COMM 124 - Family Communication PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by GrandOrangeTree7245
Dr. Tamara Afifi
Tags
Summary
These are lecture notes for a course on family communication. The notes cover topics such as the history of family communication, interpersonal communication in families, and definitions of family.
Full Transcript
OMM 124 - Family Communication C Dr. Tamara Afifi Lecture: T/Th 11 am - 12:15 pm GIRV 1004 OF: T 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm SSMS 4109 Part I: Change and Diversity 1/07 - 01/09 | Introduction and Family Communication 0 Brief History of Family C...
OMM 124 - Family Communication C Dr. Tamara Afifi Lecture: T/Th 11 am - 12:15 pm GIRV 1004 OF: T 12:30 pm - 2:30 pm SSMS 4109 Part I: Change and Diversity 1/07 - 01/09 | Introduction and Family Communication 0 Brief History of Family Communication Have seen a surge of interest in family communication in the past 20 years Grew out of 2 key areas 1. Mass communication in the 1950s a. Early studies on the impact of media on aggression in children b. McLeod & Chafee (1972) - family as a comm environment that influenced child’s use of the news media 2. Interpersonal communication in the late 1960s a. Key scholars: Berger, Burgoons, Miller, Knapp, McCroskey (power, persuasion, attraction, uncertainty) b. Early work was based upon interpersonal comm in couples i. Edna Roger’s research (1972) on power and control c. In the mid-1970s, family comm was very slowly being recognized by a few scholars i. Practical aspects of families (e.g., textbooks) ii. Fitzpatrick’s (1976) work on couple types & family comm patterns d. The last 25 years - family comm courses have been offered e. Family comm only became an interest group in 1989 and a division in 1995 at NCA Definition of Family Communication What do we study? ○ Communication is typically the central focus Family is constituted through comm ○ Families are studied at a micro level Specific behaviors Other disciplines may look at comm as one variable among many and in a very “macro” way ○ Basic and applies research, but not practice Provide research that therapists can use, but we are not therapists Most family research is inherently applied What does it mean to be an applied researcher? Applied does not mean atheoretical; the best applied research also tends to be highly theoretical How does family comm differ from interpersonal (IP) comm? ○ Interpersonal scholars focus on processes and how they differ in a variety of contexts. Families are another context to test comm process or constructs. ○ F amily scholars are equally interested in the family as a context and the comm processes in it ○ IP is a broader rubric & family emerged out of IP ○ Family communication scholars may also consider themselves IP scholars, but not as nearly as many IP scholars call themselves family scholars Other important aspects of families 1. Many ways to be a family (e.g., fictive kin) 2. The perfect family does not exist. Stephanie Coontz - “Myth of the American Family” 3. Families are created and maintained through comm 4. Develop a relational culture & reflect culture 5. Socialize its members about values and beliefs 6. Comm patterns are multigenerational 7. It requires effort Network analysis of your own family Common Definitions of Family What constitutes a family? 1. Role lens: a. Roles, behaviors and emotions – feel and act like a family 2. Sociological lens: a. Family as defined by laws and regulations 3. Biogenetic lens: a. Relationship is (potentially) genetically reproductive b. Whether the partners share genetic material Working definition for this course: ○ Defined roles ○ Responsibilities, rules, resources ○ Shared history (even if brief) and future ○ Emotional bond/affection “ Networks of people who share their lives over long periods of time bound by ties of marriage, blood, law, or commitment, legal or otherwise, who consider themselves as family and who share significant history and anticipated future of functioning as a family” (Braithwaite et al., 2024). What is meant by “discourse-dependent” families? (Galvin reading) Families depend on comm to develop identity and relay that identity to themselves and others ○ Communicate definitions and explanations within and outside the family Are families becoming more or less discourse-dependent? What kinds of families are considered more “discourse-dependent”? Why do we need definitions? 1. Legal implications a. Implications of legalization of gay marriage b. Stepparents not having legal rights to stepchildren c. Rights to treatment/death d. Financial benefits 2. Documentation–Census 3. Language shapes reality – by labeling something “a family,” it gives it meaning (and power) a. E.g., “step” families and “blended” families b. E.g., adoption (who are your “real” parents) 1/14 | The Impact of Divorce and Interparental Conflict on Children 0 Impact of Divorce on Children Steady, slow rise in divorce rate since 1960, especially during the ‘70s (Vietnam War, Women’s rights movements, No-fault divorce established), created a surge of interest in consequences of divorce & remarriage Historical events and culture influence divorce rates ○ E.g., Wars, Great Recession, COVID-19 Perceptions of single parenting vs. divorce in U.S. ~46% divorce rate today Short-term Impact of Divorce on Children Short-term implications: ○ Most children of divorce experience: Dramatic declines in economic standards Fear of abandonment Diminished capacity of parents to meet child’s needs Minimized contact with parents Lower self-esteem Depression Behavioral & social difficulties Difficulty at school Long-term Impact of Divorce on Children Long-term implication: ○ Some children continue to show long-term behavioral and psychological problems ○ Less closeness and satisfaction with parents (but sometimes closer with mothers) ○ Implications for own relationships later in life: More likely to get divorced themselves Greater fear of commitment ○ Learn potential communication skill deficiencies Social Learning Theory In long-run, research shows that most of these effects dissipate and majority of children function quite well IF conflict is kept to a minimum Children vary considerably in response to divorce, with some children benefitting, others being harmed, and others significantly affected (Thomas, 2018) ○ Amato’s (2014) meta-analyses Differences exist, but effect sizes are small Effects getting larger for children over time? What contextual factors make a difference? ‘Risk and Resiliency Perspective” ○ Interparental conflict** (more than divorce per se) ○ Number of transitions ○ Gender & age of child at divorce ○ Remarriage ○ Amount of time since divorce ○ Cumulative effect of life stressors ○ Whether children see divorce coming ○ Economic support ○ Amount & quality of contact with parents What communication processes help or hinder the divorce process? Children’s feelings of being caught (Amato & Afifi, 2006) ○ Children of divorce vs. continuously married parents ○ How do children tend to respond? Inappropriate disclosures & stress contagion effects ○ Creation of role reversal or parentification 2 types of parentification: 1. Emotional parentification 2. Instrumental parentification Inability to redefine appropriate communication boundaries and attachments with former spouse Constructive co-parenting ○ Authoritative & consistent parenting Interpersonal communication skills of parents ○ Communication competence, negativity, criticism, problem-solving, narcissism, information regulation ○ Intergenerational transmission of interpersonal skill deficiencies Family rituals, routines, maintenance behaviors Role of physiology & genetics? 1/16 | Culture and Families 0 State of the American Family Paper Are American families deteriorating? Merely changing form? Becoming stronger? Class readings, lecture, outside sources (see syllabus for details) ○ What role does family communication play in this? What role does your upbringing shape your perceptions? Successful Stepfamilies Successful stepfamilies (Bray & Harvey) ○ Realize it takes several years to develop a family ○ Parents redefine their intimacy boundaries ○ Couples discuss key issues before stepfamily forms 50% never discuss parenting 75% never discuss finances Balancing old and new rituals Communicate a unified front to children Stepparent develops a warm, emergent, flexible parenting style, but still authoritative Lesbian & Gay Relationships/Families Lesbians - most intense closeness & equality compared to other relationships Lesbian relationships tend to be more monogamous than gay men’s relationships Partners & friends can be a more reliable source of social support than family Coming out as a process ○ Denes’ (2014) research on multiple attempts & strategies of coming out Challenges - discourse dependency, stigma ○ Stigma can make adoption more difficult ○ Minority stress among transgender families (Siegel, 2022) Suarez et. al. (2023) global meta-analysis: ○ Children raised in LGBTQ+ families had better psychological and relational development than children raised in heterosexual families Children and identity positivity (Siegel, 2022) No significant differences in parenting between same-sex and heterosexual couples Most research is with young adults & couples Fundamental Dimensions of Cultures (Holfstede, 1980): Individualism vs. Collectivism Individualistic ○ Focus = individual ○ Initiative & dissent are values ○ Independent – “I” ○ Loyalty to self and immediate family Collectivistic ○ Focus = group ○ Conformity is valued ○ Interdependent – “We” ○ Loyalty to extended family & society Power Distance = Attitudes toward differences in authority Low PD ○ Equally distributed ○ Less comfortable being told what to do ○ Less accepting of inequality High PD ○ Hierarchy ○ More comfortable giving directions ○ Accepting of inequality High Context vs. Low Context Low Context ○ Most info in explicit messages ○ Emphasis on verbals ○ Values directness ○ Individualistic High Context ○ Most info in context or person ○ Emphasis on non-verbals ○ Value indirectness ○ Collectivistic Uncertainty Avoidance – Level of Acceptance of Unpredictability Low UA ○ High tolerance for ambiguity & uncertainty ○ Ease ○ More accepting of dissent ○ Value change High UA ○ Low tolerance for ambiguity & uncertainty ○ Higher stress ○ Strong need for consensus ○ Value tradition Dimensions across families Comparisons of Latine/a/x, Black, Asian, and White families in the U.S.: ○ Stronger kinship ties in Latine, Black, and Asian families (collectivism) Support against racism, lack of resources, discrimination, etc. Importance of extended family ○ Black families – role of strong Black women and families Strong Black Women Collective Theory (Davis, 2015) ○ Latino families – strong emphasis on family and marriage (La Familia) ○ Latine families – most traditional gender roles andpatriarchal, more authoritarian ○ Black families – morematriarchalbut also somewhatauthoritarian ○ White families – more egalitarian (less power distance) in parenting, more equality in gender roles (at least in theory) ○ Black families tend to be low context, but also high power distance ○ Asian families also tend to be very collectivistic & high power distance but high context Generational differences & assimilation ○ Power distance crossed with individualism/collectivism (e.g., horizontal collectivism) Part II: Theoretical Frameworks 1/21 | Family Systems Theory 0 Fundamental Assumptions Hierarchy or Levels of the System ○ Supra-system: the environment ○ System: the family ○ Sub-system: dyads, individuals ○ E.g., 9/11, natural disasters, Great Recession, addiction, COVID-19, chronic illness, ASD Notion of a Boundary ○ Rules for behavior & intimacy in relationships Wholeness ○ Parts of the system are less important than connectedness of parts ○ Whole is different than the sum of its parts Family is not just the individuals within it, acting in isolation ○ Family cannot be examined with just the individual; should also look at larger system and components of the system ○ E.g., drug addiction, eating disorders, self-harm Interdependence ○ Every part impacts other parts of the system Domino or ripple effect ○ E.g., negative mood of one person affects every other family member; positive behaviors bleed onto others ○ E.g., in a couple, measure both ppl’s predictors and outcomes bc they tend to be correlated Some subsystems within a family might be more interdependent than others (e.g., child with a chronic illness & mother) Openness ○ Free exchange of energy btwn system & environment ○ System must be open to feedback and change to thrive ○ E.g., coming out, addiction Patterns of Behavior ○ Behaviors become predictable and habituated over time ○ Family members get stuck in established roles (and can’t get out) ○ Operate in ways that reinforce patterns ○ E.g., one family member does all of the cooking or cleaning and another member tries to help, they may not do it “right” Homeostasis ○ Balance or tendency to bring parts of the system back to “typical” or preferred level of functioning Does NOT mean this is healthy! ○ Detect problems to regain equilibrium Rules for behavior, boundaries, patterns of communication across time ○ E.g., if you go off to college, family might view you as elitist or liberal when you return Equifinality ○ Can achieve final objective in different, but equally valid ways P ○ arent who doesn’t allow child to succeed in own way, lack equifinality ○ E.g., parent who is perfectionistic/controlling and doesn’t let child do things their own way Synergy ○ Can have positive or negative energy in a group that can shape the behavior/dynamics of the group and the individuals within it ○ E.g., group projects ○ E.g., negative or positive energy in a family can quickly take hold of the entire group Common Research Application of Systems Theory Addiction ○ Co-dependency: each person is fulfilling and sustaining the need of the other (interdependence) Communication preventing behavior and enabling it? INC Theory (LePoire) ○ Need to examine whole family and individual with the addiction ○ Addiction affects the entire family Family Disruption ○ How are the boundaries within families disrupted after divorce? Role reversals, parentification How divorce affects the entire family Stress & Coping ○ Stress contagion effects Conflict ○ As a relational/family phenomenon Differential parenting ○ And family conflict Critiques of Systems Theory Critiques ○ Difficult to hypothesize ○ Ignores the individual ○ Difficult to actually measure ○ Time and resource-intensive ○ Favors nurture more than nature; overlooks genetics Strengths ○ Mirrors reality and complexity of families ○ Importance of interdependence & wholeness for understanding behavior & outcomes ○ Can apply to every family 1/23 | Attachment Theory 0 Fundamental Assumptions Harry Harlow ○ Wire monkey experiments John Bowlby – Attachment styles ○ B onds formed with others as a result of parenting practices; shape our identity and how we approach relationships ○ Used to argue that bond with the primary parent from birth is our primary attachment & is relatively stable across the lifespan Now somewhat questioned ○ An evolved behavioral system that motivates infants to seek proximity to caregivers during times of distress ○ Develop “internal working models” ○ Ability to form intimate attachments is essential to long-term personal and relational health ○ Nature vs. Nurture Functions of Attachments Proximity seeking ○ Need/enjoy the presence of others Separation Protest ○ E.g., Mary Ainsworth Strange Situation (1978) Safe Haven ○ Activated by threat/distress ○ Provides a sense of peace/comfort Secure Base ○ Unobtrusive support of exploration and autonomy ○ Promote child’s independence and own choices Attachment Styles (vs. Continuum of Avoidance and Anxiety) (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) Secure ○ Parent: consistently supportive & loving ○ Child: positive self-worth, affectionate, able to handle ups and downs Fearful avoidant/anxious ambivalent ○ Parent: negative, disconfirming, rejecting, or even abusive communication; unpredictable - supportive one minute, then unsupportive the next ○ Child: feels unworthy of low; afraid of commitment - fear that person won’t be there or stay with them; fear of getting emotionally hurt Dismissive avoidant ○ Parent: disinterested, rejecting, emotionally unavailable, potentially abusive, role reversals ○ Child: view others as unworthy of their love; view relationships as undesirable; distancing, lack of commitment, too independent Preoccupied ○ Parent: role reversals; abandoned child emotionally; not necessarily disinterested, just wasn’t paying attention to the child ○ Child: positive view of others but a negative view of self; low self-esteem; absorbed with relationships & always feels the need to be in one Attachment Styles: View of Self and Others hat is your attachment style? W Research Findings Can attachments change? ○ Yes! Ppl attachments can and often do change over time (Theisen et al., 2018) ○ But internal working models still tend to be relatively stable over time ○ Secures are more stable in their attachments Final attachments ○ Individuals attachments combine with partner’s to create a final attachment (LePoire’s research) ○ Can help you become more secure Attachment impacts communication ○ Secures: friendly, affiliative, moderate disclosure, affectionate ○ Preoccupieds: highly affiliative, too much disclosure/emotions, clingy ○ Fearful avoidants: anxiety & fear of rejection in communication, need reassurance, trust issues ○ Dismissives: unmotivated to maintain intimacy, lower involvement Intergenerational attachments ○ Can attachments be passed down through generations? ○ Zhang et al. (2022) meta-analysis – ACEs of parents can affect children indirectly through mental health challenges and parenting Who can be a primary attachment? Sensitive to cultural differences? ○ Insecurity/security can look different bc of culture From the Literature… Feeney (1999) ○ Attachments, Emotional Control, and Satisfaction in Married Couples ○ Insecure - dismissive avoidants and fearful avoidants Fearful avoidants: intense negative emotions and less frequent positive emotions M ore likely to show heightened awareness and expression of negative feelings, learned as a way of maintaining contact with inconsistent caregivers Dismissive avoidants: having experienced rejecting and insensitive caregiving, tend to hold back their emotions in order to prevent a conflict with their partner - predicts marital dissatisfaction ○ Secures: acknowledge distress and seek social support Simpson et al. (2007) Expression of Emotions, longitudinal study of young adults from infancy to mid 20s Secures at 12 months were rated as more socially competent by teachers during elementary school Their social competence predicted more secure friendships at 16, which also predicted: ○ More positive daily emotional experiences in romantic relationships (mid 20s) ○ Less negative affect in conflict resolution and collaborative tasks with romantic partner (mid 20s) Evidence of stability of attachment styles and systemic effects Hanetz & Dollberg (2022) Studied mothers with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) Reported on distress of own children (ages 3-12) and when watching videos of babies crying Mother’s ACEs predicted her mental health (i.e., anxiety), which in turn, predicted her child’s internalizing and externalizing behavior. Their child’s behavior the npredicted more hostile parenting and further internalizing and externalizing behavior Stern et al. (2022) Found similar results with attachment styles of mothers (79% African American) Mothers’ attachment anxiety at T1 predicted more unsupportive responses to child distress at Time 2, explained by heightened negative emotions/attributions about child distress So now what? Importance of interventions for families, taking culture into account Turning knowledge and theories into behavioral change What do I do if I have an insecure attachment? 1/28 | Social Exchange Theory/Equity Theory 0 Activity Think about a past romantic or current romantic relationship (or friendship): Make 3 columns/lists: ○ Rewards from that relationship ○ Costs from that relationship ○ What you DESERVE in a relationship (this list can come from personal experiences, observation of another person's relationship, etc.) What do you notice about your lists? Alex ○ Rewards: companionship, happiness, love, meaningful connection, comfort ○ Costs: increased dependence on partner, more expenses spent (gifts, travel, food, etc.), social and time sacrifices, added stress What I deserve: reciprocity, clear communication, loyalty ○ Social Exchange Theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) Based upon an economic model of rewards & costs ○ Assess if rewards outweigh costs in relationship Humans are inherently selfish by nature – always want what is best for ourselves Theory doesn’t care about what is equitable/fair – based upon personal, selfish motives ○ If rewards outweigh costs, more likely to be satisfied & stay in the relationship BUT, also depends on comparisons to others… Comparison Level (CL)(the 3rd level of the activity;what you think you deserve in a relationship) ○ Expectation of outcomes ppl think they should receive in a relationship ○ What you think about your own relationship Standard with which ppl determine how satisfactory a relationship is; what they feel they deserve Self-worth, self-esteem More satisfied when outcomes meet or exceed CL Comparison Level of Alternatives (CL-Alt) ○ Perceived potential alternatives outside relationship ○ The lowest level of outcomes a person will accept in a relationship in light of available opportunities in other relationships ○ The greater the outcomes exceed the CL-Alt, the more committed you are ○ Dependence power ○ If you perceive many alternatives, commitment will be less ○ If you perceive few alternatives (or don’t want any), commitment will be greater Investment Model of Commitment (Rusbult, 1983) Research Examples for Social Exchange Theory & Investment Model Research on long-term, happy marriages, divorce, & relationship dissolution ○ When costs outweigh benefits = stress, conflict, dissolution ○ When rewards outweigh costs = greater happiness, less conflict & stress Research on violence and abuse Research on different types of commitment Equity Theory (Adams, 1963) Examines whether the distribution of resources in a relationship isfairorequitable Determined by comparing the ratio of contributions and benefits ○ Overbenefited: more benefits and less contributions to relationship ○ Underbenefited: more contributions and less benefits to relationship ○ Equitable: each person contributes & benefits from the relationship equally Ppl with equitable relationships – most satisfied If overbenefited or underbenefited, should feel guilty or stressed and want to create or restore equity In theory, argues that ppl want fair relationships and will work to create or restore equity In reality, Equity Theory sometimes doesn’t work as well as predicted for overbenefitedness ○ Often, ppl attempt to maximize benefits & perceive themselves as contributing more than they actually fo Rules for equity in particular marriages and perception Also based on social norms: ○ Studies on gender and division of labor Women are underbenefited Division of labor is inequitable in quality & quantity Research on “second shift” (Hochschild) ○ Women often feel guilty if overbenefited & attempt to restore equity Research on demand-withdraw patterns Equitable relationships tend to be the most satisfied ○ Followed by overbenefited, then underbenefited How has equity changed over time in marriage? Impact? How can you ensure equity in a relationship? ○ Domain-specific equity (Sprecher): finding areas that each person is good at Equity theory tends to be most predictive of satisfaction in the early years of a relationship/marriage (e.g., transition to parenthood) Critiques of Social Exchange & Equity Theories What are some strengths and weaknesses of Social Exchange Theory? ○ Strengths: practical/simple; helps explain many family issues; knowledge of this theory can help someone work towards having more balanced relationships; economical approach ○ Weaknesses: mathematical model viewed as a heartless, generalized method for interpreting human interaction; one of the theory’s assumptions is that individuals are innately selfish (is this always accurate?); theory assumes the ultimate goal of a relationship is intimacy when this might not always be the case; places relationships in a linear structure, when some relationships might skip steps or go backwards in terms of intimacy; relies on personal perspective, not on outside perspective; cannot quantify love/certain emotions (very mechanical); does this theory apply to parent-children relationships? What are some strengths and weaknesses of Equity Theory? ○ Strengths: motivate a team through fair and equitable treatment ○ Weaknesses: a person feeling slighted even though they’re being treating fairly, resulting in decreased motivation 1/30 | Communication Privacy Management Theory (CPM) 0 Communication Privacy Management (CPM) (Petronio, 1991, 2002) Assumptions 1. Ppl have a right to own their private info 2. Builds upon dialectical theory and social penetration theory a. Dialectical tension of openness & closedness 3. Revealing info isrisky– vulnerability a. Risky for self and potentially others and relationships b. E.g., Petronio et al. study on child abuse c. Bc revealing info is risky, ppl constructmetaphoricalboundariesaround themselves to “house” and protect their info 4. Boundary structures (who is and who is not allowed access to info) a. Ppl have a right tocontroltheir private info i. Control risks ii. Want to control private info bc of vulnerability iii. Signal ownershipof info iv. Believe have a right to our private info v. How? Where does this come from? vi. E.g., withholding info can signal ownership of info and membership in family b. Boundaries occur across levels of ppl i. E.g., couple boundary, boundary around family, boundary around individuals c. Permeability of boundary i. Boundaries vary in permeability from porous (flow of info is great) to rigid or impermeable (private info is closely protected) ii. The less the degree or risk, the more open or permeable the boundary iii. **Individuals govern the permeability of their privacy boundaries and achieve control by using rules to regulate flow of info 5. Rule management systems (decision rules to monitor flow of info) a. Privacy rule foundations i. Decision rules about what info will be revealed, to whom, and when ii. Two types of rules: 1. Boundary access rules (i.e., rules about when info will be shared) 2. Boundary protection rules (i.e., rules about when info will not be shared) iii. Privacy rule development: development of these rules is based upon a number ofcriteria: 1. Cultural values/norms a. E.g., taught to value openness in US 2. Individual motivations orreasons a. Relationship rules b. Personal/relational characteristics 3. Gender . Context 4 5. Generational differences – social media? iv. Privacy Rule Attributes: 1. Rule acquisition a. Howwe come to understand rules b. Learnexisting rules or have to negotiate new ones c. Learn through explicit or implicit norms in a family 2. Rule properties a. Characteristicsof the privacy rules b. Often become habitual orroutinized– can become privacy values ororientations i. E.g., “In my family, it’s just assumed that we don’t talk about religion” c. Rules can change when an event or some actiontriggers change i. E.g., divorce – must renegotiate privacy rules with former spouse ii. E.g., death of family member b. Boundary coordination i. Process by which ppl communicatively manage boundaries 1. Linkages a. Internal (establishing connections to others within family by giving private info) vs. external (family est. connection to others outside family by providing private info to them) 2. Permeability a. Regulate info through disclosure, avoidance, secrets 3. Co-ownership a. Co-ownershipis established through linkages b. Collective ownership of info c. In families potentially have multiple levels of co-ownership d. Research onreluctant confidants c. Boundary turbulence i. Complications in boundary coordination 1. E.g., when one person decides not to follow the rules for privacy 2. E.g., ppl’s rules for privacy are different or violated ii. Where does boundary turbulence come in the process? Before coordination or after? Both? ow has CPM been tested? H Quantitatively and qualitatively, theorizing Common research areas: ○ Social media: disclosing private info online & privacy settings, parental monitoring ○ Health: disclosures about miscarriage, concealing health info, surrogate decision-makers ○ F amily: avoidance, secrecy and disclosure btwn siblings, btwn parents, adoptive families and birth parents, with outsiders Critiques Broad framework (also a strength) ○ Explanatory rather than predictive Tested primarily qualitatively rather than quantitatively Emphasis is placed on individual privacy rights. Is privacy always individually owned? Cultural differences?
