to secure the reward or avoid the punishment. Learning About the Consequences of Behavior In social learning theory, people are assumed to gain most of their knowledge about the consequences of performing various behaviors through two possible sources. The first, and most obvious, is through direct experience. In this rudimentary mode of learning, people acquire knowledge of behavioral consequences by actually experiencing them. For example, if a child eats a chili pepper and it burns his or her mouth, that experience teaches the child to avoid eating chili peppers in the future. If the child eats a chocolate candy bar, and it tastes good, the child would learn the reinforcing value of eating chocolate and would presumably perform the behavior frequently in the future. The idea of learning through direct experience and the rewards and punishments that are associated with our behaviors is a basic element of behavior theory, and is a mode by which even the simplest of animals can and will learn. However, because of their ability to form mental representations and their ability to abstract rules from observations of actions and their consequences, humans (and some other animals) are also able to learn through observation and the vicarious experience that it presents. Learning by vicarious experience happens when we take note of the effects of other people’s behaviors. For example, if John observed his parents reward his sister with $20 for bringing home a report card with straight As, he is likely to abstract the following if-​then rule: “If you get straight As in school, then mom and dad will give you money.” So long as receiving money is seen by John as a positive outcome, he is likely to try to enact that behavior (i.e., working hard in school to get good grades) himself. Note that John did not learn the if-​then rule by directly experiencing the effects of getting good grades. Rather, he learned the rule vicariously, through observing what happened when his sister got good grades. The Process of Social Learning Let us dissect the process of observational learning, or learning by modeling, a bit further. Learning through vicarious experience is dependent upon several interrelated processes. To start, there must be some attention paid to the model. Each day people are exposed to dozens, hundreds, and in some cases, thousands of other people. Each of these people is a potential model from whom others can learn about the consequences of enacting various behaviors. However, social learning can only happen if we pay attention to both the model’s behavior and its associated consequences. Without attention to the model, there can be no observational learning. Second, there must be retention of the if-​then rule that is learned by observing the model. That is to say, we have to form a mental representation of what was learned, and store that in memory, perhaps as a more abstract rule. Bandura (1986) notes that retention can be enhanced by rehearsal. The more people rehearse the socially learned rule (e.g., “if I apologize for doing something wrong, people will forgive me”) the more likely

36  •  Introducing Family Communication

they are to have access to it at critical times, and therefore to perform the appropriate behavior for either securing rewards or avoiding punishing responses from the social environment. Next, there are a number of behavioral production processes that are vital to performing the observed behavior. People must have the ability to produce or enact the behavior that they observed. This often requires organization of constituent subskills into a new response pattern. Sometimes people are able to enhance their ability to perform observed behaviors by receiving informative feedback from others on troublesome aspects of their behavior. For example, a father might teach his daughter how to kick a soccer ball by modeling the behavior. If the daughter does not perform the behavior with the same competence as the father, he might give her feedback on what she has done incorrectly in order to help her perform the behavior in the best way possible. Finally, there has to be motivation to perform the modeled behavior. In the example above, the father might model the proper way to kick a soccer ball 100 times in the presence of his daughter. However, even if she pays attention to him, remembers how to do it, and has the competence to perform the modeled behavior, she will not do so unless she has sufficient motivation. Where does the motivation to perform behavior come from? Social learning theory recognizes that incentives can be inherent in the behavior, vicariously produced, or self-​produced (Bandura, 1986). Some behaviors are inherently satisfying to most people. For example, people generally like to eat ice cream. The motivation to eat ice cream comes from consequences that are inherent in the behavior itself, not from some abstract or complex rule that is learned (e.g., “eating ice cream will keep the dairy farmers in business and will therefore be good for the state economy”). Bandura refers to the effects of such behaviors as eating ice cream or drinking water when thirsty as direct incentive. Sometimes the incentive for performing a behavior is self-​produced. With self-​produced incentives, people essentially reward themselves for a job well-​done. There is nothing inherently satisfying about bowling a strike. However, bowling enthusiasts will mentally congratulate themselves upon bowling a strike because they have come to value this sort of performance. To people who do not care about or understand bowling, knocking down ten pins with a heavy ball may seem like a meaningless behavior. Most important to social learning theory, people are sometimes motivated to perform behaviors because of vicarious incentives. People often acquire and perform behaviors because they see other people do so and get rewarded. The fashion and clothing industry –​an industry that relies heavily on modeling –​is constantly trying to impart vicarious knowledge of the consequences for performing various behaviors (e.g., wear this brand of shoes and you will be a good athlete, wear this style of pants and you will look great and gain the admiration of your peers, etc.). Application to Family Communication Even though social learning processes operate throughout the lifespan, and through observation of virtually any person, their applicability to child learning in the family context is undeniable. Smith (1982) noted that “we acquire most of our basic values and personal habits by initially observing our parents’ behavior and later the behavior of admired friends and reference groups” (p. 201). Children often grow up to hold similar political and religious values as their parents, pursue many of the same hobbies and occupations as their parents, and sometimes to even drive the same brand of car that their parents do. Social learning theory provides a compelling account for how and why this happens. The theory is a reminder that anything that parents do in the presence of their children can

Theoretical Perspectives  •  37

and often will communicate abstract if-​then rules to the children. If the surrounding circumstances are right, these rules may then become prompts for behavior, or inhibitors of behavior, depending upon the content of the mental representation. Smith (1982) described a number of conditions that affect the success of modeling, several of which have obvious applicability in the family setting. One such factor is the similarity between the model and the observer. The more similar the model is to the observer, the more likely the observer is to enact the modeled behavior. Similarity between the model and the self contributes to self-​efficacy in the observer. When people experience self-​efficacy, they feel that they are able to adequately perform the behavior. Supposedly the thinking with models similar to the self is that “if they can do it, then I  can do it.” It is obvious that there is considerable perceived similarity within family groups. For this reason, family members can be ideal models of behavior. Smith also notes that modeling is more successful when models have high status. Certainly parents and older siblings have very high status in the eyes of young children. Because most children start out in life looking up to their parents, they naturally use their parents as a benchmark for appropriate behavior. Also, modeling is most successful when there are multiple models. In the family context, it is often the case that more than one person performs a particular behavior. So, for example, if two or three members of the family are avid golfers, children raised in that family will have multiple models to observe, and are consequently very likely to adopt the same behaviors (i.e., take up golfing) themselves. Family science researchers have continued to apply social learning theory to the explanation of many functional and dysfunctional aspects of family interaction. For example, there are many who feel that people learn how to be spouses and how to be parents by observing their own parents in these roles. In the area of family dysfunction, there is compelling evidence for social learning processes in family/​partner violence, substance abuse, and even marital infidelity and divorce (e.g., Andrews, Hops, & Duncan, 1997; McRae, Daire, Abel, & Lambie, 2017; Swinford, DeMaris, Cernkovich, & Giordano, 2000; Weiser & Weigel, 2017) (see ­chapters 12, 14, and 16 for more in-​depth analysis of these family issues). When parents engage in physical violence or substance use in the presence of their children, they inadvertently communicate that this is an acceptable form of behavior. This is because young children lack the reasoning skills to independently determine what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, they use their parents as a benchmark for appropriate conduct. The idea is that if the parents do it, it must be the correct thing to do. So if the mother and father resort to physical violence when engaged in conflict or consume large amounts of alcohol when stressed, children who observe that behavior are likely to enact it themselves later in life. Similarly, when children observe their parents’ divorce, they are likely to learn the if-​then rule that goes “if you have problems in your marriage, then you get divorced.” This is one of several hypotheses for the intergenerational transmission of divorce discussed in ­chapter 12. It is apparent that social learning processes are so powerful that the if-​then rules learned in family contexts and the behaviors that they prompt will often hold up in the face of intense challenges. For example, most people know that divorce and domestic violence are not positive experiences. Yet, the template for behavior that is learned in the family of origin through social learning can be nearly impossible for some people to modify or escape. Despite “knowing” that family violence is wrong, when confronted with intense conflict, that becomes the default response. As disturbing as these family patterns are, they are a testimony to the power of social learning.

38  •  Introducing Family Communication

Attachment Theory Background Attachment theory was originally developed by John Bowlby and was based on his observational studies of children who experienced separation from their parents during World War II (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). Bowlby was also influenced by ethological theories that explore similarities and differences in behavior across species. Ultimately he argued that attachment processes outlined in the theory are evident in nonhuman as well as human primates, and serve an adaptive function for the survival of the species. Although Bowlby developed his theory as something of an alternative to the orthodox psychodynamic view of child development that was articulated by Sigmund Freud, Bowlby’s thinking still preserves many of the trappings of psychodynamic ideology. Bowlby observed that human infants are innately driven to seek out and remain in close proximity to their primary caregivers. Indeed, this pattern of behavior is typical of most primates. Bowlby (1973) characterized attachment behavior as “any form of behavior that results in a person attaining or retaining proximity to some other differentiated and preferred individual” (p. 292). This type of behavior is viewed as “hardwired” into the brain. That is to say, people do not need to learn proximity seeking to the caregiver. Rather, this tendency is already present at birth. Bowlby felt that this pattern of behavior was the result of natural selection. Because it is adaptive to the survival of the species, those who did not seek the proximity of a caregiver as an infant were less likely to survive and pass on their genes. Functions of Attachment As noted earlier, attachment processes between the infant and primary caregiver are assumed to be functional. Bowlby argued that attachment is adaptive to the survival of the species. His writings highlight four distinct functions that are served by attachment, all of which appear to be beneficial to the infant’s survival and development. Perhaps the most basic function of attachment is proximity seeking. Infants have an innate tendency to seek out their primary caregiver. Given that this person is the source of protection and nourishment, it is obvious how this tendency serves the infant’s best interests. Separation protest is a second function of attachment. This simply implies that the infant will resist separation from his or her primary caregiver. Behaviorally, it is evident in crying and screaming when the infant is separated from the caregiver. The safe haven function refers to the tendency to seek out the caregiver in times of stress or danger. Eventually children will explore their environment apart from their parents. However, attachment will readily send the child back to the presence of the parent for protection during times of stress. Finally, the secure base function indicates that an attachment that is felt as secure will motivate or allow the child to explore his or her environment, beyond immediate contact with the caregiver. The idea is that the secure attachment with the caregiver provides a sort of psychological foundation on which the child can mount an exploration into the unknown elements of his or her environment. If the child knows in the back of his or her mind that the caregiver is available for protection, exploration of the environment is not felt to be as risky. All of these functions of attachment should keep the infant out of harm’s way and in the presence of the individual who can shelter, protect, and nourish. There can be little doubt about the adaptive nature of such processes. Infants (or animals) who enact attachment behaviors are most likely to survive the perils of early development and grow into functional adults.

Theoretical Perspectives  •  39

Working Models and Attachment Styles In attachment theory, interactions between the infant and his or her primary caregiver (usually the mother) become the basis for internal working models. These are mental representations that summarize and organize interactions between the self and the caregiver. Early attachment experiences contribute to both internal working models of the self and internal working models of others. In the self model, the child views him-​or herself as either worthy or unworthy of love and support. Experiences with a parent who is warm and responsive would obviously lead to an internal working model of the self as worthy of love. However, if early childhood experiences with the caregiver are marked by coldness and unavailability, the child will come to view the self as unworthy of love and support. As Reis and Patrick (1996) wisely observed, “just how this internalization occurs remains one of the most important and unresolved issues in attachment research” (p. 526). Internal working models of others are a mental representation of the benevolence of other people. Other models are something of a prototype of other human beings and how they can be expected to treat the child. These representations are summarized along themes of availability, responsiveness, and trustworthiness. Essentially, the child will generalize from experiences with the primary caregiver, and assume that this is how most people will treat him or her. According to attachment theory, once these internal working models are established, which may happen as early as age 1 or 2, they are relatively stable throughout the remainder of the lifespan. Obviously, different children have different internal working models of the self and others. These various internal working models become the foundation for attachment styles. Bowlby felt that the nature of the caregiver’s response to the child was the dominant factor that determined the infant’s attachment style. Originally, attachment theorists suggested that there were three distinct attachment styles (e.g., Hazan & Shaver, 1987). People with a secure attachment style had caregivers who were responsive to their needs, available, and affectionate. Those with an anxious-​ avoidant attachment style had early interactions with caregivers who were cold, not nurturing, and unavailable. If the primary caregiver was inconsistent or unpredictable in his or her responsiveness to the child, the child was thought to develop an anxious-​ambivalent attachment style. Research on attachment theory has shown that infants with different attachment styles will behave differently around their mothers (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). For example infants with a secure attachment will gladly explore their environment when in the presence of their mothers. Upon separation they become distressed but then readily settle back down when reunited with their mothers. Infants with an anxious-​avoidant attachment style tend to avoid close contact with their mothers and keep to themselves. Finally, the anxious-​ambivalent infants will exhibit extreme distress upon separation from their mothers. However, when reunited these children show signs of anger and ambivalence. Later, a four category scheme of attachment styles was proposed, based on positive and negative models of the self and others (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). In this model, early experiences with caregivers are thought to produce internal working models of the self that are generally positive (worthy of love and acceptable to others) or negative (unworthy of love, unacceptable to others). At the same time, children are assumed to develop internal working models of others that are either positive (others are trustworthy and available) or negative (others are unreliable and rejecting). When the internal working models of the self and others are crossed, there are four possible attachment styles: secure, preoccupied, dismissing, and fearful. These are depicted in Figure 2.1.

40  •  Introducing Family Communication Positive Positive MODEL OF OTHERS Negative

MODEL OF SELF

SECURE Comfortable with intimacy and autonomy

Negative PREOCCUPIED

Preoccupied with relationships

DISMISSING

FEARFUL

Dismissing of intimacy Counter-dependent

Fearful of intimacy Socially avoidant

Figure 2.1.  The Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) model of attachment styles Source: Adapted from Bartholomew & Horowitz (1991). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226–​244. Published by the American Psychological Association; used with permission.

As evident in Figure  2.1, the four category scheme preserves the secure attachment style of the original three category scheme. However, it divides the avoidant styles into two substyles: the dismissing and the fearful. In each case, the internal working model of others is negative, but in the dismissing style the internal working model of the self is positive, whereas it is negative in the fearful style. It should be noted that this scheme was developed and validated largely on young adults. One might wonder how, for example, a person develops a positive internal working model of the self but a negative model of others. Infants appear much more readily willing to internalize the negative behavior of others as a negative reflection on the self. However, people who start out in life with a positive view of the self, but then have a string of bad experiences with others, could plausibly maintain their positive view of the self while holding a more negative view of other people. Note that this explanation hinges on the person’s ability to not always internalize the negative actions of others as a poor reflection on the self. This undoubtedly entails a more adult way of thinking about the social world and its relation to the self. Attachment theorists and researchers continue to explore different ways to measure and represent attachment styles. Some are now using dimensional scores to represent attachment, rather than specific categorical styles (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Shaver & Mikulincer, 2009). The two major dimensions of attachment that are assessed in such a scheme are attachment-​related avoidance and attachment-​related anxiety. Avoidance is a preference for emotional distance and a discomfort with closeness. Anxiety is a desire for protection and closeness and a concern with the availability of a partner. Obviously, people who score low on both of these dimensions would be considered securely attached. Evaluation and Application to Family Communication Embedded within attachment theory are some very powerful ideas and statements about family communication early in life. According to Bowlby, the nature of the parent–​infant interaction sets a template for social relationships that the child will carry with him or her for life. Notably, much of this early parent–​child communication is nonverbal. As children grow older, their attachment figures shift from parents to romantic partners and spouses (Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Reis & Patrick, 1996).

Theoretical Perspectives  •  41

This implies that communication patterns in the family of origin may be revisited in some way in the family of orientation. For example, people with secure attachment styles have a tendency to end up in traditional or independent marriages, whereas those with dismissing or preoccupied styles are more likely to be in separate style marriages (Fitzpatrick, Fey, Segrin, & Schiff, 1993) (see ­chapter 6 for a discussion of the different marital types). Those with a secure attachment style are also more likely to report high marital satisfaction compared to those with other styles of attachment (Feeney, 2002; Fuenfhausen & Cashwell, 2013; Meyers & Landsberger, 2002). A positive view of the self (i.e., secure or dismissive attachment style) is positively associated with family outcomes such as perceived rewards from marriage and parenting (Vasquez, Durik, & Hyde, 2002). Finally, secure attachment has been linked with less destructive relational patterns and more positive attitudes toward parenting (Bonache, Gonzalez-​Mendez, & Krahé, 2017; Feeney, Noller, & Roberts, 2000; Goodboy, Dainton, Borzea, & Goldman, 2017). Findings such as these are useful for employing attachment theory as an explanation for the effects of family of origin experiences on later family of orientation experiences. They also draw attention to the critical role of parent–​child communication in the early years of life. Even preverbal children appear very attuned and attentive to their parents’ style of relating to them. This early parental communication evidently leads to self-​concept development and views of the trustworthiness of others that impact later communication patterns and relationships. Attachment theory has been very useful for explaining why people with a history of childhood abuse often find themselves in abusive relationships as adults. This noxious form of parent–​child communication has been linked with a host of negative social and psychological outcomes later in life (Widom, Czaja, Kozakowski, & Chauhan, 2018; see also ­chapters 14 and 16 for a more in-​ depth analysis). An abused child would be expected to develop a negative internal working model of the self and therefore not feel worthy of love from others. Perhaps the child even feels that abusive conduct from others is somehow deserved or warranted. This sets up a mental representation of close relationships as normatively including abusive behavior. When such a child grows older and begins seeking romantic partners, attachment theorists speculate that this mental model of close relationships causes the person to, perhaps unknowingly, seek out others who will be abusive. In so doing, they recreate their childhood experiences and settle into a social life that is at once painful but familiar. It would not be an exaggeration to state that attachment theory has been subject to over 1,000 studies in the past 50 years. Researchers have used attachment styles to explain so many different phenomena that it begins to strain the imagination of the reader and credibility of the theory. The eagerness with which researchers have studied attachment styles in recent times appears to be fueled by a variable-​analytic mentality in which the search is on for any phenomenon, concept, or experience that varies as a function of attachment styles. Regardless of the utility of this approach, it obviously indicates the current mass appeal of attachment theory in the social and behavioral sciences. One assumption of attachment theory that has been hotly debated is the stability of attachment styles. Bowlby argued that the attachment styles formed in childhood are enduring throughout the lifespan. However, some scientists disagree with this assumption. For example, Coyne (1999) has been critical of theories that characterize early childhood experiences as frozen in time like the Wooly Mammoth, unable to be changed. Rather, Coyne argues that we have experiences throughout the lifespan that are influential in developing and changing our interpersonal perspectives. Further, he argues that early childhood experiences have only modest associations with later adult experiences such as depression. In the research literature there is at least some support for the stability of internal

42  •  Introducing Family Communication

working models and attachment styles over time (e.g., Bram, Gallant, & Segrin, 1999; Feeney et al., 2000; Fraley, Vicary, Brumbaugh, & Roisman, 2011). However, when attachment style is measured categorically (e.g., secure, dismissive, etc.), about 25 percent of respondents appear to change their attachment style over periods of 1–​4 years (Feeney & Noller, 1996). In an analysis over the course of six years, researchers found more fluidity than stability in attachment styles, with a tendency to become more secure and more dismissing, but less preoccupied, as people get older (Zhang & Labouvie-​Vief, 2004). If attachment styles change over time, the fundamental importance of parent–​ child interaction in setting the stage for later relationships that is postulated by attachment theory could be seriously questioned. This is due in part to the fact that the very meaning of attachment style is dependent upon there being at least some stability in the internal working models. The Dialectical Perspective Every year, millions of Americans travel home to their family of origin during the holiday season. In most cases people seem eager to reunite with family members and spend time with them. Often, after a week or so, people return back to their homes, jobs, school, etc., and seem as eager to get back to their life away from the family of origin as they were to see the family members in the first place. Why does it happen that at one moment people want to be united with their family members, and at the next they want to leave family members behind and get back to school or work? The dialectical perspective (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, 1997) explains that these seeming contradictions are an inherent part of our relationships with other people. Even though the dialectical approach describes forces that operate in virtually all relationships, family theorists have found its principles and ideas to be very useful for explaining the form and function of family relationships. Contradiction in Family Relationships In the dialectical perspective, contradictions are seen as an inherent aspect of any relationship. Contradictions cause change in our relationships and they keep relationships growing instead of static. They are relational forces that are unified opposites. By “unified” Baxter and Montgomery (1997) suggest that the opposing relational forces are interdependent. In other words, the meaning or experience of one force is dependent upon the other. For example, if one lived in a tropical climate where the outdoor temperature was consistently between 70 and 90 degrees, is there any such thing as it being “hot” or “cold” outside? For people who live in the Midwestern United States where the weather can range from 0–​100 degrees, “hot” and “cold” have obvious and clear meanings. The point is that the experience of “hot” takes on meaning relative to its alternative: “cold.” If there was no such thing as “cold,” “hot” would not be very meaningful. What are some contradictions, or unified opposites, that play a part in family life? One example cited by Baxter and Montgomery (1996) is autonomy versus connectedness. Reconsider the example given above about the family reunion over the holidays. In all close relationships, there is an obvious desire for a sense of “connectedness” between the members of the relationship. This might be established and maintained through sharing time and space, engaging in conversation, and engaging in joint activities. Without any of these, it would be hard to say that there is much of a relationship at all. However, there are very few people who want to spend 24 hours a day together. Even the closest married couples or the most attached parent–​child dyads seem to desire some time on their own.

Theoretical Perspectives  •  43

Consequently, family members must strike a balance in their relationships, over time, between connectedness and separateness. These opposing forces that impinge on the relationship are known as dialectic tensions. Other dialectic tensions that must be managed in family relationships include novelty versus predictability, disclosure versus privacy, stability versus change, and conventionality versus uniqueness (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Bochner & Eisenberg, 1987). According to the dialectical approach, these oppositional forces are balanced by different families in different ways. Rarely are they handled with an “either/​or” approach. Before leaving the topic of contradictions, it is important to note that the opposing forces described in the dialectical approach are not located in the struggle between one person and another. Rather, Baxter and Montgomery note that these oppositional forces are part of the relationship. In other words, they are relational, not individual, forces. In a mother–​daughter relationship, the disclosure–​privacy dialectic is not an issue of the mother expecting and offering full disclosure while the daughter expects and maintains full privacy. That would be an antagonism between individuals. Rather, this is a relational force that each must manage. There are surely some things that the mother wants to disclose to the daughter and some things that she would like to keep private. Similarly, the daughter would also want to disclose some things to her mother and keep some matters to herself. This dialectical tension calls on the mother and daughter to balance their desires for disclosure and privacy in a way that is comfortable for their relationship. Most people who have been in such a family relationship can attest to the difficulty of negotiating this dialectic tension. Praxis and Praxis Patterns According to the dialectical perspective, “people are at once both actors and objects of their own action” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1997, p.  329). This concept is called praxis. People consciously and often freely make choices about how they choose to treat their family members. This is abundantly evident in messages that are sent from one family member to another. At the same time, sent messages and communication patterns have a way of influencing the relationship in such a way as to impact the original message sender. Consider for example a parent with an anger management problem. If the parent expresses anger with his child through enacting physical violence, he could be seen as a sender of dysfunctional verbal and nonverbal communication, but at the same time, he will be acted on by his own communication. Assume for example that the Child Protective Services were made aware of the abuse, took the child from the family home, and had the father arrested. Suddenly, his act of communication has massive consequences that come back and act upon him and his relationship with the child. Different relationships use different mechanisms for managing the dialectical tensions that they experience. These mechanisms or tactics are called praxis patterns. Baxter and Montgomery (1996, 1997) divide these tactics into those that are dysfunctional and those that are functional. One of the common but dysfunctional praxis patterns is denial. Here, members of the relationship simply deny the presence of the contradiction by only honoring one of the poles while excluding the other. In a family that felt the opposing forces of conventionality and uniqueness, family members would be using denial if they simply ignored the pull for uniqueness and honored only the drive for conventionality. Another dysfunctional praxis pattern is disorientation. This happens when there is no real “management” of the oppositional forces in the relationship. Rather, members of the relationship resign themselves to the fact that these contradictory

44  •  Introducing Family Communication

motives are inevitable and negative. Consequently, they are likely to find themselves in double bind situations where any behavior or communication will feel like it clashes with one of the opposing relational forces. Baxter and Montgomery (1996, 1997) have also identified a series of more functional praxis patterns. These are more effective means for managing the dialectical tensions in such a way as to minimize negative relational outcomes. One functional praxis pattern called spiraling alternation involves alternating between the opposite poles of a dialectic at different points in time. For example, every Sunday family members may get together for dinner, honoring connectedness, but it may be understood that every Saturday night everyone is free to do their own thing or go out with their friends, honoring the desire for autonomy. In segmentation members of the relationship honor opposing poles of the dialectic, not over time, but over topic or activity domain. For example, a family might be very open when it comes to discussing spiritual beliefs and finances, but very private when it comes to discussing sexuality. By having open communication on some topics and treating others with a “hands off ” attitude the family alternates between the two poles of the disclosure–​privacy dialectic. Balance is a praxis pattern in which members of the relationship try to respond to both ends of the opposition by seeking a compromise. One problem with balance is that neither polarity is fully satisfied at any point in time. Integration is something of an ideal in conflict resolution and management of dialectical tensions. When members of a relationship integrate, they find a way of simultaneously satisfying both polarities of a dialectical tension. Baxter and Montgomery (1996) suggest that in some cases family dinnertime can be seen as an integration praxis pattern in which the family bond is established and maintained, and yet individual actions and accomplishments are recognized and embraced through the input of individual members into the interaction. With recalibration members of the relationship create “a transformation in the expressed form of the contradiction such that the opposing forces are no longer regarded as oppositional to one another” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 65). With this praxis pattern, members of the relationship find a way to reframe the contradiction “such that the polarities are encompassed in one another” (p. 65). The phrase “if you love something, set it free” may be a reflection of this mentality. By freeing one’s partner to behave as he or she will, members of a relationship can experience security through that freedom. Finally, the praxis pattern of reaffirmation “celebrates the richness afforded by each polarity and tolerates the tension posed by their unity” (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996, p. 66). In some ways, the “for better or worse” part of a marriage vow may represent reaffirmation for some married couples. If the couple accepts both the good times and the bad, and realizes that they will have a better and stronger relationship as a result of working through each, they may be enacting a reaffirmation praxis pattern. Evaluation and Application to Family Communication The dialectical approach has proven to be very useful to family theorists and researchers who are interested in explaining various family processes and tasks. For example, the work of Bochner and Eisenberg (1987), which predated the formal development of the dialectical approach, argued that there are two dialectical tensions that are central to family functioning. They characterize the first as integration versus differentiation. All families are made up of individuals with their own unique identities. At the same time, families as a collective unit have an identity. One task that faces all families is honoring the desire for a collective identity as a family unit versus allowing individuals within the family to develop their own unique identities as individuals, or their own unique relationships with

Theoretical Perspectives  •  45

other family members (e.g., mother–​daughter, between two siblings, etc.). Another dialectic that has a substantial impact on family functioning according to Bochner and Eisenberg (1987) is stability versus change. Most families have predictable patterns of interaction. These might be reflected in activities such as the family dinner, picking up children from school, or watching television together in the evening. Some degree of predictability is desirable for most families. On the other hand, too much stability in the family can lead to stagnation. As families evolve through time, they experience changes that are internal to the system (e.g., birth of a child) and changes that are external to the system (e.g., societal changes). There is some need to adapt to these changes, but without entirely abandoning the family’s traditions and destroying any sense of predictability in family interaction. According to Bochner and Eisenberg (1987), managing these two important dialectics are significant tasks that families must address in order to maintain their integrity. Other interesting family communication research on dialectical tensions has identified acceptance versus denial and openness versus closedness in end-​of-​life conversations (Keeley & Generous, 2015), uncertainty versus acceptance, realism versus idealism, and self-​orientation versus partner-​orientation in communication between stroke survivors and their spouses (Brann, Himes, Dillow, & Weber, 2010), and fair versus right, profit versus affordability, and progress versus continuity in discussions about passing the family farm from one generation to the next (Pitts, Fowler, Kaplan, Nussbaum, & Becker, 2009). The work of family communication scholars shows how the assumptions and ideas of the dialectical approach can be fruitfully employed for describing certain family processes. At the same time, the dialectical approach does not have all of the elements of a formal theory such as social learning theory. For this reason it is more difficult to use the dialectical approach for prediction or intervention to change or improve family functioning. Baxter (2006) explicitly eschews these as valid criteria for evaluating the utility of relational dialectics. The majority of its utility is in explaining the nature of family relationships. Also, some of the concepts in the dialectical perspective can be difficult to grasp, much less identify in a practical setting. For example, the praxis patterns of integration, recalibration, and reaffirmation are somewhat vaguely conceptualized and therefore difficult to observe or identify in an actual family setting. Further, these praxis patterns may not be as common as other praxis patterns such as denial, segmentation, or balance. Conclusion In this chapter we explored several theories that are and have been very influential in the field of family science. These general theories have inspired hundreds, if not thousands in some cases, of research studies and numerous more specific theories that draw on many of the postulates of the theories presented here. We started by examining family systems theory. According to this perspective, family processes can only be understood by examining the family in its totality. All family processes and events are thought to be connected to the larger family system and social suprasystem in which the family itself resides. Families are assumed to have emergent qualities that make them more than just the sum of their individual parts. Uncertainty reduction theory highlights the importance of information gathering, largely through communication, as relationships develop and progress into long-​term partnerships. Uncertainty reduction and the understanding and predictability of other people that come along with it fuel attraction and a sense of intimacy. At the same time, when people behave in ways that are difficult to predict and understand, even in the context of marriage or other close relationships, that can dramatically increase uncertainty and begin to undo the relationship.

46  •  Introducing Family Communication

Social learning theory explains how people acquire behaviors through observing other people perform behaviors, along with the consequences that they experience subsequent to the behavior. Learning by modeling is a fundamental process in social learning theory. When people observe a model perform a behavior and get rewarded for doing so, they are likely to start performing the behavior themselves. Social learning theory has obvious applications to family interaction because the family provides a multitude of compelling models for children to observe. Attachment theory focuses on early infant–​caregiver interactions as the basis for forming enduring internal working models of interpersonal relationships. An internal working model is a mental representation of the self as worthy or unworthy of love and attention and others as reliable and trustworthy or rejecting and uncaring. Attachment theorists feel that the nature of early interactions with a caregiver will inform young children’s internal working models which then influence the nature of their interpersonal relationships well into adulthood. Finally, we examined the dialectical perspective. This approach to understanding family processes is built around dialectical tensions or functional contradictions that are an inherent part of any family relationship. In the dialectical perspective, family members are seen as having to balance or manage tensions such as connectedness–​separateness, stability–​change, and novelty–​predictability. The dialectical perspective also explains how families manage dialectical tensions through a variety of techniques known as praxis patterns. Of all the theories discussed in this chapter, only family systems theory was explicitly developed as an explanation of family dynamics (although it was derived from the more general version of systems theory). All of the other theories were developed as explanations of more general interpersonal processes. However, the family either plays a prominent role in the reasoning of the theory (as in attachment theory) or the theory has obvious and immediate applicability to the family. In either case, scholars have seized upon these theories as some of their primary tools for explaining and understanding family interactions and relationships. Throughout the remainder of this book, we will present numerous specific applications of these influential theories. Their continued application to the understanding of issues such as child abuse, alcoholism in the family, marital satisfaction, divorce, and parent–​child interaction is a testimony to the utility of these family interaction theories. For more resources, please visit the Companion Website: www.routledge.com/cw/segrin

3

Family Discourse and Identity Stories, Secrets, and Rituals

The goal of this chapter is to explore symbolic communication that shapes and reveals family identity. Sometimes family members are “just talking” with little awareness of how their talk reflects and shapes their family identity. Other times family members are very conscious, and even strategic, about how they can use discourse to establish and influence their identity. As the research in this chapter illustrates, families negotiate their identity externally, with an eye toward how they are viewed by outsiders, as well as internally, with concern for how members see themselves in relation to each other. In exploring specific types of symbolic discourse, we focus special attention on family stories, secrets, and rituals. In the telling of stories, family members reference, evaluate, and make sense of events, as well as affirm belonging and socialize members. Some family discourse purposely leaves out information or avoids topics, a process we examine in a subsequent section on family secrets and privacy. Family members often make complex decisions about what and whom to tell, and these decisions have consequences for family relationships. Finally, we analyze family rituals as behaviors that take on larger symbolic meaning. Family Identity Family identity can be defined as “who and what a family is (or is not), based on the mutual influencing forces of how a family sees and defines itself and how outsiders see and define the family” (Suter, 2012, p. 212). Family identity is created, shared, revised, and performed through communication. To better understand family identity, scholars are especially drawn to symbols and themes created and maintained in interaction. It is this symbolic interaction that creates the family’s spirit and identity, as well as family members’ relationships to each other and the outside world (Steinglass, Bennett, Wolin, & Reiss, 1987).

47

48  •  Introducing Family Communication

Discourse Dependent Families Although interaction has a lot to do with how and whether family members identify with each other, outsiders often identify and assume people to be family without considering interaction. For example, birth certificates and marriage licenses are frequently used to identify and legitimize family ties. Beyond legal documents, people are often assumed to be family because they “look” like what someone thinks of as a typical or “normal” family (e.g., the stereotypical look of a “traditional” family with two heterosexual parents and biological children who look like the parents). As we discussed in ­chapter  1, these assumptions about family can come with drawbacks. For example, even though legal paperwork may establish family ties, people do not always want to consider certain others as family. In these cases, Galvin and Braithwaite (2014) explain that people use discourse, or communication, to “dissolve or reject family ties” (p. 103). For example, when an individual feels the behavior of his or her biological father does not deserve the honor of calling him “dad,” they use a different label (e.g., call him by his first name) or tell a story to justify how his behavior does not deserve the title. However, in many cases, assumptions that outsiders make about family ties come with advantages. These include being free from having to explain and defend family ties. Koenig Kellas and Suter (2012) illustrate how nonbiological parents in lesbian families are often pressed to justify their status as a parent when others do not assume them to be a legitimate parent or grandparent. Another advantage of these assumptions is being offered benefits reserved exclusively for “family” without having to stand up to questioning about the legitimacy of those ties. Besides the legal and financial advantages offered to families that we discussed in ­chapter 1, consider informal social and even commercial benefits offered to families (e.g., family seating/​boarding, family discounts, time off work and school to attend family events). When they do not fit into “traditional” images, families rely on discourse, or communication, to establish their identity as a family, both to outsiders and sometimes to themselves (Galvin, 2006). Galvin explains that some families are more heavily dependent on discourse than others to establish their family identity, naming these families discourse-​dependent. Discursive strategies used to establish family identity to outsiders include: labeling people as family, explaining the nature of one’s family relationships, legitimizing relationships by pointing out that legal or customary ties indeed exist, and defending relationships in response to questions and attacks (Galvin, 2006; see also Galvin & Braithwaite, 2014). Discursive strategies used to establish family identity within the family include: naming, to emphasize and honor someone as family; discussing, to explain how someone is actually considered family; telling stories, to establish and remind members of their connection as family; and ritualizing, to include members in family traditions and celebrations (Galvin, 2006; see also Galvin & Braithwaite, 2014). One example of how families establish their identity with outsiders is illustrated in Baxter, Norwood, Asbury, and Scharp’s (2014) research on the backstories adoptive parents tell to outsiders. In stories they told to others interested in adoption about how and why they came to adoption, parents used discursive strategies of defending, legitimizing, and explaining. To counter dominant societal narratives, which often characterize biological reproduction as ideal and adoption as “second best,” parents defended adoption using discourse themes that legitimized adoption as “a valuable alternative to pregnancy,” “a worthwhile struggle guided by destiny,” and “a smooth and predictable

Family Discourse and Identity  •  49

process” (Baxter et al., 2014, p. 253). Some stories also explained how it was possible to honor both types of family ties: adoptive and biological. In an example of how family identity is established among insiders, Suter (2012) examined how adoptive parents chose names for their international adoptees. Although some parents altered a birth name for pragmatic reasons (i.e., chose a name that was more common or easier to pronounce in English), many parents reported that their choice of a name was consciously motivated by concern for identity, either family identity, ethnic identity, or the child’s individual identity. For instance, to establish family identity some parents named their adoptive children after family members in order to create bonds that legitimized and connected them to their adoptive family (e.g., naming their child after an adoptive grandparent). Indeed, most of the parents in the study chose to alter the birth name in some way or keep the birth name as a middle name. A small percentage excluded the birth culture name completely or chose a different birth culture name. In one more representative example of applying and adapting Galvin’s framework of internal and external strategies, Miller-​Ott (2017) uniquely explored the context of foster families. Miller-​Ott’s research is impactful because it highlights the unique and accelerated process by which foster families are challenged to create a sense of family identity. Foster families often form quickly and may only last a short period of time. Yet, as Miller-​Ott explains, foster children benefit from having a positive family identity that helps them avoid stigma, isolation, and a lack of emotional connection. Just as destructive family communication can fracture family identity, discursive strategies can be prompt and powerful tools in transforming family identity. Exploring external strategies, Miller-​Ott found that foster parents responded to outsiders’ questions and challenges to their family with discourse that educated and explained how their family worked. Parents were also quick to recognize the stigma that comes with the label “foster,” and thus considered either not using it or working hard to react verbally against the stigma. Parents also reframed outsiders’ overly positive or negative comments about foster families by countering with their own opinions about what family meant to them –​a group of people willing to enact commitment, time, and attachment. Internally, parents tried to integrate children into their new family identity while at the same time discussing and in some cases promoting connection with the children’s biological family members. Finally, as an internal strategy, parents put considerable effort into ritualizing family, by discussing what family meant to them or including children in rituals that functioned to create a sense of stability and belonging (e.g., including children in family photos, eating meals together, prioritizing family activities together, creating family nicknames). Theoretical Approaches to the Study of Family Identity Symbolic interactionism. Scholars have explored issues of family discourse and identity using various theoretical approaches. Theories of symbolic interactionism and social constructionism originated before the advent of much family communication scholarship. However, their theoretical foundations have been powerful, even if in indirect ways, and are certainly applicable to family communication scholarship. Early twentieth-​century pragmatists, such as John Dewey and William James, began to argue that reality is not objectively “set in stone,” but rather it is constantly changing. This notion of reality advocated that participants constantly co-​create a subjective social reality as they interact, often doing so in the stories they tell and symbols they use. Inspired by the ideas of Dewey and James, George Herbert Mead is credited with articulating the foundations of the theory later named

50  •  Introducing Family Communication

symbolic interaction (SI) theory. After his death, Mead’s students compiled lecture notes from his classes to produce a book they titled Mind, Self, and Society (1934). Mead and others were interested in the way humans create, react to, and redefine the shared, symbolic meanings in their social environment –​all with an eye toward making sense of social roles and the self. Mead described that society as comprised of particular others and generalized others. Particular others refer to close significant others, such as family and friends, whereas generalized others refer to the external community or society. According to SI, people act in the context of norms and values that are held by particular others and generalized others. For example, family members have a sense for what is considered “normal” for their own family and “normal” regarding societal expectations for families. Families also react with those norms in mind, especially as they hear appraisals and evaluations from people inside and outside the family. In particular, SI has guided research on topics such as the socialization of family members, drawing attention to the critical role that family members and other outside forces play as socializing agents for children (Bohannon & White, 1999; Cheng & Kuo, 2000). SI has also guided the study of how meaning is generated in family stories, rituals, and events (Fivush, Duke, & Bohanek, 2010; Hequembourg & Farrell, 1999; Stone, 1988). In a more recent application of the theory, Reczek (2016) used SI to explore how gay and lesbian individuals internalize their family of origin’s ambivalent views about their identity and how that ambivalence affects relationships and family identity. Reczek focused on a concept called perceived ambivalence. Perceived ambivalence refers to how “individuals construct others as exhibiting contradictory behavior, feelings, and actions” (p. 654). In this case, the idea of perceived ambivalence helped explain and counter the notion that family members are always either supportive or rejecting toward gay and lesbian members. Reczek explored how individuals internalize their family member’s ambivalent views about their identity and how that ambivalence affects relationships and larger family identity. As SI argues, the views and appraisals of others are important because individuals often internalize those views, and those views shape individuals’ well-​ being and self-​concept. Social constructionism. In comparison to symbolic interactionism, social constructionism (Berger & Luckman, 1967) is another approach that, despite some similarities, is a distinctly different theory. As Leeds-​Hurwitz (2006) describes, both theories seek to understand how meaning is constructed, but “social constructionism is centrally concerned with how people make sense of the world, especially through language, and emphasizes the study of relationships; whereas symbolic interactionism’s central concern is making sense of the self and social roles” (p. 233). That is, social constructionism is focused primarily on the co-​construction of meaning in interaction among people (Turner & West, 2002, p. 61; see also Chen & Pearce, 1995). To illustrate the social construction of meaning in a family, consider what happens when people become grandparents for the first time. They are often assigned a new role and title (i.e., Grandma, Nana, Grammy, etc.), which is already loaded with cultural meaning. However, the title takes on further meaning as the grandparent–​grandchild relationship develops. Through family interaction, the family co-​constructs what they mean by the term “grandma.” In some families, grandma is a distant relative who sends gifts on holidays. For others, grandma is a primary caretaker, acting more like some “moms.” In sum, society’s expectations for grandparents influence the meaning assigned to the role, but an additional layer of meaning is generated through the family’s own interaction. Relational dialectics. Relational dialectics theory (Baxter, 2011; Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; also see ­chapter 2) has also been directly and widely applied to the study of family discourse

Family Discourse and Identity  •  51

and identity. Relational dialectics theory encourages scholars to examine discourses with an eye toward the interplay and struggle between competing discourses. The theory has been used to study many types of discursive struggles and dialectics, including some basic dialectics mentioned in ­chapter  2 (e.g., autonomy–​ connection, openness–​ closedness, and novelty–​ predictability). Relational dialectics research has more recently explored other complex family identity struggles between centripetal (i.e., normalized worldviews) and centrifugal (i.e., perceived deviant worldviews) discourses, as well as the important interplay between the two (Baxter, 2011). For example, Baxter, Suter, Thomas, and Seurer (2015) explored narratives of foster adoption to understand how the notion of adoption is constructed by parents. They identified two discursive themes. The first was a discourse of utilitarian acquisition, whereby parents explained the foster adoption process as beneficial to themselves in that it was, for example, a less expensive pathway to adoption or a second best option given they could not have a biological child. The second discourse was one of redemptive care, whereby parents explained their motivation for foster adoption as other-​oriented, for example feeling pride in their effort and commitment to help a child in need. They also uniquely explored the interplay of the two discourses. For instance, some parents explained that they satisfied their self-​oriented desires to be a parent while at the same time engaging in other-​oriented redemptive care of their child. Relational dialectics has not only been a fruitful approach for studying the discursive struggles and construction of identity in adoptive families and stepfamilies, but also in other types of discourse-​dependent families. For example, Norwood (2012) explored the struggles in perception and communication among transgender persons and their families in their postings to online support discussion forums. Three dialectical struggles emerged, beginning with a presence–​absence tension. This struggle represented communication that expressed a sense of absence or loss, as family members grieved the loss of the transgendered person’s former identity. This sense of loss was especially apparent in the communication of parents who lamented the loss of the child’s identity they knew prior to the transitioning process. However, the feelings of loss/​absence were also met with an awareness of continuing presence of the transgender family member, even though with a new identity. The second struggle, sameness–​difference, represented communication about similarities and differences in the identity of the transgender family member and, just as important, how that identity changed or did not change family relationships. Finally, the self–​other tension surfaced as transgender persons and their family members struggled with how to protect their own needs and ability to cope, while at the same time being other-​oriented and offering support to family members during the transitioning process. Communication theory of identity. Communication theory of identity (CTI) captures aspects of the previous three approaches, with its own unique focus on identity. It was also developed by communication scholars (Hecht, 1993; Hecht, Collier, & Ribeau, 1993; Jung & Hecht, 2004). CTI recently has been applied to the study of family relationships and identity (e.g., Kam & Hecht, 2009, Pettigrew, 2013; Warner Colaner, Halliwell, & Guignon, 2014). CTI argues that reality, and thus identity, is not just subjective; it is intersubjective. Identity is, as Jung and Hecht (2004) describe, “emergent in communication” in a co-​created process (p. 266). Further, reality is not “situated within the individual” but rather “exists in social spheres between and among people” (Jung & Hecht, 2004, p. 266). Hecht (1993) also proposed four layers or frames of identity: personal (individual self-​concept), enacted (how identity is enacted or expressed), relational (how one is viewed by others, how one relates to and fits with others and social roles), and

52  •  Introducing Family Communication

communal (characteristics of the group that affect identity). The theory focuses on identity gaps, or contradictions and discrepancies within and between the layers of identity. For example, Warner Collaner et al. (2014) found that some adoptees express a gap within the relational layer, a relational-​ relational gap. In identifying with both their adoptive family and birth family, there can be a tension about their place in each family. Adoptees in Collaner et al.’s research also expressed an identity gap between the personal-​relational layer. That is, they did not feel their personal self-​image (e.g., personality, appearance, or even name) was compatible with others in their family. As an individual, they did not feel they fit into their adoptive family. Narrative performance. Finally, narrative performance theory (Langellier & Peterson, 2006) emphasizes that “not only do families tell stories, but storytelling is one way of doing family” (p. 100). Storytelling reveals aspects of family identity, given the storytelling itself is grounded in family and cultural context, family power structures, gender roles, and previous experience. Storytelling also shapes aspects of family identity as family members “relocate and reject” or “reinterpret and emphasize” events, roles, and meanings (Langellier & Peterson, 2006, p. 104). For example, Medved’s (2016) analysis of the discourse of stay-​at-​home fathers illustrates how fathers’ talk positions their identity with regard to societal notions of masculinity: to perpetuate, or resist, or transform gender roles. As stay-​at-​home fathers participate in what is still a relatively unconventional parenting role, some enact discourse that perpetuates views of traditional masculinity (e.g., emphasizing how they play out the protector role, maintain connection to paid labor, and focus time at home on traditionally masculine tasks like outside yard work and home maintenance/​construction tasks). The discourse of other stay-​at-​home fathers resists and reacts to traditional narratives of masculinity (e.g., defending their ability to be emotionally connected caregivers, celebrating the fact that they were willing to adjust their career ambitions, and embracing the label and role of being a stay-​at-​home father). Finally, the discourse of other stay-​at-​home fathers focuses on transforming gender roles (e.g., arguing that good parenting is not tied to gender, communicating awareness for the demands of the parenting role, regardless of who the caregiver is, and taking pride in unconventional roles in parenting and marriage). Family Stories Family stories, defined in general, are “verbal accounts of personal experiences that are important to the family, and typically involve the creation and maintenance of relationships, depict rules of interaction, and reflect beliefs about family and other social institutions” (Fiese et al., 2001, p. 260). Family stories are often prompted by certain events (e.g., family entrance through birth/​adoption/​ marriage or family stressors) and centered around common topics (e.g., how a couple got together, how a family originated, how the family handles adversity, or what it means to be a member of the family). They can function, for example, to reference, evaluate, and make sense of events, and also to socialize members and affirm belonging in a family (Jorgenson & Bochner, 2004). Whether they occur naturally or are prompted by a researcher’s questions, family stories provide a window to the symbolic identity of a family. In this section, we explore family stories by focusing on retrospective, interactional, and translational types of storytelling –​all forms of “communicated sense-​ making” as delineated by Koenig Kellas and Kranstuber Horstman (2015, pp. 80–​81; see also Koenig Kellas, 2018). The emphasis on “communicated” highlights shared and joint sense-​making efforts, as opposed to individual forms of sense-​making that occur in one’s head. Some of the research we

Family Discourse and Identity  •  53

feature in this chapter not only illustrates how family storytelling is connected to family identity, but also how it is linked to significant outcome variables such as relational/​family satisfaction or mental/​ physical well-​being. Indeed, the idea that the content and process of joint family storytelling can be linked to mental/​physical health is a guiding assumption of communicated narrative sense-​making theory (Koenig Kellas, 2018). Retrospective Family Stories Referential functions. Retrospective family stories take a looking-​back approach. They rely on family members’ recollections. Fiese et  al. (1999) explain that family stories serve a referential function, helping families remember events by marking information and experiences in time like a discursive “family scrapbook” over the generations (p. 3). However, people are not reliable historians (Karney & Coombs, 2000). The scrapbook gets adapted over time by inconsistent memories, exaggerations, and denials. One may wonder if the bad memories of family members pose a problem for researchers. To the contrary, if family members had accurate, unbiased memories, researchers would probably be far less interested in their stories. The fact that family members are telling stories that they choose to tell versus ones that are historically accurate gives the researcher an insider’s perspective as to what events and experiences are most symbolic and in what way. Some researchers have learned a great deal about couples’ marital satisfaction, future marital outcomes, and spouses’ mental health just by prompting partners to retrospectively tell their relational story (Buehlman, Gottman, & Katz, 1992; Doohan, Carrère, & Riggs, 2010; Flora & Segrin, 2003). Using a technique called the Oral History Interview (OHI), researchers ask partners to jointly tell the story of how they met and got together, how they decided to get married, happy times and difficult times in their relationship, and advice they have for other couples. From the outside, this interview might seem like simply a recounting or referencing of events, but the accuracy of the details is less important than the way the story is told and what the biased story reveals about the couples’ view of the relationship. Researchers measure what has been termed the marital bond (Carrère, Buehlman, Gottman, Coan, & Ruckstuhl, 2000), by coding verbal and nonverbal expressions such as some of the following: degrees of fondness and affection (i.e., love and appreciation), we-​ness (i.e., unity in the relationship), negativity (i.e., criticism and negative affect), or relational disappointment (i.e., hopelessness and disillusionment). The marital bond revealed in the stories has been positively related to variables like marital satisfaction and negatively related to variables such as emotional flooding, loneliness, depression, and even future outcomes like divorce (Buehlman et al., 1992; Doohan et al., 2010; Flora & Segrin, 2003). The relational stories reveal perceptions about the relationship that spouses do not consciously reveal, or as strongly indicate, if asked directly about the quality of the relationship (Veroff, Sutherland, Chadiha, & Ortega, 1993). In basic terms, the stories of currently dissatisfied couples sound differently: Spouses tend to revise their memories, leaving out details of what might actually have been pleasant events in their relationship development to instead negatively highlight relational difficulties and disappointments. Satisfied couples tend to cling to the pleasant memories of the past and possibly even exaggerate their positive nature. They sprinkle their stories with expressions of love and respect. Even though things may not have been perfect in the relationship, they glorify the struggle and express their growth and strength as a couple.

54  •  Introducing Family Communication

Evaluative and sense-​making functions. In the referencing and recalling of past events, people are also making sense of and evaluating those events. Vangelisti, Crumley, and Baker (1999) term this the evaluative function of stories. By examining stories, researchers can assess people’s perceptions and attitudes and see how they alter the construction of meaning in their relationships. Vangelisti et al. (1999, p. 336) summarize the evaluative function: When people tell stories about their family, they provide listeners with clues as to how they feel about family members and what they think makes for ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ family interaction. The issues they choose to discuss or avoid, the attributions they make about family members’ behavior, and the way they position themselves vis-​à-​vis the story line can reveal interesting information about how they view family relationships. The evaluative and sense-​making functions of storytelling are often illustrated in stories that families tell about difficult experiences or uncertain events. For example, when grieving the loss of a loved one, sharing the story helps people understand the event, draw conclusions about the event’s significance, and have others understand their own experience of the event (Bosticco & Thompson, 2005). In addition, storytelling in adoptive families often serves evaluative and sense-​making functions, among a variety of functions. Marko Harrigan’s (2010) research on adoption stories that mothers tell to their internationally adopted children illustrates that the stories served to “offer positive reinforcement, build familiarity, convey a complete history, and prevent fantasy” (p.  31). In evaluating adoption as a positive event in their stories, mothers were hoping to help their children make sense of and evaluate their adoption in a positive way. By providing as complete a history as possible and being open about the child’s background prior to adoption, mothers hoped to reduce uncertainty and prevent fantasy. It is also important to note that most family stories evolve over time as people evaluate and make sense of events differently with time. According to models of adoptive and foster family communication (see Nelson, 2017 for the family adoptive communication model and family foster communication model), children listen to the stories their parents tell, but often become actively involved in shaping the story as they engage in their own independent questioning and information gathering to make sense of the story in a new way. In a unique look at adoption from the perspective of adoptees themselves, Warner Colaner and Kranstuber (2010) interviewed adult adoptees and interestingly found that most were unmotivated, unable, or apprehensive about reducing uncertainty about their adoption. Their stories revealed, however, that reducing uncertainty was not the goal as much as managing the uncertainty over time. Many adoptees noted that their parents played an important role in helping them make sense of and evaluate their adoption. Over time, parents helped children normalize adoption. They empowered and reassured them, and at least helped them understand and make sense of the information they had. Evaluative and sense-​making functions are also sparked when families face discourse from outsiders that challenges their identity. Members often develop stories that help them reframe, evaluate, and make sense of the negativity, discrimination, or stigma. For example, in Breshears and Braithwaite’s (2014) analysis of how adult children talk about what it was like to have a parent come out as lesbian or gay, children told stories about how they responded to outsiders by: reframing outsiders’ negative views as ignorant or flawed, negatively evaluating others’ audacity to judge, and stressing that it makes more sense to celebrate love in whatever form than hate.

Family Discourse and Identity  •  55

Belonging and socialization functions. Storytelling is also a tool for families to solidify their sense of membership and belonging, serving a belonging function. Some families retell stories over and over. Knowing the story is a sign of ingroup membership. Leeds-​Hurwitz (2005) examined how family stories are retold at family events, noting the phenomenon of anticipatory laughter. When family members know the story already, they know to laugh before the joke is fully told. Anticipatory laughter illustrates belonging and familiarity with the family history. The belonging function is evident in family entrance stories (e.g., birth or adoption stories), which are one of the most common types of retrospective family stories (Koenig Kellas & Kranstuber Horstman, 2015). Research on family entrance stories is quite varied. Some of this work highlights positive aspects of family entrance stories that promote a sense of belonging. However, other research illustrates negative aspects of entrance stories that thwart or complicate a sense of belonging. There are several examples of positive themes that function to solidify belonging in the stories of discourse-​dependent families with adoptive, foster, and donor-​conceived children. In Hays, Horstman, Colaner, and Nelson’s (2015) analysis of adoptive parents’ entrance narratives, some of the prevalent themes that stressed belonging and membership emphasized, for example, that fate had brought them together, that their family bonds would be forever, or that in some cases, parents were specially chosen by the birth parents to care for the child. One of the positive belonging themes in the stories of donor-​conceived children was that the children felt they were tremendously wanted and loved as evidenced by the parents’ effort and conscious desire to become a parent (Marko Harrigan, Dieter, Leinwohl, & Marrin, 2015). Similarly, stories of adult foster children emphasized that what defined family and their own inclusion in it went beyond biology to acknowledge caring behavior and “doing family” by living and participating together in family roles and activities (Thomas, Jackl, & Crowley, 2017). Prior to preschool age, Fiese, Hooker, Kotary, Schwagler, and Rimmer (1995) found that parents told stories with themes of affiliation and belonging more so than themes of achievement and personal success. Birth stories told by parents were one prime example. Fiese et al. interestingly noted: “we were struck by the relatively high incidence of storytelling in families with infants” (p. 768). Even though infants surely could not understand the content of the stories, Fiese et al. speculated that parents benefited from telling belonging stories to infants because the parents were also beginning to solidify their own new bond with the child. To the contrary, some entrance stories point to themes that complicate notions of belonging. For example, in Koenig Kellas et  al.’s (2014) research on stepfamily origin stories, children commonly described negatively-​toned stepfamily beginnings that occurred “suddenly” (e.g., with little warning or communication), out of “dark-​sided” origins (e.g., scandalous, troubling, or conflictual behavior), and with “ambivalent” feelings (p. 149). Themes that complicated feelings of belonging were also apparent in the entrance stories of donor-​conceived children. These themes suggested that at times children felt puzzled by their status and family formation and even victimized by their experience, using language that suggested being “robbed,” “burdened,” or “objectified” (Marko Harrigan et al., 2015, p. 81). Overall, research on family entrance and origin stories highlights some important points. First, entrance and origin stories are crucial markers of belonging for families, and especially for families that are discourse-​dependent. Second, family origin stories are complex and unique. Some depict aspects that confirm belonging and others challenge belonging. Additionally, within one family, stories can illustrate both traditional and nontraditional ways of belonging, and the interplay between

56  •  Introducing Family Communication

the two. This is aptly depicted in Suter, Koenig Kellas, Webb, and Allen’s (2016) research on entrance stories told in co-​mother families. Co-​mothers told stories that depicted struggles in the formation of their family (e.g., questioning whether they even wanted children, problems conceiving), as well as struggles to normalize the nontraditional formation of their family. Another major function of family stories, intertwined with the belonging function, is the socialization function. One of the most obvious examples is a parent telling a story or recounting a childhood experience as a way to share values, manners, and lessons. Stories have morals to them, and family members often use such stories strategically (Yerby et al., 1995). Once children are of preschool age, parents begin to tell stories with more themes of achievement and personal success (Fiese et  al., 1995). Theoretically, storytelling is a way to socialize children into roles and behavior that parents hope children will enact later in life. Most readers can probably recall hearing stories told in their own families of people who were described as succeeding tremendously or failing miserably. Interactional Storytelling Next we explore the interactional process of storytelling (e.g., how the story is told), which can be as interesting as the content of family stories. Prior to the 1990s, scholars examined stories primarily for their thematic content. However, in the 1990s, a group of researchers formed the Family Narrative Consortium (FNC) in order to systematically develop a research methodology to study narrative form. Specifically, they were interested in how family narrative form related to outcome variables like family interaction patterns, marital satisfaction, and child adjustment (see Fiese et  al., 1999, 2001). Jorgenson and Bochner (2004) point out that there has been some resistance to analyzing the narrative form of stories because of concern that the emotion and meaning of the story might get lost in the effort to predict outcomes and analyze a story with predetermined categories. However, this concern has mostly been tempered for two reasons. First, scholars are continuing to study the content, and not just the process, of family stories with more vigor and methodological variety than ever. Second, as we illustrate in this section, scholars have proven that the process of storytelling is indeed worth studying. Early on, the FNC developed several scales to measure the process of storytelling. This work was followed by the development of measures of family storytelling more widely applied today, namely: Koenig Kellas and Trees’s (2005) Interactional Sense-​making (ISM) ratings, the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (IFIRS; Melby et al., 1998), and to some extent Buehlman et al.’s (1992) Oral History Interview (OHI) ratings. One narrative process examined in several of the rating scales is narrative interaction. Narrative interaction refers to the way two or more members construct and tell the story together. It involves studying the “act” of storytelling. Some measures of narrative interaction assess degrees of engagement (i.e., involvement or warmth) or turn-​taking (see Koenig Kellas & Trees, 2005). Others measure narrative coordination or perspective-​taking (e.g., positive coordination in the form of “we” statements or perspective-​taking as evidenced by attentiveness/​confirmation of the other’s opinions). For example, couples whose relational storytelling is marked by more partner “expansiveness” (i.e., engagement versus withdrawal) and “we-​ness” (i.e., relational unity/​togetherness versus separateness) are more likely to have higher relational well-​being (Buehlman et al., 1992; Doohan et al., 2010; Flora & Segrin, 2003). Collaborating to jointly tell stories, as opposed to individual storytelling or disengagement, has also been linked to more satisfying family relationships (Trees & Koenig, 2003).

Family Discourse and Identity  •  57

Another narrative process commonly examined is narrative coherence. Narrative coherence refers to how families organize and integrate a narrative. Coherence is often called the “syntax” of a narrative (Fiese et  al., 2001). Although there are many different aspects to narrative coherence (see Baxter, Norwood, Asbury, Jannusch, & Scharp, 2012), some commonly studied aspects include the consistency of the narrative and the match between the story’s affect and content. Dickstein, St. Andre, Sameroff, Seifer, and Schiller (1999) hypothesized that a family’s ability to produce a coherent narrative regarding family life would be related to the presence of mental illness. Indeed, they found that mothers who were currently experiencing symptoms of major depression told less coherent family narratives than nondepressed mothers. The psychological well-​being of spouses, or at least husbands (Koenig Kellas, Trees, Schrodt, LeClair-​Underberg, & Willer, 2010), has also been linked to the degree of narrative coherence in married couples’ stories of stress. In adoptive families, Grotevant, Fravel, Gorall, and Piper (1999) found that parents who went through open adoption processes had more coherent narratives related to the child’s heritage than those who made confidential or mediated adoptions. Confidential adoptions had more incomplete details that affected the narrative’s coherence. Similarly, Baxter et al. (2012) found that adoptive parents told adoption stories that were in general less coherent than those told by birth parents. However adoptive parents’ stories were higher in certain types of narrative coherence, for example those involving sequential organization or causal explanation. Translational Storytelling Translational storytelling focuses on the use of storytelling by interventionists, or family members themselves, as a tool to cope with difficulty and improve psychological and relational well-​being (Koenig Kellas & Kranstuber Horstman, 2015, p. 85). What is particularly unique about translational storytelling is the therapeutic and forward-​looking approach to storytelling. In other words, it is possible to reshape and redirect a family story. To some extent, translational storytelling grew out of the Expressive Writing Paradigm. The Expressive Writing Paradigm typically involves writing for 15–​20 minutes over several days about a particular trauma, unsettling event, or stressful episode in order to cope and move forward (Pennebaker & Beall, 1986; Pennebaker & Francis, 1996; Pennebaker, Kiecolt-​Glaser, & Glaser, 1988; see also meta-​analysis by Frattaroli, 2006). While most expressive writing interventions focus on making sense of past events through writing, some expressive writing formats also encourage “self-​authoring,” in which participants consider a new future where they move beyond difficulties or stereotypes that hold them back (Kamentz, 2015). Expressive writing interventions have mostly been applied at the individual level, and thus they are less a form of communicated sense-​making and rather individual sense-​making. The Expressive Writing Paradigm has inspired other communicated forms of translational storytelling, as have influences like White and Epston’s (1990) classic work on restorying in the family system. Restorying refers to cognitively reframing and interpreting a life event. Restorying has been used to help individuals and families move beyond difficult or traumatic events. Palgi and Ben-​ Ezra (2010) describe how people often assimilate traumatic or difficult experiences into stable life stories that dwell on difficulties in a way that can perpetuate and predict the same problems in the future. Palgi and Ben-​Ezra used techniques of restorying with individual combat veterans returning from deployment. They termed their restorying work a “back to the future” approach in which they

58  •  Introducing Family Communication

worked to “shatter old narratives” of trauma and help veterans find “anchor points,” or past behavior that emphasized their strengths and represented who they wanted to be. Anchor points were the basis for remembering, revising, and reenvisioning a new future –​a new story that stood in contrast to the old story. There are also some intriguing applications of translational storytelling at the family-​wide level. For example, Kranstuber Horstman et al. (2015) asked adult daughters to write a story about a difficulty and then write about that same topic five days later. In the middle of the five-​day period, daughters came to the lab with their mothers and discussed the difficult experience. Among several interesting findings, daughters who reported more supportive interpersonal sense-​making interactions with their mothers in the lab discussion (i.e., in the form of more turn-​taking, narrative coherence, and perspective-​taking) later “reauthored” their stories with more positivity the second time they wrote about the difficulty. Flora, Boje, Rosile, and Hacker (2016) introduced Embodied Restorying Practices (ERPs), a translational storytelling intervention geared for use with military families. Based on the storytelling and restorying work of Boje and Rosile (Boje 2001, 2008, 2014; Rosile & Boje, 2002) and White and Epston (1990), ERPs represent facilitator-​led steps that prompt family members of all ages to share their separate deployment stories and reconnect again. Although some military families are remarkably resilient throughout the deployment cycle, many families struggle to reintegrate post-​deployment (Balderrama-​Durbin et al., 2015; Sahlstein Parcell & Maguire, 2014). Deployed service members and at-​home family members often have vastly different experiences while separated, and consequently very different stories. The separate experiences each can be marked by unique fears, trauma, resentments, and emotional distancing. Talking about deployment experiences can be difficult for some military families, particularly for service members who have experienced trauma. Further, dominant societal narratives might suggest that veterans should just grin and bear it and not seek support (Hoge et al., 2004; Nevinski, 2013). Besides getting family members to open up to each other, the steps of ERPs work to dislodge family members’ separate, problem-​saturated narratives of trauma. In that exploration, participants listen to each other’s stories, identify and gain an appreciation for small moments of personal agency and success in past coping, and capitalize on those moments to reformulate a new story (Boje, 2014). In the final sessions, family members consider how their future goals and dreams can be realigned together. They write letters to each other in which they share and publicize the new story as a means of gaining support and accountability. One especially unique part of ERPs is the embodied component. In the early stages, facilitators encourage family members not just to tell their stories, but to depict their stories using material objects in a sand tray. It may sound odd that someone would have a hard time telling a story, but adults and children alike who have experienced trauma and difficulty may look to material objects to help open up, explain, and reveal stories, especially when it is difficult to find words to represent the experiences. The embodied technique stresses that storytelling “is not just a process of restorying by social constructivism but also one of sociomaterialism” (Flora et al., 2016, p. 136). These notions are at the root of equine and other animal-​assisted therapies (Bachi, 2012; Boje & Rosile, 2015, EAGALA, 2012; Martz, 2014). Although the large-​scale efficacy of ERPs is still being tested, for now it provides a look at where and how translational storytelling practices are being developed and applied.

Family Discourse and Identity  •  59

Family Secrets Practically all individuals and families hold information that is private. Secrets are special instances of privacy in which consequential information is intentionally and purposely concealed (Afifi, Merrill, & Davis, 2015; Caughlin & Petronio, 2004). In this section, we examine the complex decisions individuals and families make about how to tell, as well as the risks and benefits of telling, using theory and research grounded in communication privacy management theory and topic avoidance. First, we explore common types, topics, and functions of family secrets. Vangelisti (1994a) describes three types of family secrets: taboo secrets, rule violations, and conventional secrets. Taboo secrets concern topics that are condemned or stigmatized by the family and/​or society. Topics pertaining to abuse, sexuality, unwanted or premarital pregnancies, mental health, substance abuse, or marital problems are often considered taboo secrets. Secrets involving rule violations center on family rules that have been broken. Examples might include keeping a secret about a family member breaking a curfew or engaging in a risky behavior. Conventional secrets pertain to activities or topics that are not necessarily perceived as wrong but family members feel they are inappropriate to discuss, particularly with outsiders (e.g., personality conflicts, religion/​ideology, how much money one makes). This category could also include secrets that are perceived to be positive (e.g., birthday surprises). Family secrets also serve a variety of purposes. Vangelisti (1994a) terms some of the most common functions: bonding (e.g., to establish a special connection), evaluation (e.g., to protect information from others who would disapprove and negatively evaluate it), privacy (e.g., to protect information that is no one else’s business), maintenance (e.g., to keep the family close or prevent stress), defense (e.g., to protect the self or family from information that could be used against them), and communication problems (e.g., to avoid information that the family would not know how to talk about openly). Communication Privacy Management Theory Communication privacy management (CPM) theory explains how individuals and families manage private information (Caughlin & Petronio, 2004; Petronio, 1991, 2000, 2002; 2013; Petronio, Jones, & Morr, 2003). CPM argues that people feel ownership over their private information and a right to control the flow of such information to others. CPM uses the metaphor of boundaries to refer to the mental limits people set regarding information they own and information others own. Boundaries can be personal and/​or collective (Karpel, 1980; Petronio et al., 2003; Vangelisti, 1994a; Vangelisti, Caughlin, & Timmerman, 2001). Personal boundaries are set by individuals to control information they feel they own individually. Personal boundaries lead to individual secrets, known only to one person. Whole or shared family secrets are those that the entire family keeps from outsiders. Such secrets represent the use of collectively negotiated boundaries (Vangelisti & Caughlin, 1997). Sometimes coalitions of family members keep an internal secret from the rest of the family (Brown-​ Smith, 1998). This type of internal secret is illustrated in Berger and Paul’s (2008) research on parents who keep their use of donor assistance to conceive a secret from their children. How do family members decide what to keep as a secret, what to tell, and whom to tell? CPM proposes that most families have rules regarding the regulation of private information (Petronio, 2002; Petronio et  al., 2003). Sometimes rules are preexisting, and members become socialized to them implicitly or explicitly. For example, some families by rule do not talk about money in public. This rule may be communicated explicitly by saying, “We don’t talk about money in public,” or

60  •  Introducing Family Communication

implicitly by predictably changing the topic if it comes up. On other occasions, families, or coalitions in families, mutually negotiate rules, although this effort is often the subject of great conflict. This conflict is referred to in CPM as boundary turbulence. There may also be situations in which there are no clear family rules about privacy regarding a topic (Petronio et al., 2003). CPM suggests five criteria that shape the formation of family privacy rules (Petronio, 2002; Petronio et  al., 2003). Rules are affected by (1) cultural expectations, (2) gender expectations, (3) individual motivations, (4) judgments about the benefit to risk ratio, and (5) context. Research on family secrets and topic avoidance has especially revolved around the analysis of risks and benefits in revealing information. For example, Afifi and Steuber’s risk revelation model (2009) acknowledges that along with potential risks, secret keeping may provide benefits such as protecting the self, others, or relationships. The careful approach communication scholars have taken with this body of research reveals that secrets are not entirely negative (Afifi & Steuber, 2009; Caughlin & Afifi, 2004; Caughlin & Petronio, 2004). External Family Privacy Dilemmas Rules and decisions about the risks, benefits, and management of private information result in what CPM terms family privacy dilemmas. External family privacy dilemmas focus on boundaries between the family and people outside the family. Vangelisti et al. (2001) examined individuals’ criteria for revealing whole family secrets to an outsider and discovered ten common criteria people use when deciding whether to disclose a whole family secret. The ten most common criteria are as follows. ( 1) Intimate Exchange (e.g., If we were having a heart to heart discussion) (2) Exposure (e.g., If I were confronted or it would be found out anyway) (3) Urgency (e.g., If I could not hold it in any longer or he/​she were the only person I could tell) (4) Acceptance (e.g., If the person would still accept me) (5) Conversational Appropriateness (e.g., If we were discussing a topic related to it) (6) Relational Security (e.g., If I trusted that the person would not tell anyone else) (7) Important Reason (e.g., If I thought it was essential that the person know) (8) Permission (e.g., If my family members thought it was okay to tell) (9) Family Membership (e.g., If he/​she was going to marry into my family) (10) Never (e.g., I would never tell) Of the ten criteria, relational security was a “minimum criterion” for revealing family secrets. That is, if people did not feel that their relationship with the person outside the family was secure and trusted, then they would not even consider telling, and subsequently the other criteria would hardly matter. The important reason criterion superseded the other criteria. Individuals reported that if there was a pressing reason to tell, they would consider doing so even if they were otherwise unlikely to tell. In addition, people who strongly identified with their secret, felt their family secret was intimate, or perceived the secret to be negatively toned were more likely to require that more of the criteria be fulfilled before they would tell another. Decisions about whether to reveal private information to people outside the family can also be influenced by concern for face or image. For example, some parents of donor-​conceived children worry that they and their children will be teased for being donor-​conceived. These fears often motivate initial avoidance and secret keeping about the topic, even though careful disclosure

Family Discourse and Identity  •  61

about the topic can also garner support for children by educating outsiders and managing their perceptions (Marko Harrigan, Priore, Wagner, & Palka, 2017). Issues of image are also influential in the decisions that women make about secrecy and disclosure of domestic violence. In an interesting analysis of secrecy regarding domestic violence among affluent women, Haselschwerdt and Hardesty (2017) found that the women in their study were especially afraid to disclose the violence because it might damage their and their family’s status in the community, their perception of having a perfect family, and lead to the perception that their children came from a bad family. Sometimes family members experience boundary turbulence regarding decisions about how information is shared with outsiders. Turbulence over information ownership is illustrated in Lannutti’s (2013) research on how family members manage private information about the same-​sex marriage of another family member. As Lannutti explained, “family members often wanted a less permeable boundary that would keep the information about the [same-​sex marriage] in the family, but couples wanted a more permeable boundary allowing their [same-​sex marriage] to be public knowledge” (p. 69). Many family members had not told their own social network about even having an LGBTQ family member or that the member was getting married. Internal family privacy dilemmas deal with what information people feel comfortable telling other family members or what coalitions of family members unite to keep information from the rest of the family. In some cases, internal privacy boundaries form as a means of relationship protection. Relationship protection might come in the form of keeping a secret to prevent greater family distress, overlooking a family member’s faults, or maintaining a positive surprise. Examples of managing privacy with the intent to prevent family distress are illustrated in the communication of military families. In Owlett, Richards, Wilson, DeFreese, and Robert’s (2015) research, at-​home family members reported keeping some information private from deployed family members in order to “shield the deployed parent” from worrying, being distracted by, or being homesick about issues at home (p. 147). Adolescent children in military families also reported that they were careful about how much they talked about deployment with their at-​home parent in order to show strength or prevent the at-​home parent from getting upset. Adolescents acknowledged that at the same time they longed for information about their deployed parent, they also understood, and in fact encouraged, that their parents keep information about the dangers and potential risk private. Such internal privacy dilemmas can be very difficult to negotiate among all members. Indeed, adolescents in Owlett et al.’s research reported several instances of boundary turbulence, in which family members did not agree about how deployment experiences should be shared or they violated previously negotiated rules about sharing. In other examples of internal family privacy management to prevent family distress, Toller and McBride (2013) explored how parents talk to children about the death of a family member. The parents in their study wanted to be open with their children to some extent about the death in order to inform them and model to them how to deal with grief. However, the parents also practiced what Toller and McBride termed selective honesty, carefully choosing how much information and what details needed to be shared without causing too much distress. A similar balance of selective revealing and concealing is also evident in the way some parents talk to their children about finances. For example, being open about finances is a good way to teach children about how to handle finances in the real world, but many parents are careful in these discussions because they do not want to burden children by discussing financial struggles (Romo, 2011).

62  •  Introducing Family Communication

Even intimate partners withhold complaints, suppress arguments, and declare some topics off limits all in an effort to manage conflict and protect the relationship (Roloff & Ifert, 2000). Sometimes people feel that talking about a certain topic is futile or even uninteresting (Afifi & Guerrero, 2000). For it to benefit intimate relationships, topic avoidance must be conducted selectively not universally, freely chosen not coerced, and requires good communication skills and an attitude of tolerance (Roloff & Ifert, 2000). The risk is that when people perceive that their partner or family member avoided topics due to a lack of closeness, they experience less relational satisfaction (Caughlin & Afifi, 2004). Guerrero (2000) points out that some people even strategically use topic avoidance to destroy or deescalate a relationship because they know that pervasive secret keeping is antithetical to relationship development. Indeed, people use secrets in ways that build closeness in relationships. Shared secrets can create a bond between the members who are “in the know” (Vangelisti, 1994a). It is often flattering and affirming to be the recipient of confidential information (Petronio et al., 2003). In addition to managing privacy to protect relationships, some privacy decisions are motivated by a desire for self-​protection, for example protecting the self from negative fallout in the form of conflict or disapproval (Afifi & Guerrero, 2000; Caughlin & Afifi, 2004). Derlega, Winstead, and Folk-​Barron (2000) echo this concern in the context of persons living with HIV/​AIDS. On one hand, disclosing the diagnosis is necessary for garnering social support from one’s family. And, there is evidence that keeping something in, especially suppressing negative emotion, takes a toll on one’s mental and physical health (Caughlin & Petronio, 2004; Petrie, Booth, & Pennebaker, 1998). However, one must weigh the benefits against the potential negative fallout. Motivated by self-​protection, adolescents and young adults frequently avoid discussing risky behaviors and relationship experiences, especially sexual experiences, with their parents (Guerrero & Afifi, 1995a). Adolescents and young adults are more likely to discuss risky behavior with siblings and peers than with parents, and they usually choose a person of the same sex when disclosing sexual matters (Aldeis & Afifi, 2013; Guerrero & Afifi, 1995b). Contrary to popular belief, adolescent daughters tend to exhibit similar levels of topic avoidance with parents as adolescent sons do, except that daughters are somewhat more likely to talk about their friendships with parents (Guerrero & Afifi, 1995a). Interestingly, disclosure of risky behavior may be related more to how the other is expected to respond than the person’s role (e.g., parent, sibling, peer) or gender. For example, young adults are more likely to disclose risky behavior if they think the other person will listen to them and respond by confirming their worth as a person or challenging them to be better (as opposed to responding by disconfirming them) (Aldeis & Afifi, 2013). Certain types of family environments also promote pressure to conceal secrets –​part of a larger phenomenon known as the chilling effect, where communication is stifled for fear of negative repercussions. Afifi and Olson (2005) found that family members tended to conceal information in families that expected high conformity to family norms and low openness in communication. The thinking is that concealing sensitive information helps avoid conflict and the “harsh rebukes” that may result (Afifi & Olson, 2005, p. 211). To a degree, selective topic avoidance by children tends to increase as they age, prompting Caughlin and Golish (2002) to describe it as typical and age-​appropriate. Individualistic cultural norms set the expectation for teenagers to mature so as to one day become independent of their parents. Topic avoidance can represent adolescents’ desire to figure things out alone, take ownership over information, and set new boundaries in the relationship. Admittedly, many parents and children

Family Discourse and Identity  •  63

struggle as they attempt to negotiate new network boundaries and channels (Petronio, 1994). When parents bring up topics that adolescents would prefer not to discuss and when they press for discussion, few adolescents proceed with a direct conversation about the topic. In those cases, adolescents commonly respond by using deception, direct and indirect rejection, and aggression (Mazur & Hubbard, 2004). As one might expect, parents’ dissatisfaction with the parent–​child relationship is often related to perceptions of their child’s avoidance (Caughlin & Golish, 2002). Sometimes the topics that adolescents want to protect themselves from are not ones having to do with themselves, but rather topics associated with their parents and the state of their family. Afifi, Afifi, Morse, and Hamrick (2008) found that adolescents from divorced families reported feeling caught between parents. Further, they experienced feelings of anxiety about how to protect themselves, their parents, and the parent–​adolescent relationship. This anxiety led them to report that they would set up a topic boundary by avoiding talking about their parents’ relationship (though observational coding did not reveal that they actually avoided the topic). In other research, the more uncertainty children in postdivorce families had about the changes in their family (e.g., the role of a new stepparent, renegotiated parental authority, rules, and discipline) the more they avoided talking about the changes (Afifi & Schrodt, 2003b). Talking about the changes may have been more risky than coping through avoidance. Family Rituals Defining Rituals and Routines Family routines are repetitive behaviors that are crucial to the structure of family life, but they lack the symbolism that rituals possess (Viere, 2001). Routines can become rituals if they move from being simply instrumental to purposely shared, symbolic acts (Fiese et al., 2002). Admittedly, the boundary separating ritual from nonritual is not clear-​cut (Wolin & Bennett, 1984). The two are sometimes distinguished by the notion that “routines are activities that family members have to do rather than want to do” (Viere, 2001, p.  286). Thus, family rituals can be thought of as symbolic behaviors with special meaning that establish and preserve the family’s identity (Jorgenson & Bochner, 2004; Wolin & Bennett, 1984). A family reunion, for example, might involve extended family members who annually gather together to eat food and interact. Even though there are routine and repetitive components to the reunion, the gathering typically takes on greater symbolic meaning for the family. For many families, the event symbolizes the perseverance of family ties over generations. Extraordinary family events, like weddings, anniversaries, and funerals, also tend to be full of symbolic meaning. However, even routine, daily events can take on larger ritualistic meaning. For example, the routine of reading bedtime stories to a toddler is often more than an instrumental educational task. The bedtime stories take on the status of a ritual when they have an anticipatory nature and symbolize something larger –​possibly an expression of care, attentiveness, stability, or relational connection. Wolin and Bennett (1984) describe three main types of family rituals: patterned family interactions, family celebrations, and family traditions. Patterned family interactions are the least formal but most frequently enacted. They include family regularities such as dinnertime, bedtime, leisure activities, or the treatment of guests in the home, so long as these events have a larger symbolic value. For example, the ritual may symbolize how the family feels about each other and other people, or what

64  •  Introducing Family Communication

appropriate roles and rules are. Imagine a family that ritualizes dinnertime so that seating around the table is consistent, individuals talk about their day and remain at the table until everyone is finished eating. Such a dinnertime ritual may symbolize the family’s roles and rules and honor the family’s unified time together. Family traditions and family celebrations are more formal and/​or less frequent than patterned family interactions. Family traditions include birthdays, anniversaries, family reunions, and family vacations. The nature of the traditions and the meaning attached to them are unique to each family. For example, some families think an ideal vacation is an annual camping trip to a national park. This type of vacation may be a way for the family to symbolize values such as “working together” to set up camp, “collaboration” to plan hikes and directions, and “family leisure” in a peaceful, natural environment away from phones and television. To other families, a camping vacation would be less than ideal and absent of any positive symbolism. Family celebrations tend to be culture-​specific and often follow some relative standardization with other families. Family celebrations include rites of passage (e.g., baptisms, graduations, weddings, funerals), religious celebrations (e.g., Christmas, Passover), and secular holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving). Functions of Family Rituals Family rituals serve a variety of specific functions, including socializing, stabilizing and protecting, and therapeutic functions. These specific functions of rituals contribute to the larger function of establishing family identity. Socializing functions. Rituals can be a way to transmit family/​cultural values, socialize members, and flag important events. For example, families often celebrate religious holidays in ways that transmit values and meaningful traditions across generations (Fiese & Tomcho, 2001). Rituals related to life cycle transitions, such as graduations, serve to introduce new roles and status (Troll, 1988). Graduation rituals may help people think of themselves as an adult and be perceived by others as an adult. Fiese and Tomcho found that meaningful aspects of religious holiday rituals are transmitted across generations and have the potential to enhance family relationships. Values about marriage and relationships become poignantly visible to others during public ceremonies such as weddings and anniversaries (Leeds-​Hurwitz, 2005). Younger generations learn about how marriages are valued, and partners reaffirm for themselves and their community the meaning of their relationship. In research on communication rituals in intercultural weddings, Leeds-​Hurwitz (2002) makes the case that the wedding can be a way for the couple to socialize their support community, as well as remind themselves of their new, unique identity as a couple. The families and support community witness how the couple hopes to blend each partner’s background and unite their support community. In the midst of a traditional cultural ritual like a marriage ceremony, couples often find ways to put their unique and sometimes nontraditional stamp on the ritual. The findings of Moore, Kienzle, and Flood Grady’s (2015) research on proposal rituals of couples who cohabited before engagement reveal that many modern day couples tend to weave together aspects of tradition and nontradition in the marriage proposal. As Moore et al. summarize, traditional aspects of the proposal ritual might include the man purchasing the ring, initiating the proposal in a way that surprises the woman, and proposing in a scripted way (e.g., getting down on one knee). However, for the couples in Moore’s study, there was usually an interplay of nontradition that either competed with or was woven into the traditional aspects of the ritual. For example, the very notion of living

Family Discourse and Identity  •  65

together before engagement was to some extent nontraditional. Many couples also discussed how the woman had given input into the ring and proposal, and that even though she felt special, she was not actually that surprised by the proposal. Stabilizing functions. Routines and rituals also provide stabilizing functions, helping families deal with daily stressors and significant transitions. Jencius and Rotter (1998) found, for example, that nightly bedtime rituals contributed to less sleep disturbance for children (e.g., less protest against bedtime, less trouble going to sleep, or less waking up in the middle of the night), especially if the rituals involved the child, emphasized continuity statements, and were conducted with some flexible choice rather than extreme rigidity. Examples of child involvement in bedtime rituals include a child turning on his or her own bathwater or picking out clothes for the next day. Continuity statements include references to tomorrow that give faith to the child that there will be a tomorrow with events to expect. Examples of giving the child choice within reason involve telling the child that dad can read two long books or three short books or letting the child choose what the bedtime snack or bath time activities will be. To some families, bedtime patterns are simply routines with little symbolic meaning. To other families, bedtime patterns truly take on ritual status. That is, the bedtime story, the prayer, or talking about events of the day with the child are imbibed with symbolic relational messages. Jenicus and Rotter argue that for parents who both work during the day, the bedtime ritual is often crucial because they have limited opportunities to symbolize their care and affection. Continuing throughout the lifespan, when families develop predictable family routines and rituals during middle childhood years, children perform better in school (Fiese, 2000b) and adolescents have a higher self-​esteem and sense of belonging (Fiese, 1992). Rituals have the capacity to bring stability and meaning, especially at times when children are vulnerable to other chaotic experiences outside the family. This same reasoning may explain why meaningful dinnertime rituals are so commonly cited as a buffer to adolescent behavior problems and substance use (Eisenberg, 2008; Fulkerson, 2006; Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001). Children are not the only ones to benefit from the protective aspects of rituals. Fiese and Tomcho (2001) found that the more meaning married couples found in their religious holiday rituals, the more relationship satisfaction they experienced. Meaningful holiday rituals can be a way for couples to reaffirm their own commitment and connection. Rituals even help buffer potential stress and chaos during transitions inside the family. Cheal (1988) theorized that rituals could be mechanisms of tension management. The behavioral routine stabilizes family life in the midst of a crisis that might otherwise have the capacity to drastically alter family patterns. In addition, the ritual reminds the family of important symbolic meanings or brings new meaning at a time when the family is vulnerable to the loss or misconstrual of meaning. This appears to be the case for blended families, who benefit from developing new rituals to embrace their new family while still honoring old family traditions (Braithwaite, Baxter, & Harper, 1998). Similarly, couples that transition to parenthood benefit from maintaining some of their old relationship maintenance rituals (e.g., still taking time for a night out without the baby), while they simultaneously develop new rituals with their child (Bruess & Pearson, 1995; Fiese, Hooker, Kotary, & Schwagler, 1993). In another example of blending new with old rituals, Docan-​Morgan (2014) examined new rituals introduced to Korean adoptees upon first meeting their birth families. Even though they were meeting for the first time, birth parents showered their children with new celebrations and rituals that were full of emotion: “extended touch, exchanging gifts, outings, exchanging culture, and symbolic family activities” (Docan-​Morgan, 2014, p.  365). Docan-​Morgan’s work also illustrates that rituals can be highly meaningful regardless of how often they have been performed.

66  •  Introducing Family Communication

Therapeutic functions. There is a growing body of research on the therapeutic functions of rituals in the face of family illness and substance abuse. In the 1970s and 1980s, Steven Wolin, Linda Bennett, and colleagues began to explore the relationship between alcoholism and family rituals (Bennett, Wolin, & Reiss, 1988; Bennett, Wolin, Reiss, & Teitelbaum, 1987; Wolin & Bennett, 1984; Wolin, Bennett, & Noonan, 1979). They examined three “critical crossroads” in the relationship between family rituals and alcoholism. The first involved the family of origin’s response to parental alcoholism, particularly the extent to which the alcoholism disrupted family rituals. Would family rituals protect a child from the effects of an alcoholic parent or, at the other extreme, enable the alcoholism to continue? The second and third crossroads involved the spouse selected by the child and the couple’s establishment of rituals in their new family. The second and third crossroads related to the extent to which parental alcoholism would be transmitted to the child. To address this issue, they explored the child’s ritual heritage (i.e., the rituals related to one’s family of origin background) and ritual establishment (i.e., the “crucial” choices children from an alcoholic home make when they select a mate and establish their own rituals). Bennett et  al. (1987, p.  112) articulated the link between family rituals and alcoholism in the following way: As with most chronic illnesses, alcoholism can become a powerful organizer of family life, altering the details of daily routines as well as special occasions. Not all families suffer the consequences of alcoholism in the same way, however. While some are clearly able to protect their daily routines and most valued activities, others are unsuccessful in keeping the ravages due to the alcoholic drinking under control. Their research spawned interest in the effects of “ritual disruption.” This important concept refers to whether a family’s rituals are subsumed by the alcoholism or kept distinctive from the problem drinking behavior. In subsumptive families, the alcohol use disrupts and controls the practice of family rituals. In fact, the alcohol abuse is a negative ritual in itself. Haugland (2005) details the explicit ways that alcoholism disrupts family rituals, and in doing so, she points out the immense pressure on the spouse of the alcoholic to try to compensate for the alcoholic spouse’s failure to uphold family rituals. In her study of paternal alcohol abuse, Haugland found that some mothers went to extreme lengths to at least try to maintain the structural aspects of family rituals (e.g., maintaining family dinners, bedtime), even if the family atmosphere was emotionally loaded with negativity and conflict. The problem is that in trying to keep the family running, the mothers were going at it alone. In some cases, the pressure was so great for the mothers that they were not able to maintain any semblance of the ritual. In distinctive families, the family rituals remain distinct from the alcohol abuse. In her study of alcoholic fathers, Haugland (2005) characterized protective families as those where the father was able to participate in family rituals (e.g., dinnertime, a child’s birthday party) without becoming overly intoxicated in the presence of the children. In families where rituals, namely the dinnertime rituals, are kept intact and distinctive from the alcoholic problems, children are less likely to develop alcoholic problems of their own (Bennett et al., 1987). In some cases, family rituals may function even better if the alcoholic member is absent or hungover. Bennett et al.’s research exposed other shielding factors related to spouse selection and selective engagement in nonalcoholic family rituals. Regarding transmission of alcoholism, children who came from alcoholic families received additional

Family Discourse and Identity  •  67

protection by choosing spouses and in-​laws who promoted rituals that were not dominated by an alcoholic identity. Upholding positive family rituals has also been proven to be an effective means for managing illness in the family. Markson and Fiese (2000) presented evidence that meaningful family rituals protect children from anxiety-​related health problems. Similarly, Fiese (2000a, 2007) found that families were most successful at managing a child’s asthma when they had established daily routines regarding asthma care. These routines involved giving the child daily doses of medicine at prescribed times (e.g., mealtime), refilling prescriptions, establishing behaviors for dealing with asthma attacks, keeping track of inhalers, vacuuming the house, etc. Managing these routines allowed other social and familial routines and rituals (e.g., school attendance, dinnertime, night time waking, vacations) to be less disrupted. Problems with Family Rituals Although they are often positive forms of family interaction, rituals can also be characterized by family dysfunction and stress. Holiday rituals or wedding rituals are intended to be some of the most positive rituals that families ever experience. Instead, they frequently spark some of the most heightened stress that families experience (Leeds-​Hurwitz, 2002). Besides the fact that the average wedding in the United States costs over $35,000, family members often disagree about what the ritual itself represents and how it should be performed (Seaver, 2017). Based on earlier work by Wolin and Bennett, Viere (2001) summarized six typologies of family ritual use. The typology depicts how families vary in their commitment to ritualizing and their ability to adapt rituals to time and new circumstances. This typology also helps understand how and why rituals may have a positive or negative effect on the family. (1) Underritualized: Families who do not celebrate or mark family changes and who do not join in larger societal rituals. (2) Rigidly Ritualized:  Families who cannot adapt their rituals over time. Ritual behaviors are closed, prescribed, and must occur in the same way every time. (3) Skewed Ritualization: One particular ethnic or religious tradition or one particular side of the family is ritualized at the expense of the other. Or one particular behavior is ritualized excessively, often with a negative intent or impact. (4) Hollow Ritualization: The family celebrates events out of obligation, and there is little meaning or process in the event. This often occurs when rituals are not adapted over time and create stress for family members. (5) Interrupted Ritualization: Sudden changes (e.g., death, illness, war) keep the family from celebrating the rituals they would otherwise celebrate. (6) Adaptable Ritualization: The family keeps the rituals meaningful by flexibly changing the events, roles, and rules related to the ritual when necessary. Clearly, some families are committed to rituals that are negative and are not able to adapt their commitment to the old ritual so as to be compatible with the family’s current needs. Leon and Jacobvitz (2003) found that mothers who had an insecure attachment to their parents in their family of origin enacted more rigid ritualization in their families of orientation. Leon and Jacobvitz speculated that

68  •  Introducing Family Communication

conducting rituals in a rigid way may give insecure mothers a feeling of control or security. Not surprisingly, Fiese (1992) found that mother–​adolescent disagreement about commitment to family rituals (e.g., mom thinks the dinnertime ritual is more important and meaningful than her teenager does) was negatively related to adolescent feelings of belonging. In addition, adolescent children commonly get embarrassed when their parents fail to adapt childhood rituals. Essentially, the adolescent outgrows the ritual faster than the parents do. For example, “practices evident in celebrating a young child’s birthday (e.g., funny hats, games, candy) may not be responsive to the kind of birthday party the child wants during his or her adolescence” (Baxter & Clark, 1996, p. 256). Van der Hart (1983) pointed out that families with little meaning and commitment in their rituals are in danger of hollow rituals. These families often show a high degree of role prescription. Imagine the scenario of a hollow ritual: members are forced to go to grandma’s house for a holiday event, no one really wants to be present, and little meaning is attached to the event. Rigid role prescriptions can also skew the practice of rituals. For example, imagine a mother who takes on all the duties associated with cooking the Thanksgiving meal and thinks of the holiday as work, while the rest of the family get to enjoy themselves (Shaw, 1992). Or as Galvin and Brommel (1999) describe, a spouse may engage in a skewed work ritual, where he or she works an obnoxious amount of hours in order to gain distance from the family or avoid problems. Roberts (1988) even proposed that rigidly ritualized symptoms such as binge eating, alcoholic drinking, spousal abuse, and drug abuse often appear in families lacking more meaningful positive rituals. Finally, inclusion in family rituals defines who is an insider and who is an outsider. Family rituals construct boundaries that may partially or totally exclude family members whose position in the family is ambiguous, controversial, or whose identity and beliefs are not compatible with the rest of the members’ (Oswald, 2002a). In some families, the family status and inclusion of gay and lesbian persons is disputed. Oswald (2002a) found that the quality of family relationships, namely parent–​ child and sibling relationships, and the visibility of the gay or lesbian relationship predicted whether gay/​lesbian persons and their partners were invited to family rituals. Oswald (2000) contended that certain types of family rituals, namely heterosexual weddings, can be problematic for gay and lesbian family members. The problem may stem, in part, from the implicit and explicit messages about what types of relationships and relationship values are honored by the ritual. Conclusion In this chapter, we examined how family discourse establishes, influences, and reflects family identity. We explored how family identity is communicated both internally among members and externally to people outside the family. In doing so, we reviewed a variety of theoretical approaches for studying these processes, as well as a variety of family types and family experiences to which these approaches have been applied. Indeed, some families depend more on discourse than others as a means of shaping and communicating their identity. Our analysis of family discourse focused in particular on family stories, secrets, and rituals. Scholars have studied how family stories are communicated from retrospective, interactional, and translational approaches, as well as the variety of functions that family storytelling performs (e.g., to help the family remember important events, to socialize members, to pass judgment on behavior, or to emphasize family ties and belonging). Certain events and experiences are kept as secrets, sometimes by the whole family and sometimes just by certain members. Communication privacy management theory helps explain how individuals set mental

Family Discourse and Identity  •  69

boundaries regarding whether information should be revealed, under what conditions, and how. Finally, we examined family rituals as symbolic behaviors with special meaning. Some family rituals act as stabilizing and therapeutic forces in the face of family stress. Others are the source of family stress. Together, family discourse and symbolic interactions reveal a family’s unique identity and affect how it relates to the outside world. For more resources, please visit the Companion Website: www.routledge.com/cw/segrin

4

Family Communication Patterns and Processes Power, Decision Making, and Conflict

Most students of family communication can think of tendencies in the way their family interacts, such as how their family typically deals with conflict or makes decisions. Most people also have a sense for who holds the power in their family and the rules that regulate family functioning. Even though families are open systems marked by changing relationships and events, families also have a tendency to develop patterns of interaction. One goal of this chapter is to examine family communication patterns, some that become stable tendencies in families and others that evolve depending on the context. We open this chapter by exploring patterns in the quantity of time family members spend interacting. However, most of our attention is devoted to distinguishing differences in the quality of family interaction. In doing so, we examine Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002a) Family Communication Patterns (FCPs) typology. Research on FCPs not only illustrates different styles of family interaction, but also suggests implications of one family climate versus another. The second half of the chapter introduces and conceptualizes family communication processes of power, decision making, and conflict –​central processes in a family’s communication climate. This foundation paves the way for readers to examine, in subsequent chapters, research on how these communication processes assert themselves in specific family relationships (e.g., parent–​child, marital, sibling, stepfamily, and extended family relationships) and in certain family interactions (e.g., family violence and abuse, parental discipline, or the development, maintenance, and deterioration of romantic relationships). Quantity of Family Time Historical Perspectives on “Family Time” The notion of “family time” is idealized in American culture. Advertisers market their products by playing up to the guilt that parents feel for not spending enough time with children (Ray, 2015). For example, buy a Dodge or Chrysler minivan and you will have a “family room on wheels,” according 70

Communication Patterns and Processes  •  71

to the commercial. Take your family to Disneyland in order to have some family time, as affirmed by the parade music lyrics that say “welcome to our family time.” People even turn down dream jobs or scale down successful careers to “spend more time with their families.” Each year people make resolutions to spend more family time together: to eat dinner together more often, to spend more time actually talking to their children, or to take a family vacation. Why are so many people in the constant pursuit of more family time? What is “family time” anyway? And what really matters: the quantity of time spent interacting with family members and/​or the quality? According to Daly (2001), the concept of “family time” is a relatively new notion stemming from Victorian times. Prior to industrialized technology, much of an individual’s time may have been spent with family. Parents and children lived and worked in their family units, unless they were separated from family to live in slavery or as a servant or apprentice in another family’s home (Coontz, 2000; Franklin & James, 2015). Even if a mother did not work outside the home, much of her time was intensely devoted to work (e.g., running the farm). According to Daly (2001), the advent of “wage labor under the factory system not only separated the public sphere of paid labor from the private domain of personal meanings, but also bracketed family time as different from work time” (p. 284). Daly further explains that it was really only the privileged class in late nineteenth-​century Victorian Protestant culture that popularized leisure and family time by making the family dinner and children’s bedtime serve as communication rituals. The living room parlor became a place for family conversation, and Sundays became a day for family time and rest from work that took one away from the family. What Is Family Time? To say that family time is different from work time does not really describe what family time is. When people talk about it, they express idiosyncratic definitions of family time. Daly (2001) warns that this usually involves some romanticized ideal of family togetherness, positive interactions, and child centeredness. Family time is romanticized as time together that involves everyone having fun or strengthening bonds of intimacy. When people use the phrase “spending family time together,” it rarely refers to negative interactions (e.g., eating dinner together in an atmosphere of tension and underlying conflict). Furthermore, the phrase is not usually meant for time spent together doing mundane or less enjoyable tasks such as cleaning the house. Clearly, there is a difference between what society romanticizes as family time and the total amount of time that family members spend together. One way people distinguish types of family time is to use the phrase “quality time,” which is different from ordinary or negatively toned family interactions (Shaw, 1992). Snyder (2007) found that when asked what “quality time” with their families meant, parents responded that it involved activities like “planned family activities,” “heart-​to-​heart talk,” and “time they spent with their families while at home” (p. 320). Operational definitions of family time in research are far from the romanticized or idiosyncratic definitions of family time that people often have in mind (Barnett, 1998). In fact, scholars rarely use the terms family time or quality time. They instead study more specific variables, for example, measuring the quantity of time adults or parents spend at work, how much time children spend watching television, how much time parents and children spend engaged together versus just in the presence of each other.

72  •  Introducing Family Communication

How Much Time Are Families Spending Together? There are a few ways researchers can attempt to answer the question of how much time families are spending together. One method involves naturalistic, observational methods, of which there are few examples, because this approach is often considered too intrusive, costly, and time intensive. In spite of the challenges to this type of research, Campos, Graesch, Repetti, Bradbury, and Ochs (2009) video recorded 30 dual-​earner families, who had at least one child between ages 7–​12, over the course of two weekdays and a weekend. As an example of the cost involved in this type of research, each family was paid $1,000 for their participation. Campos et al. (2009) paid special attention to the reunion of families after coming home from work or school as well as how they spent their time in the evenings. They found that children usually arrived home first, and when children were home between 3:00–​3:50 p.m., 63 percent of mothers and 50 percent of fathers were also home during that time. Mothers in their sample usually arrived home from work before fathers. Fathers who arrived home later received a less enthusiastic greeting from children, fewer details from children about their day, and were “immediately immersed into logistical details of the household and their children” (Campos et al., 2009, p. 804). Over the course of the evening, fathers spent the most time alone, while mothers spent more time with children. Besides observational studies, the next most valid and reliable alternative involves time diaries. Researchers ask participants to record information about their daily activities, time spent in each activity, and the people involved in the activity over 24-​hour periods. While time diaries have some drawbacks such as self-​report bias, they can provide large-​scale data from a variety of family types because the information is fairly easy to collect. Time diary studies have revealed some expected and some surprising findings over the last few decades. For example, Sandberg and Hofferth (2001, 2005) found an increase in the time parents in two-​parent families spent with children from 1981 to 1997. The increase, however, only occurred in two-​parent families and not in single-​parent families. Time diary studies have also confirmed suspected differences in the amounts of time mothers and fathers spend with children. When collapsing all family types together, in 1997, children spent 41.57 hours per week with their mothers at least accessible to them and 22.68 hours per week with their fathers accessible to them (Sandberg & Hofferth, 2005). Of that accessible time per week, mothers spent 20.93 hours directly participating with their child, and fathers spent 11.96 hours directly participating (Sandberg & Hofferth, 2005). Time diary studies additionally illustrate how a child’s age is related to the amount of parent–​child time together. For example, teens spend on average just 20 hours per week in the presence of a mother, father, or both (Offer, 2013). As for couple time, shared time with a spouse tends to be greater with nonparents than parents (Flood & Genadek, 2016). Further, for couples with children, the amount of time partners spend in the presence of each other is strongly related to the age of their children. Although parents with very young children (under 2) spend more time in total together than parents of elementary school-​age children, less of the time of parents with very young children is spent in alone time as a couple (Flood & Genadek, 2016). In comparison to parents with younger children, parents of adolescent and especially young adult children spend more time together and more of it is alone time (Flood & Genadek, 2016). Economic forces and childrearing trends are also driving forces in the quantity of time families spend together. On one hand, it is difficult to believe Sandberg and Hofferth’s (2001, 2005) findings that some parents are spending similar or more time with children. There appears to be so much data

Communication Patterns and Processes  •  73

supporting the thesis that Americans today are overworked, overscheduled, and that the amount of hours adults spend in the labor force has increased over the last several decades, especially for women and single parents (Darrah, Freeman, English-​Lueck, 2007; Hochschild, 1997). However, Jacobs and Gerson (2001) clarify that overall changes in working time are actually modest. Further, increases in women’s working hours do not necessarily translate to fewer parent–​child interactions to the extent that fathers or other partners can adjust their work schedules to compensate for a mother’s increased time at work and to the extent that fathers desire to be more involved in their children’s lives now more than in previous decades. Trends toward child-​centered parenting also mean that even if some parents are working more, they might simultaneously make it a priority to devote more of the time they do have to their children (Alwin, 1996). Overall, even though some structural factors, such as single-​parent families and labor participation, are negatively related to parent–​child time, these structural changes may be tempered by child-​centered parenting trends (Sandberg & Hofferth, 2001). Does Quantity of Family Time Together Really Matter? Time spent in family activities is often assumed to promote positive outcomes for family members. As readers can imagine, this claim is hotly contested and politicized, with disagreements about how much mothers’ time, fathers’ time, or any caregiver’s time matters for child well-​being, along with how much family time matters for children of various ages (e.g., see the debate in volumes 77 and 78 of the Journal of Marriage and Family). Although the nuances are debatable, in general there is a fair amount of research to suggest that some time spent in family activities is related to positive outcomes, or at least that there is a reciprocal relationship between the two. For example, children who eat more regular family meals engage in fewer high risk behaviors (i.e., less substance use and sexual activity) and have fewer behavioral problems (i.e., less depression/​suicide, school problems, violence, binge eating/​purging) (Eisenberg, 2008; Fulkerson, 2006; Hofferth & Sandberg, 2001). The dependability of the ritual and the interaction during the family meals may work to soothe daily stressors and provide emotional support. Indeed, engaged time with a parent has been found to be an especially strong buffer for adolescents when it comes to risky behavior (Milkie, Nomaguchi, & Denny, 2015; Offer, 2013). However, Meier and Musick (2014) caution that adolescents only experience the prosocial effects of family time (e.g., family dinners) if they already have a strong, positive parent–​child relationship. The amount of time spent in family leisure activities is also positively associated with family satisfaction, family quality of life, and adolescent well-​being (Hodge et al., 2017; Offer, 2013; Orthner & Mancini, 1990; Smith, Freeman, & Zabriskie, 2009). Similarly, the amount of time couples spend together in joint activities has been positively correlated with outcomes like marital satisfaction and happiness (Flood & Genadek, 2016; Orthner & Mancini, 1990). Does Quality of Family and Couple Time Matter more than Quantity? Even though the amount of family/​couple time spent together is often correlated with family/​ couple satisfaction, assessments of the subjective quality of time together are usually more strongly correlated (see Hodge et al., 2017 meta-​analysis). Further, the argument that increased time together causes increased family or relationship satisfaction, or even individual well-​being, is empirically

74  •  Introducing Family Communication

very suspect (Guldner & Swensen, 1995). The developing thesis is that the quality of social interaction trumps quantity. Evidence for this comes from research on couples and families whose time together has been limited, as in the case of commuter marriages (Govaerts & Dixon, 1988), long-​ distance romantic relationships (Guldner & Swensen, 1995; Maguire, 2007), and couples and families separated by military careers (Merolla & Steinberg, 2007; Pavalko & Elder, 1990). For example, when people in long-​distance romantic relationships have at least some limited opportunities for face-​to-​face interaction, have access to communication through technology, believe there will be an end to their separation, and have the cognitive capacity to keep the relationship “alive and well” in their minds, they experience no less uncertainty, trust, jealousy, or dissatisfaction than persons in geographically close relationships. Or, for instance, when Reissman, Aron, and Bergen (1993) experimentally increased the amount of time married couples spent together and compared them to a control group, they found no greater increase in satisfaction for those couples who were instructed to spend more time together. In our own research, when we randomly assigned couples in the lab to participate in various types of activities (e.g., relax on the couch together, play a vertical checkers game in which there were negative consequences for losing, or watch a popular TV show together), we found that the type of activity couples participated in during their time together made a differ­ ence in couples’ interaction and satisfaction (Flora & Segrin, 1998). Time spent in the “relax on the couch” condition promoted more opportunities for high quality interaction. Indeed, some couples and families are so dissatisfied that not even the best of activities can elicit positive communication. Thus, more time together and more communication do not necessarily translate to better relationships. Intentional distancing from family members, or seeking out less family time, is a common strategy used to gain control over and escape from an unhealthy family environment. In a small, but intriguing body of research on family estrangement, conservative estimates suggest that 12 percent of parents and adult children are estranged from each other (Gilligan, Suitor, & Pillemer, 2015; Scharp & Dorrance Hall, 2017). Interaction Networks: Who Talks to Whom? When exploring quantity of time spent interacting, another factor to consider is who talks to whom in the family and with what frequency. Galvin, Bylund, and Brommel (2004) describe network structures in two-​generation families. Although these network structures have not been the subject of much empirical research, they are descriptively heuristic (Figure 4.1). In a centralized interaction network, one member of the family acts as the hub of communication. This member talks to every other member and then passes information along to the rest of the family. The central member keeps the family in touch, given the rest of the members do not talk to each other with as much frequency, if at all. Two types of centralized structures are the wheel network and the Y-​network. In the wheel network, the central member at the hub connects all the rest of the members at the spokes of the wheel. Everyone communicates through the one key figure. In the Y-​network, the central member acts as gatekeeper. The gatekeeper talks to every other member, but only allows some messages to get through to members. The Y-​structure depicts one or two members who are kept out of the loop of information, upon the discretion of the gatekeeper. Decentralized networks do not have one single member who is the hub of information. In one type of decentralized network, the all-​channel network, everyone talks to everyone else with similar frequency. It is common for members to share information with several members, sometimes repeating

Communication Patterns and Processes  •  75 &HQWUDOL]HG:KHHO1HWZRUN ƐŽŶ

ĚĂƵŐŚƚĞƌ

&HQWUDOL]HG