Family Communication Exam 1

Olson's Circumplex Model

- Family cohesion = emotional bonding - (Ranging from: disengaged, separated, connected, enmeshed) - Family adaptability = ability to be flexible and change - (Ranging from: chaotic, flexible, structured, rigid)

Quality of Family Time

Among the numerous ways to describe and distinguish differences in family communication quality, Family Communication Patterns (FCP) theory offers one widely applied framework. Classifying family communication patterns allows researchers to explore how differences in family communication are related to behavioral and well-being outcome variables, and vice versa.

Parenting practices

Co-parenting Baumrind's Parenting Typology Emotion coaching Overparenting

family size and lifespan trends in family

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. 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.

Aversive/punishing behaviors and processes

General negativity Gottman's 4 horsemen Negative reciprocity Demand-withdraw; 4 reasons why this occurs

Appetitive/rewarding behaviors and processes

General positivity Social support behavior Commitment

Gottman's couple types

Gottman (1994) identified three functional types of couples: Volatile, Validating, and Conflict-avoiding couples, each of which is different from the dysfunctional Hostile couple type. The three functional couple types are similar in the ability to regulate a relationship climate where positivity outweighs negativity. Even during conflict interactions, the functional couple types maintain at least a 5:1 ratio of positive behaviors to negative behaviors. In nonconflictual interactions, the ratio of positivity to negativity is even higher. On the other hand, the Hostile couple type is characterized by interactions with as much negativity, or more, than positivity. The functional couple types differ in the way they exert influence, resolve conflict, and communicate about emotions

Interaction Networks

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 the same story over again. It is not uncommon for families with an all-channel network to discuss things all together. In another decentralized network, the chain network, family members relay messages through a chain of family members. Although there is not one central member, alliances exist such that some members will only talk to certain other members. Members on opposite ends of the communication chain may rarely or never talk to each other. Any information they have about the opposite member is filtered through the chain of members in between.

Factors that influence relationships development in three areas

Individual - personal attributes and background & mate preferences Couples - Partner compatibility and assertive mating; commitment; stages of relational development Contextual - Social network support; long-distance relationships; online dating

Cohabitation

Living together in a non marital union

Parent/child communication

Parent/infant communication (verbal and nonverbal behaviors) Parent/middle childhood & adolescent Goals of parenting during this time Importance of control and monitoring

Family Communication Patterns Theory

Primary Assumptions - families communicate in fairly stable and predictable ways in order to create a shared social reality through the process of co-orientation Major Concepts -

Understand historical trends in cohabitation

Prior to the 1960s, a majority of people in the United States considered cohabiting (i.e., living together in a nonmarital union) to be deviant behavior (Seltzer, 2000). Today, roughly two-thirds of marriages begin in cohabitation (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2012), and attitudes toward cohabitation have significantly shifted toward acceptance, normalization, and in many cases an expectation (Guzzo, 2014). From 2007 to 2016, the number of cohabiting adults in the United States increased from 14 million to 18 million, which represents a 29 percent increase (U.S. Census Bureau, 2017b). Dramatic increases in the number of premarital cohabitations and attitudes that cohabitation is mainstream mean that cohabitation is becoming less selective (Guzzo, 2014). In the past, scholars made a selection effects argument, which suggested that people who selected into a cohabiting union tended to possess a certain set of social or demographic characteristics, which might have put them at risk for divorce or relationship instability. Today, cohabitation has become so common that it can no longer be argued that cohabitors represent only a certain segment of the population. Thus, the demographic composition of people who cohabit has become quite heterogeneous, illustrating that not all cohabitors are the same.

Times when people enter cohabitation relationships and forms of cohabitation

Reasons for cohabiting are quite varied. For some, cohabitation is a symbol of a committed relationship or a prelude to marriage. Indeed, some couples enter a cohabiting union with high commitment or strong intentions to marry. Some even wait to begin cohabiting until after engagement. Others have some intention to marry, but are using cohabitation as a way to test the waters and assess compatibility of a partner. Still others are opposed to the institution of marriage and view cohabitation as an alternative to marriage. Finally, some people are less interested in the connection between cohabitation and marriage and more motivated by the immediate rewards of cohabitating for convenience, emancipation from another situation, or for the security of being with someone.

Communication factors that influence the outcomes of cohabitation

Sliding vs deciding Ambiguity and relational uncertainty Transitions and relational turbulence model

Transactional/psychosocial intactness and functioning

Socialized Children and Child Psychological Well-being

Types of family definitions

Structural - defines 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. Task - apply 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 - 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. They are the most subjective, inclusionist, and broad.

3 levels of analysis

System, Dyadic, and Individual

family of procreation

The family that is formed when a couple have their first child.

Family Structures

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. 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.

How do the different perspectives of defining family conceptualize family intactness?

Theoretical and empirical links between intactness and overall family functioning can be discussed under 3 major categories.

Differences between theory, model, typology, and taxonomy

Theory - Description of variables and the relationship between or among them. Model - visual or verbal representation of related phenomena, it represents a process. Typology - list of categories or types, that are subsets of a larger construct and are distinguished by dimensions, qualities, or characteristics. Taxonomy - comprised of related categories or types based on dimensions, but the categories are organized hierarchically.

Why is it important to have a definition of 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?"

Fitzpatrick's marital types

Traditionals: These couples value stability and hold to conventional relational ideologies and customs (e.g., the woman takes the man's last name, infidelity is inexcusable, gender roles are traditional, relational stability is preferred over relational change). They are highly interdependent, as evident by their frequent sharing, companionship, and regulated time together (e.g., scheduled meal times). They are likely to be expressive and engage in conflict when the issue is serious, though in a cooperative rather than assertive way. Independents: These couples hold very nonconventional values about relationships (e.g., believing the relationship should not constrain individual freedom and should exhibit novelty). They are highly interdependent in their emotional connection, though they may maintain separate physical spaces and lack the timed routines that characterize Traditionals. Independents are very expressive, report some assertiveness, and embrace conflict. Separates: These couples espouse ambivalent relational ideologies, often supporting traditional marriage and family values, but simultaneously supporting the individual freedom and ideology of change and uncertainty that Independents uphold. Sometimes the public and private behavior of Separates is contradictory (e.g., they may publicly support conventional relationship values, but privately behave in an unconventional way). Separates are not very expressive with one another. They maintain emotional and physical space from their spouses as they find emotional support outside the marriage. The little interdependence Separates have may be expressed through regulated time together. They avoid open marital conflicts.

family of origin

refers to the family into which one is born and/or raised.

Judging martial relationships

success, quality, and satisfaction

family of orientation

thought of as the family one chooses (e.g., mate) and/or creates (e.g., a child).