n.
,\.

 

 

 

 

J x
K) \
\J‘\
‘1.)
,.

.‘

(g

 

 

 

nilifiliiiiii W

Michigan State
L University

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

Family System Properties

presented by

Anita Miller Covert

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

PHD degreein Family 8. Child Ecology

 

 

V Major professor

Date 711/0. P, /%P?

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

‘— .—__ A

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to move this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before on. due.

A DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE ll

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

usu Is An Minn-rm Action/Ea Oppomnny Institulon
WM‘

 

FAMILY SYSTEM PROPERTIES

BY

Anita Miller Covert

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology

1989

w

«l

-‘Nl N

ABSTRACT

FAMILY SYSTEM PROPERTIES

BY

Anita Miller Covert

Using an interpretive philosophy of social science and
a family systems perspective, a schema for clarifying
family properties is developed. Family properties are
shown to vary on the continuum of stable/dynamic and on the
continuum of concrete/abstract. Because of the high cost
of studying family system process variables using an
interpretive science approach, the relationship between the
degree of family congruency and the nature of the family
property being studied is examined in hope of finding some
family properties which can be studied using less expensive
survey methods.

Data used were from a state-wide survey of early
adolescents and their parents. Youths were interviewed in
their homes and parents responded to a questionnaire.
Subjects were selected using a stratified multi-stage
cluster sampling technique.

The relative levels of family congruency of three

stable-concrete variables, income, urbanicity, and family

activities and three dynamic-abstract variables, stress
level, family relationship, and communication were
examined. Given a high level of family congruency on a
variable, data about that variable could be obtained less
expensively by surveying one family member.

Statistically significant levels of incongruency were
found for all family properties. However, the levels of
incongruency were more than twice as high for the three
dynamic-abstract variables, stress level, family
relationship, and communication than for two of the
stable-concrete variables, income and urbanicity. The
other stable-concrete variable, family activities, had
incongruency levels similar to the dynamic-abstract

variables.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many persons who have guided, supported, and
assisted in the completion of this degree. I would like to
give special thanks and appreciation to the following:

To Joanne Keith, Dennis Keefe and Frank Boster,
committee members whose assistance, critique, and support
are much appreciated.

To Margaret Bubolz, chairperson of my doctoral
committee, whose encouragement and guidance allowed me to
improve the quality of my work.

To my partners and staff, Janet, Scott, Ann, Joyce,
Stacy, Vickie, Sue and everyone at Country Stitches and
Country Additions who supported, encouraged, and
compensated to enable me to complete this degree.

To my husband Mahlon without whose total support none

of this would have been possible.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
II. PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES . . . . . . 4
Positivistic Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Interpretive Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Critical Science . . 10

Philosophy of Science Used in othis Dissertation 16
Basic Assumptions Used in this Dissertation 16
Research Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

III. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH 21

The Family as a System . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Study of the Family System . . . . . . . . . . 24
Family System Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Family Properties . . . . . . . . . . 33
Stable and Dynamic Properties . . . . 34
Concrete and Abstract Family Properties . . 35
Individual Family Member Attributes . . . . 36
Stable Concrete Properties . . . . . . . . 36
Stable Abstract Properties . . . . . . . . 39
Dynamic Abstract Properties . . . . . . . . 39
Family Congruency . . . . . . . . . . 42
Concrete, Stable Properties . . . . . . . . 44
Abstract, Dynamic Properties . . . . . . . 45
Research Problem and Question . . . . . . . . 46
IV. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Hypothesized Relationships . . . . . . . . . . 49
Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Interview Procedure . . . . . . . . . 52
Description of the Study Sample . . . . . . . 54
Description of Variables . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Urbanicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Family Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Stress Level . . . . . . . .
Relationship . . . . . . . .
Communication Pattern . . . .

V. ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS . . . .
Results and Analysis . . . . . . .

Relationship of Findings to Schema
Limitations of the Study . . . . .

Implications for Research and Theory

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Human Subjects Approval . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . .

October 1989

vi

6O
61
61

63

63
65
70
72
75

77

’77

78

LIST OF TABLES

Page
‘Table 1 Description of Variables . . . . . . . . . 62
Table 2 Analysis of Variables . . . . . . . . . . 64

vii

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure

waH

mm

LIST OF FIGURES

Individual Choice Continuum

Continuum of Family Properties

Description of Family Properties

Overview of Family Properties, Subjects,
and Survey Questions .

Hypothesized Continuum of Family
Properties . .

Continuum of Family Properties According
to Research Findings

viii

Page
18
37
57
66
67

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION

"Through time and in all places, the family
has been and continues to be the central and basic
educational, social, and economic unit. It is our
most elemental group, for it is here that
individuals interact more frequently, more
intimately, and over a longer period of time. The
family is regarded as the principal setting in
which individual personality and the values,
skills, and discipline required for effectively
functioning in the larger society are shaped." (B.
Paolucci, from an address, "Values and Family
Ecology," at Kent State University in 1973).
Paolucci's statement identifies the importance of the
family unit and the processes of that unit. However,
family phenomena are especially elusive and multifaceted
(Miller, Rollins, and Thomas, 1982). Many topics in the
family area have been considered personal and private and,
therefore, not suitable for study. Although more and more
research is being done on the family, there are many
questions about which research approaches should be taken.
This dissertation addresses theoretical and
methodological issues concerning the study of the family.
First, using an interpretive philosophy of science and a
family systems perspective, a schema for clarifying family
properties is developed. Second, the dissertation examines

the relationship between the degree of family congruency

and the nature of the family property being studied. This

has methodological implications for the unit of analysis
used in family research. Specifically, these questions are
asked: Can one family member provide family data or should
data be collected from more than one family member? Does
the answer to this question differ based on the type of
family property data being collected?

These questions are addressed by developing the
background for the schema, then analyzing a specific
research problem. In Chapter 2, the three perspectives or
philosophies of science, positivistic science, interpretive
science, and critical science are discussed and critiqued.
Next, basic assumptions used in this dissertation and the
research implications arising from these are stated and
discussed. Chapter 3 outlines the human ecological
approach as the conceptual framework and discusses the
family systems perspective. This is followed by a
discussion of the study of the family system. These
discussions provide the background for integration of
interpretive science with the family systems perspective.
Chapter 3 also examines and presents an organizational
schema for family properties. Research questions regarding
family congruency on different family properties are
identified and subsequently studied. Literature relevant
to the focus of the dissertation is incorporated in
Chapters 2 and 3.

Chapter 4 identifies the methodology used for this
study, while Chapter 5 reports and analyzes the results and

summarizes the contributions made by this dissertation

through relating the findings to an interpretive philosophy
of science perspective and an ecological and family systems

approach.

CHAPTER II: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES

Since Hobbes declared human behavior to be a
legitimate object of scientific knowledge and began
constructing a science of politics (McCarthy, 1978), there
has been debate concerning the philosophy of social
science. Although there is general agreement that the
purpose of science is "to give an organized account of the
universe--to connect, to fit together in relations of
subsumption, the statements embodying the knowledge that
has been acquired" (Rudner, 1966, p. 2), there is
considerable debate on how that should be done. Habermas
has identified three major philosophies of science, i.e.
perspectives on how human behavior should be studied,
positivistic, interpretive,-and critical (Brown, 1984).
Habermas developed a continuum of rationality for the three
perspectives in which he identified technical, hermeneutic,
and emancipatory rationality. These three perspectives
have also been labeled positivistic/technical,
interpretive/hermeneutic, and critical/emancipatory.
Following is a discussion and critique of these
perspectives outlining the presuppositions and evaluating
each as a method of scientific study, and specifically

evaluating the use Of each in family science.

Positivistic Science

 

Technical rationality and positivistic thinking have
dominated the social sciences (Giddens, 1977). Jurich
(1987, p. 4) states that "evidence of a positivist
orientation pervades much of the scholarly endeavors in
family studies." According to the positivist framework,
the world is conceived as having a reality that is
completely independent of the observer and, further, that
information about this objective world is adequate and all
that is needed by scientists (Geuss, 1981). While we
cannot deal with all the fragments within positivism, the
most widely accepted basic presuppositions of positivistic

science include:

1. The objects of study are static, i.e. humans cannot
change on their own (Pratt, 1978).

2. The relationship between knowledge and practice is
linear (Pratt, 1978; Rudner, 1966).

3. The major interest is to predict and control the
environment. Change can be brought about by learning
the causes and changing them (Keats and Urry, 1975;
Pratt, 1978; Rudner, 1966; Schutz, 1963).

4. The scientist is an objective observer. All research
is replicable and verifiable i.e. if something cannot
be observed, then it does not exist (Lindley, Fellows,

- & Macdonald, 1978; Brown, 1984).
5. Self concept is formed by success or failure at

controlling the environment (Brown, 1984).

The positivist believes that science should confine
itself to the data of experience and reject all
transcendent metaphysical and abstract speculation (Beck,
1979). Scientific theories consist of sets of highly
general universal statements, whose truth or falsity can be
assessed by means of systematic observation and
verification (Keat and Urry, 1975). The results of these
observations and experiments can be known either with total
certainty, or at least with a far greater degree of
certainty than anything else. Social phenomena as well as
natural should be explained by scientific laws not by ends,
final causes, or transcendent grounds (Beck, 1979). The
main effort of positivists is to look empirically at human
behavior in order to isolate basic human needs and methods
humans have for relating to each other. Values may be
studied empirically as obedience to law (Beck, 1979), but
an empiricist would not attempt to study values as causes
for actions.

According to Keat and Urry (1975), the main difficulty
for the positivist account of scientific explanation arises
from the existence of logical arguments which enable us
only to predict and not to explain the occurrence of
particular events. Watters (1985, p.109) pointed out that
I"all that is achieved is an answer as to whether or not
some delineated piece of behavior does or does not support
already held ideas." The positivist takes a small number
of behaviors and tests the relationship among them. The-

reasons for their occurrence are not considered nor are the

other system or environmental factors which may affect
these behaviors considered.

During the middle of the seventeenth century, Hobbes
outlined a program that took human behavior as the material
for a science of man, society, and the state. Social
scientists have since been searching for a correct
understanding of the laws of human nature, which would
enable the establishment of all the conditions for a proper
ordering of human life (McCarthy, 1978). They have not
been successful in finding the general covering laws of
human nature that would allow the scientist to predict
behavior a majority of the time. Humankind and their
environments are too complex for a simple causal model.
This fragmented science is unable to provide answers in a
society that calls for integrative thinking (Checkland,
1976) .

While positivists would argue that the role of the
scientist is to describe and predict human behavior,others
would criticize positivism for not being evaluative. Keats
and Urry (1975) criticized positivism by stating that since
positivism is not critical, it supports the status quo.
Osmund (1987) suggests that positivism serves to justify
the status quo in society. Since positivistic science does
not state what should be and then evaluate society against
that, it is in effect supporting the existing society. For
example, these theorists would argue that by only

describing the role of the man in the household as holding

the most power, the positivist is perpetuating that role
for men.

In applying positivistic science to the study of the
family from an ecosystems perspective, these criticisms
become clear. Positivistic science takes a very narrow
look at the family in that it examines a very limited
number of variables at a time. It does not consider all of
the environments and their interactions with the family.

In addition, technical rationality does not account for the
interaction of the family as a system. This will be
further discussed in the section on the family system.
PoSitivistic science has not developed a comprehensive
theory which integrates all of its fragmented propositions
regarding the family into a major complex theory.

Technical rationality also fails to do more than describe

the family. It offers no criticism nor guidance.

Interpretive Science

 

Interpretive science, based on hermeneutic
rationality, has the goal of communicating and arriving at
inter-subjective understanding of one another (Bubolz,
1988). While the approach is not new, e.g., symbolic
interaction is based on this perspective, a limited amount
of family research has been conducted using this
perspective. The basic presuppositions of interpretive

science include:

1. The interest is one of understanding other human beings

with whom we interact and come to mutual agreement on

the norms of conduct (Bleicher, 1980). Social rules
are formed which are used by society to determine what
performance is appropriate in the particular situation
(Brown, 1985).

2. People learn through the reflective process of seeking
rational intersubjective agreement. People are the
active users of language. They have the capacity to be
reflective and self-determining (Brown, 1985). People
seek true consensus on the basis of the most rationally
compelling argument (Bertalanffy, 1968).

3. Self-concept is formed by relating to others.

4. Social life is governed by intersubjectively produced,
understood, and agreed-upon norms, values, meanings,
and rules which shape interaction (Brown, 1984).

5. The relationship between knowledge and action is not
linear, i.e. knowledge is both acquired and used

(Brown, 1984).

The interpretive scientist believes that humans create
a culture based on language and formation of concepts.
Physical trial-and-error, which is largely characteristic
of animal behavior, is replaced by mental experimentation
which allows goal directedness to become possible
(Bertalanffy, 1968). Through interaction people come to
consensus as to what is reality. To the interpretivist the
major emphasis of study should be on people's perceptions
of reality in order to find causal explanations (Keat and

Urry, 1975). Explanatory understanding involves knowledge

10

of the motives which bear directly on the action performed
(Keat and Urry, 1975). While the positivist observes
behavior and makes inferences based on logic, the
intepretivist asks the participants the meaning of the
behavior or asks them their perception of the environment
and thus draws inferences directly from the participants.
Bleicher (1980) criticized this perspective because of
the subjectivity of the researcher. He suggested that the
prejudices held by the interpreter play an important part
in the findings, since there are no criteria for judging
the correctness or truth of proffered interpretations.
However, interpretive science seems especially well
suited for use in the study of the family since the members
of the family create meanings and social order of their
own. Because it asks the environed unit to interpret
events that occur, it fits well with the ecological
perspective. By identifying specific constructs of study
for each environment, researcher subjectivity should be
eliminated. It is the interpretation by the family members
that is to be studied. Additionally, interaction and goal
directedness are components of interpretive science which
also reflect components of the ecological approach. This
concept is further developed in the section on family

systems.

Critical Science

 

Critical science, based on emancipative rationality in

the Frankfurt tradition, has a goal of "freeing individuals

11

and groups from repression, opposition, irrationalities and
false consciousness" (Bubolz, 1988, p.1). Sprey, (1988)
suggests that Giddens clarifies radical critical theory by
asking the question "what types of soical change are
feasible and desirable, and how should we strive to achieve
them?" (p. 884). One of the current uses of a critical
science approach has been in the feminist movement where
gender inequality has been investigated and societal norms
and idealogies criticized (Osmund, 1987). Basic
presuppositions of critical science, based on Habermas,

include:

1. People have been influenced by ideologies which have
been developed by political groups in order to keep
people from thinking and disagreeing with these
repressive forces. PeOple could have perfect agreement
if they could escape the ideologies that society has
taught them (McCarthy, 1978).

2. Given "free speech" or a "perfect speech situation"
true consensus could be achieved because the logic
would be clear to all (McCarthy, 1978). If people
could freely communicate with each other, they would
come to consensus regarding social order.

3. The view that interpretive understanding could be the
sole methodological basis of social inquiry is
inadequate (McCarthy, 1978). An adequate social
methodology would have to integrate interpretive

understanding with critique of ideology. Habermas

12

called for the establishment of criteria by which the
ideological world can evaluate social life (Jurich,
1987).

4. Those who are educated, thinking people must evaluate
society and "rise up" against corruption. It is their
moral duty to fight the system (Keats and Urry, 1975)

and reconstruct capitalist society (McCarthy, 1978).

The critical scientist believes, just as the
interpretivist believes, that humans create a culture based
on language and formation of concepts. The beliefs and
concepts Serve as social rules (Brown, 1985). Human beings
are capable of revising their beliefs. However, the
critical Scientist also believes that there are
authoritarian pressures in society which shape beliefs and
actions (Brown, 1985). Acting according to these pressures
causes the individual to act in ways which are contrary to
the actions of the individual given free choice. The
critical scientist is obligated to criticize society and
and seek a more democratic social order (Brown, 1985).

There are some logical inconSistencies in Habermas’
argument. First, there are no "perfect speech situations"
as Habermas identified them since everyone exists in
society and has been influenced by that society.
Therefore, it is impossible for people to reach consensus.
In spite of striving for a perfect speech situation, the
corruption of society makes it unattainable. Second, even
given a "perfect speech situation" where people have not

been corrupted by ideologies, Habermas does not account for

13

psychological differences among people. He does not
account for internal forces such as greed, lust, pride. He
assumes a linear-causal world as the positivist does and
consequently, has the same theoretical problems as the
positivist (Keats and Urry, 1975). Since he believes that
without corruption all people will agree, then it must
follow that all people are the same and follow behavioral
law with no free choice. Third, in his argument that
people create reality through consensus, Habermas ignored
the natural environment. While it may be granted that much
of people's realities are created through interaction,
there is also a natural reality and physical conditions
that do exist. There is a natural order that man does not
create. Fourth, if, as Habermas argued, people are
corrupted by society's ideologies, then the educated,
thinking people are also corrupted, at least to a certain
extent. How can these corrupt people judge the corruption
of society? How can we ever escape society’s influence?
Other writers (Bubolz, 1984; Paolucci and Bubolz,
1980; Watters, 1984; Brown, 1984; and Osmond, 1981) have
taken a more moderate approach to critical theory. They
have advocated a critical approach to research which
evaluates the conditions, beliefs, and actions which
influence the status of the family. They assert that the
theorist/researcher has an obligation to be aware of
her/his own ideological positions and beliefs and how they
can influence observation and interpretation of events and

processes. For example, they have suggested that a

14

researcher should not only describe the woman in the
abusive family which is what a positivist would do, but the
critical scientist should also critique that situation as
well as understand why it exists. This critique is based
on society's value system and the researcher's beliefs
regarding human rights and obligations.

However, this researcher sees the need for a
separation between the theorist/researcher and the moral
evaluator. She does not believe that it is the role of the
researcher to evaluate society, since there are no clear
criteria for scientists to use in order to critique the
family. Instead, the researcher's role is to study what
processes are operating in society, e.g. in families, and
what are the results of these processes. The researcher is
a reporter of events. There is a need to study the
prevalent patterns occurring in society or families and the
factors correlated with these patterns. Then this
information should be communicated to and discussed with
other families and moral leaders, so they can make informed
decisions regarding changing families and society in agreed
upon directions. In other words, the family scientist
needs to search for family system processes, inform
families about these processes so they can choose to use a
process that will enable them to meet their goals. The
roles of researcher and moral evaluator need to be
separated.

In addition, it can be argued that there is

insufficient knowledge available for use as a basis for

15

these judgments. It is not known how a family operates.
It is not known which processes lead to which results.
Some specifics are known, e.g. family violence is
destructive to individual egos. But it is not known what
processes lead to family violence; which family processes
can be utilized to change family violence; nor exactly
which processes are utilized in the destruction of the
individual ego. A moral value could, perhaps, be
established, e.g. equality in the family, and then show
that inequality exists within the family. However, it is
not known which processes or family properties to change to
create equality. In summary, it is not known (1) what
processes are operating in family systems; (2) what causes
these processes to operate as they are; and (3) how to

change these processes to obtain certain results.

16

Philosophy of Science Perspectives Used in this

 

Dissertation

 

Based on the previous discussion and critique of
existing perspectives, the basic phiIOSOphy of science
assumptions used in this dissertation will be stated and
how they relate to the philosophy of interpretive science

will be discussed.

Basic Assumptions Used in this Dissertation

 

1. Humans act rather than‘morely respond. Humans are
agents outside the system of nature since they possess a
generative mechanism (Cushman, 1977). Individuals can and
do make purposive choice decisions among alternatives (Fay
1975). Humans are not passive recipients of information
but active users of language and thought (Brown, 1984).
Humans have the capacity to be reflective and
self-determining. They are capable of anticipating the
actions of others based on their relationship with the
other person and based on their past experiences with
similar situations. They are also capable of evaluating
outcomes and making adaptations in future encounters. In
addition, humans are also capable of self-reflection
(Brown, 1984).

Self-reflection is a basic presupposition of
interpretive theory. The interpretive scientist believes

that people change their views of the world and their

17

behavior based on their reflection of their interaction
with society.

2. People are interdependent in coordination situations.
In order to survive in society, behavior has to be
coordinated through the use of communication (Cushman,
1977). Held (1980) suggests that people exist in society,
and therefore, are forced to create intersubjectively
produced, understood, and agreed-upon norms, values,
meanings, and rules which shape interaction.

Similarly, interpretive scientists state that social
life is governed by agreed-upon norms, values, meanings and
rules (Brown, 1984). This agreement is achieved through
communication.

3. People impose order on their worlds in order to deal
with them (Cushman, 1977). Although universal laws of
behavior do not exist, peOple are capable of creating
regularity out of chaos. This order consists of rules,
norms, and patterns of behavior. This order can be divided
into sociocultural and personal. Sociocultural norms are
established by the culture and groups to which the
individual belongs. The culture establishes norms for
behavior through economic, political, and social factors.
In addition, various groups also establish norms for the
behavior of their group members. For example, religious
groups usually have formalized norms of behavior.
Sociocultural norms for behavior are transmitted through
communication (Habermas in Watters, 1985). In other words,

a sociocultural world is formed in addition to the natural

18

environment by interacting with others to establish
agreement on the norms of conduct by which people are to
live. Personal patterns and habits are guided by the
person's values and meanings much of which the person has
derived from cultural and sociological norms. When there
is a conflict among the norms of the various groups to
which the person belongs, the individual's values determine
which norms are followed. The person’s choices are also
influenced by the natural environment and the level of
technology existing in the culture. Shimanoff (1980, p.
23) states, "The major distinction that can be made
between laws and rule-related descriptions is that

relationships are determined in laws and prescribed by

 

rules."

Most People
Mechanistic x Free
Responses Choice

Figure 1. Individual choice continuum.

Figure 1 illustrates the continuum of individual
choice of humans. As is illustrated, humans are not
mechanically forced to follow certain laws of behavior.
Mechanistic responses are virtually stimulus responses.
Neither are humans operating in society allowed complete
free choice. Free choice is constrained by the necessity
of coordination and constrained by social institutions. In
order to function in society, people have to follow certain

norms. In addition, people repeat certain behaviors until

19

they form a pattern, in order to simplify their complex
world. In certain circumstances, they tend to follow a
specific pattern. Behavior is not deterministic, but.
probablistic since actors may choose to violate norms or
rules.

This reflects the interpretive Scientist’s belief that
society is governed by norms and rules (Brown, 1984).
However, to the interpretivist, the major emphasis of study
should be on people’s perceptions of reality. The major
emphasis of study by this researcher is the search for
common norms, rules, and processes used by families to

relate to each other and interact with the rest of society.

Research Implications

 

Based on the underlying framework, assumptions and
literature, certain research implications can be drawn.
First, Fay (1975) suggests that one task of the
interpretive social scientist is to discover the set of
rules which underlies behavior. Given choice-governed
behaviors, location of regularities would appear to be a
futile endeavor. However, Cushman (1977) suggests that
there are commonalities among the patterns people use which
are empirically persistent and verifiable. Both
sociological-cultural norms, family system processes, and
personal patterns can be studied. These norms, processes,
and patterns are discovered empirically by observation of

behaviors (Brown, 1984; Keat and Urry, 1975).

20

Bleicher (1980) suggests, "Access to other human
beings is possible only by indirect means: what we
experience initially are gestures, sounds, and actions and
only in the process of understanding do we take the step
from external signs to the underlying inner life, the
psychological existence of the Other" (p.158). Second,
then, the social scientist needs to study these norms and
patterns.

Specifically, the family scientist needs to study the
behaviors of the family which represent the processes
operating in the family system. Unfortunately, it is
difficult and expensive to study family processes. Hence,
individuals within the family are now commonly studied or
form the units of analysis, and family processes and

properties are constucted or inferred from individual data.

CHAPTER III: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: THE ECOLOGICAL
APPROACH

The conceptual framework of this study is based upon a
family ecological systems approach. This reflects the
belief that the family and its immediate environment form a
complex, dynamic, living system (Melson, 1980).
Bronfenbrenner (1979) points out the impossibility of
understanding human behavior solely from the objective
properties of an environment without reference to its
meaning for the people in the setting. Family members are
not only linked by patterns of reciprocal influence but
also in a network of physical and social environments
(Herrin & Wright, 1988). Humans are a part of the total
life system and must be considered as a part of the
environment that surrounds them (Bubolz & Whiren, 1984). A
family ecosystem has three central organizing concepts: the
environed unit (the family), its environment, and the
patterning of interactions and transactions between them
(Andrews, Bubolz, Paolucci, 1980). This study will examine

the family system as the environed unit.

21

22

The Family As a System

A family organizes itself in and with its.environment
and develops ways of comprehending, seeing, hearing,
understanding, and knowing its environment (Reuben and Kim,
1975). "Families do not merely reflect the larger culture
and social structure; they create meanings and
relationships and individualities" (Handel, 1967, p.2).

As a consequence of this process, no two families will view
the objects or people in their environments in the same
way. What the family becomes is therefore a function of
having organized itself in particular ways with the objects
and people in its milieu. Gagnon and Greenblat (1978)
suggest that because of the way in which a family organizes
itself, it may be said to have a culture, a corporate
identity, that the individuals in the family seek to
maintain. A family behaves as a whole not as an aggregate
(Ackerman, 1984).

The family is not merely the sum of the individuals
who reside in it. It is a system of interaction larger
than the separate desires or activities of the constituent
individuals (Gagnon and Greenblat, 1978). The whole of the
system is greater than the sum of its parts. The parts of
the system are less important than the connectedness of the
parts (Fisher, 1980). The family as a whole is radically
different from the sum of its parts (Ackerman, 1984). The

family system is holistic and nonsummative.

23

Families demonstrate equifinality (Galvin and Bromel,
1982). For example, several families may have a theme of
"we will help those in need" and each may work toward
their goal of living out such a theme differently, e.g. by
gathering food for needy families, giving money to aid
overseas organizations, or by volunteering for the Peace
Corps. In addition to arguing that the same consequent
does not always result from similar antecedent conditions,
Fisher also argues that similar antecedent conditions do
not always lead to the same consequent, therefore we have
multifinality (Rubin and Kim, 1972). Equifinality and
multifinality exist because the whole of the family system
is holistic and nonsummative.

In addition, the family system consists of
interdependent parts. Each member of the family affects
and is affected by the other members of the family just as
with other types of systems (Miller, 1978). Handel (1967,
p.6) states, "Intrafamilial relationships are interlocking
and contingent upon one another. The relationship of
husband and wife both affects and is affected by the
relationship of each to each child". As Schucts and Hicks
(1981) state "the family is viewed as an interacting group
of individuals who are emotionally, physically, and
psychologically interdependent" (p.6). Paolucci, Hall, and
Axinn (1977) suggest that "one fundamental characteristic
of the family ecosystem is that it is made up of a
collectivity of interdependent but independent parts

working together to achieve a common purpose" (p.13).

24

Belsky, Lerner, and Spanier (1984) state ”Children and
their families reciprocally influence each other. Neither
a child nor a family is a static entity. ...The structure
of the family changes when additional children are added to
it and when older children leave home"(p.74).

This study focuses on one of the organizing concepts
of the human ecosystem, the family system and tangentially
refers to a second organizing concept, patterning of
interactions and transactions between them. However, it is
still necessary to identify and briefly discuss the third
concept, environment. Generally, the environment can
further be divided into three sub-environments: the natural
physical-biological environment, the human behavioral or
social-cultural environment, and the human built
environment (Bubolz, et a1, 1979). The family system is
affected by and affects its environments. The natural
environment provides the family system with resources to
meet needs and attain goals. The social-cultural
environment can include the social and political systems
with which the family system interacts and provides both
resources and constraints for the family system. The human
built environment provides the physical setting in which

the family system operates.

Study of the Family System

 

The interdependency of the family members precludes
using a linear-causal model to study the family. The

family system is not a simple causal chain (Ackerman, 1984,

25

p.20). In addition, equifinality and multifinality
preclude studying the family using a model which examines
one variable and predicts how the manipulation of the
variable (or a series of variables) affects other
variables. Rather, the family needs to be examined from a
systems perspective which allows for mutual causal models
and reciprocal casual models, for causation is multiple and
reciprocal (Fisher in Ruben and Kim, 1975).

While this perspective allows the study of a complex
system, it also demands that the study be of all parts of
the complex system. With the complexity of the family
system, many variables simultaneously mutually affect the
system, so it is impossible to isolate the variables.

Even if it were possible to isolate individual variables,
they would act differently in isolation because of the
absence of the interaction effect which normally exists in
a system. For example, let us examine marital quality with
the independent variable of amount of self-disclosure.
Lewis and Spanier (1979) in their review of the marital
quality literature state the following proposition "The
more the self-disclosure between the spouses, the greater
the marital quality" (p.282). Fitzpatrick, Fallis, and
Vance (1982), on the other hand, state that based on their
research "Individuals in intimate relationships seek an
equilibrium point between the need to be open in their
relationships and the need to protect the mate or family
member from the consequences of such openness. From this

perspective, communication in ongoing relationships may be

26

said to require a constant balance between hiding and
revelation" (p. 61). Instead of the linear causal
relationship proposed by Lewis and Spanier, Fitzpatrick et
a1. (1982) discuss a curvilinear relationship. There
appears to be an interaction effect between the amount of
self—disclosure and the nature of the relationship. One
might also propose that there would also be an interaction
effect for the amount of self-disclosure, the nature of the
relationship, the value the couple gives to openness of the
relationship, the longevity of the relationship, and the
nature of the self-disclosure. The researcher would also
have to be concerned with the problem of incongruency
between the partners. One partner may perceive
self-disclosure as more threatening than the other partner.
The partners may be very different in their assessment of
.the quality of their marriage. Linear-causal relationships
and static, unidirectional variables do not adequately
describe a family system (Handel, 1967).

In addition, families need to be studied in terms of
their interaction rather than in terms of the intrinsic
characteristics of individual family members (Schucts and
Hicks, 1981). The unit of study should be the family as a
whole rather than the individual. Kantor and Lehr (1975)
proposed that each family should be studied in its entirety
rather than in terms of its separate parts. Interpersonal
behavior and relationships i.e. interacts or family

processes rather than individual behavior or psychological

traits, should be studied.

27

According to von Bertalanffy, a system is
’entities standing in interaction.’ This means
that any group of entities constitutes a system if
change in behavior of an entity is a function of
the sum of the behavior of all other entities.
Certainly, families exhibit what have been called
constitutive characteristics, rather than summative
characteristics. This means that the group varies
with its components’ relationships rather than with
numbers. When a child is born to a couple, it is a
brand new group, not the same group with an
addition. When a parent is lost (or a child), the
same is true. A family is distinguished by its
parts together with their relationships, and it
behaves as a whole, not as an aggregate. (Ackerman,
1984, p.16)

Since the family is a system, the need then is to
study the family as a system. "It is not possible to get
systems answers unless we ask systems questions".
(Broderick and Smith in Burr et al., 1979, p. 128).

Schucts and Hicks (1981) state that the systems perspective
"offers the richest potential for the future study of
families" (p. 18). Holman and Burr addressed this issue in

Decade Review (1980), "Some scholars have suggested that

 

systems theory may be the wave of the future, providing
generalizations useful for understanding not only family
systems, but other systems as well" (p. 10).

In order to study the family system, (1) the unit of
analysis needs to be the family not the individual; and (2)
dynamic processes need to be studied, rather than static
variables. If the family is a system, if the family system
is greater than the sum of the individuals, and if there is
an interdependency among the family members, the family,
not the individuals, must be the unit of analysis.

Variables must be studied which represent family system

28

properties, not intrinsic characteristics of individual
psychological traits that make the family unique, but the
way in which the unique individuals mesh that make the
family system. I

It was a large step forward in family research when
Handel (1967) and others began to question how families
could be studied without data from all the family members.
They recognized, for example, that family power could not
be studied by asking the mother in the family about the
family's power distribution. They recognized that the
nature of the data collected depends on who serves as the
informant and there is a need for multiple perspectives

(Klein, 1984). The 1982 special issue of Journal of

 

Marriage and the Family entitled "Methodology : the Other

 

Side of Caring," contained a special section of articles on
the measurement of relationships. Every article asserted
that a family cannot be represented accurately by
measurements obtained from one member (Walters, Pittman,
and Norrell, 1984).

Since large discrepancies occur when data are
collected from various family members, the problem of
handling these discrepant reports arises. In a special
session on the measurement of families at the Theory and
Research Pre-Conference of the 1984 National Council of
Family Relations, several suggestions were made for
analyzing data collected from more than one family member.
Schumm et al. (1984) suggested that a covariance-based

scoring technique would be a useful technique. Walters et

29

a1. (1984) suggested a complex formula for combining the
family members’ scores which includes individual scores,
individual variance, and family variance. Klein suggested
several models for combining family members’ scores.
Ezell, Paolucci, and Bubolz (1984) tested several of these
methods of combining scores. But the problem with all of

these suggestions is that they are still combining

 

individual scores. If the family system is greater than

 

the.sum of the individuals, then researchers should not be
summing individual family member scores to arrive at a
family score. In his critique of Walters et al., White
(1984) states "the aggregation of individual scores to
create family scores undermines the premise that the family
is not just the sum of its parts because such aggregation
is, indeed, just a technique for summing the parts" (p.
515).

As Dell states, "clear systemic thinking forbids
talking of one aspect of the system as separate from and
causally acting upon other parts of the system" (1982, p.
23). It is necessary to find systemic, holistic properties
which represent the family as a whole, not just the
cumulation of the individuals, because the family whole

transcends the cumulation of the individuals.

Family System Studies

 

Three sets of researchers have done studies which come
close to the types of holistic family studies that have

been suggested in this paper.

30

Kantor and Lehr (1975) developed a relational typology
based on a cybernetic model which views the information
processed by the family as distance regulation information
(The Distance Regulation Model). They suggest that
'families evolve particular patterns of interactional
activity through the various ways in which they utilize,
access and target dimensions. The access dimensions of
space, time, and energy describe the physical aspects of
family’s experience. The target dimensions of affect,
power, and meaning describe and include the conceptual
aspects of the family’s experience. Kantor and Lehr
proposed three types of relationships in their model:
open, closed, and random, based on the access dimensions
utilized by given families to gain particular targets which
they value.

Kantor and Lehr sent observers into the homes of
clinical and non-clinical families to observe over a period
of time. In this way the family systems were observed in
the natural setting with most of the interacting components
present. This is a great advancement over almost all other
studies, but Kantor and Lehr still seem to look at the
individuals. For example, they list the player roles, and
then suggest the impact of each role on the family system.
They use a systems framework but study the impact of
individual behavior.

Although Kantor and Lehr’s work has generated much
discussion, it has generated little research. In fact,

studies demonstrate that Kantor and Lehr’s dimensions may

31

not be confirmed through factor analysis (Buerkel-Rothfuss
and Yerby, 1981). A

Reiss (1981) believes that each family is guided in
its transactions with the world by its family paradigm
which acts as a central organizer of its shared constructs,
sets expectations, and fantasizes about its soCial world.
This is described as The Consensual Experience Model. His
research showed that families can be distinguished by the
differences in their paradigms. Reiss identified three
characteristics which he found helpful in distinguishing
among families.‘ First, families differ in the belief that
the world is ordered and that its mysteries are
discoverable through reasoned search. Second, families
differ in their openness to the world and the extent to
which they view their family as a unitary group. Third,
families differ in their experience of novelty in their
world. Reiss had families work on puzzles in a laboratory
situation. He then examined the different ways in which
the families related to each other and handled the puzzles.
While this research does include the whole family and
examines them in a holistic manner, the laboratory
situation does not parallel real life. It is hard to know
how generalizable the findings of this research are to real
life.

The Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems

(Olson and McCubbin, 1983) focuses on three salient
dimensions of family dynamics-adaptability, cohesion, and

communication. The model enables the researchers to

32

classify families into types; the primary ones are
Balanced, Mid-Range, and Extreme. A paper and pencil
instrument, FACES II, is administered to husbands, wives,
and adolescent family members. Scores are combined in a
variety of ways to arrive at Couple Scores and Family
Scores. Olson and McCubbin report that the level of
husband and wife agreement was rather low, ranging from
correlations of .46 and .32. Several studies have
generally supported the model (Olson and McCubbin, 1983).

Of the models currently being used as the basis of
research the Circumplex Model adheres most closely to the
criteria set out in this paper. Certainly, cohesion,
adaptability, and communication are family system
variables. They represent the family rather than the
individual and they are dynamic process variables. The
problem with the use of this model is the aggregation of
individual data. Although these researchers try to use a
variety of methods for combining the data, they are still
using a cumulative score for the family score rather than
observing the family as a whole and assigning a family
score based on the whole family.

Constantine (1983) has developed a family typology,
the Unified Process Theory which he believes incorporates
the other major family typologies including Olson’s
Circumplex Model, and Reiss's Consensual Experience Model,
and Kantor and Lehr’s Distance Regulation Model.
Constantine (1988) argues that while his typology resembles

some of these other theoretical models, his differs in that

33

"this framework does not reflect statistically revealed
common factors in particular data sets or represent the
characteristics of particular measuring devices or
techniques" (p. 284). He suggests that this typology is
"merely a conceptual device, a classification of ways of
thinking about families..." (1988, p. 284). Constantine’
theory does not add significantly to family theory. He has
not added anything of importance to Olson’s Circumplex
Model with which parts of the Unified Process Theory are
isomorphic. In addition, by lacking an empirical base,
this model lacks grounding in reality.

The next section will explore family properties and
set-up a schema for organizing family properties as a part
of the search for the systemic, holistic properties for

which Dell calls.

Family Properties

 

Family properties are attributes which can be used to
characterize the family asra whole. These distinguishing
traits belong to the family as a whole since they describe
the family system. These qualities are phenomena which are
not considered to belong to individual family members.
Reiss, Oliveri, and Curd (1983) suggest that each family
has a set of core assumptions, convictions, or beliefs that
it holds about its environment; these assumptions guide the
family to sample certain segments of its world and ignore
others. These family properties cause each family system

to function differently from other family systems.

34

These family properties can be used as constructs with

the family as the unit of analysis.

Stable and Dynamic Properties

 

Family properties can be arranged on a continuum
varying from those which remain relatively stable or static
for long periods of time to those which are dynamic and
frequently redefined. Stable properties are often discrete
variables such as sex. They are variables which remain
stable for years at a time e.g. family membership. When
stable properties do change, they usually change in
discrete intervals. They do not shift on a continuum.

Even environmental factors remain stable for long periods
of time with a crisis changing them upon rare occasions.
Family income remains stable relative to other families
unless unemployed members become employed or the family
experiences an economic setback. Then family income is
changed greatly, but again stabilizes for a period of time.
The family culture, e.g. family values and themes,
generally remains stable or changes slowly.

Dynamic family properties are those which change and
evolve because of the interaction process of the family
system. Family members negotiate and change these system
properties. Cohesion, adaptability, communication, and the
family image are modified as the family system adapts to a
changing environment and to changing members as they go
through the life stages. Family systems differ in the rate

at which these properities change. Burr and Lowe (1987)

35

suggest that adaptability, cohesion, and communication are
not outcomes or goals, rather they are transformation
processes or system characteristics that help families
attain desired outcomes. Gagnon and Greenblat (1978)
suggest that "patterns of decision making and influence
tend to evolve. They are not static..."(p.113).

Dynamic properties exist on a continuum. They are not
discrete variables. For example, a family is not either
cohesive or separated. Each family has a level of cohesion
which is made up of different levels of cohesion concerning
different parts of the family system. In other words, the
amount of family cohesion for each family varies from topic
to topic and from time-to-time (see Figure 2).

Abstract
|

Stable Dynamic

 

l
I
|
'I
I
l
|
Concrete

Figure 2. Continuum of family properties.

Concrete and Abstract Family Properties

 

In addition to family properties being either stable
or dynamic, family attributes also vary from abstract to
concrete. Stable family properties tend to be fairly
concrete. Family membership, income, housing, etc. are

concrete observable, measurable attributes. While family

36

beliefs, values, and themes are fairly stable they are not
as observable and consequently are more abstract.

Dynamic properties tend to be more abstract.
Cohesion, adaptability, boundaries etc. are not directly
observable. These abstract variables have to be inferred

from other observable behaviors.

Individual Family Member Attributes

 

There are several attributes which belong to
individual family members or a sub-group in the family, but
which greatly affect the family system and, which are
affected by the family system. Education levels (Lipsitz,
1980a), occupation, self esteem, personality, and health of
family members greatly affect the family system just as the
family system affects these individual attributes.
Traditionally, many of these have been identified as family
variables, however, it must be noted that these are.
individual attributes not family system properties i.e.
education level may vary significantly between spouses as
is also true of health, age and other individual

attributes, (see Figure 3).

Stable Concrete Properties

Several family attributes are consistent over time and
observable and therefore tend to fall on the stable end of
the stable/dynamic continuum and the concrete end of
concrete/abstract continuum. Family composition remains
constant over periods of time and then changes in discrete

categories. Families differ based on the positions and

37

FAMILY PROPERTIES

 

Family properties are attributes which can be used
to characterize the family as a whole. They are
phenomena which are not considered to belong to
individual family members.

STABLE PROPERTIES

 

Stable properties are either discrete variables
such as sex or variables which remain stable for
periods of time. They are not in the process of
being modified and changed. When stable properties
do change, they usually change in discrete
intervals--they do not shift on a continuum.

Stable Concrete Properties
Family Membership
Environmental Factors

 

Stable Abstract Properties
Family Culture

 

DYNAMIC PROPERTIES

 

Dynamic properties are constantly evolving because
of the interaction process of the family system.
Due to the dynamic nature of these properties, they
are more abstract, and, therefore, there is no
category for Dynamic Concrete Properties.

Dynamic Abstract Properties
Family Structure
Cohesion
Adaptability
Communication
Family Image

 

INDIVIDUAL FAMILY MEMBER ATTRIBUTES THAT AFFECT THE
FAMILY SYSTEM

 

 

These are individual properties which belong to
individual family members or a sub-group in the
family, but they greatly affect the family system
and the family system affects these attributes.

Education level
Occupation
Self-esteem
Personality
Health

Figure 3. Description of family properties.

38

roles which are filled in the family. Does the family have
two parents or just one? Is it a traditional family, or a
blended family and does it contain extended family members?
What is the marital type? Is it a first marriage, second
marriage? Is it monogamous, polygynous, polyandrous? What
is the family membership? How large is the family? What
is its sex and age composition/distribution? Does the
family contain sub-systems such as the marital couple,
parent-child groups, or sibling groups?

Environmental Factors of the family system are
relatively stable concrete properties. The physical
availability of resources differs from family to family.
Melson (1980) discusses the family-environment "fit" as the
discrepancy between demands and supplies with the lower
such a discrepancy, the better the fit. Standard of living
or income are sometimes used as indicators of availability
of resources. Galvin and Brommel (1982) suggest that this
system/environmental "fit" can be extended to the fit
between the style of family interaction and the
environment. Congruency between the family and its housing
occurs when aspects of the environment are clear
expressions of the family’s identity, the way the members
relate and the way they see the outside world. The non-fit
category applies to those homes which are unsuited to the
family’s pattern. Urbanicity is a family property since
the surrounding territory may partially dictate how the
family relates to its environment and other systems

(Melson, 1980). Some neighborhoods prevent socialization

39

because it is too ”dangerous". (Galvin and Brommel, 1982).
Availability of social support systems is also an

environmental family factor.

Stable Abstract Properties

 

One group of family system properties remains stable
over time, but is abstract and must be inferred from other
behaviors. Family Culture is the general climate of the
‘family (Olson and McCubbin, 1983). Family beliefs, values,
value based goals, and family themes are parts of the
family culture. The ethnic-racial background and more
specifically the family-of-origin background each spouse
brings to the relationship is a significant social

influence on the family culture (Galvin and Brommel, 1982).

Dynamic Abstract Properties

 

Dynamic properties are constantly evolving because of
the interaction process of the family system. Because of
the dynamic nature of these properties, they are more
abstract. Therefore, we do not have properties which are

dynamic concrete properties.

Family Structure is comprised of several dimensions
including cohesion, and adaptability. Olson (1983) defines
family cohesion as "the emotional bonding that family
members have toward one another" (p. 48). Within cohesion
emotional bonding, boundaries, coalitions, time, space,
friends, decision making, and interests and recreation are

measured. When considering boundaries, Galvin and Brommel

40

(1982) suggest that families create boundaries within which
family members are expected to function. Handel (1967)
believes each family system sets up physical and
psychological boundaries for dealing with the world and
these determine for family members what parts of the
outside world with which it may deal. Some boundaries are
permeable, or allow movement across them, and others resist
much movement across them. Thus boundaries vary in
openness/closedness. In addition, boundaries vary in
clarity/ambiguity. .Boundaries also control the linkages
with other social systems.

Adaptability is "the ability of a marital or family
system to change its power structure, role relationships,
and relationship rules in response to situational and
developmental stress" (Olson and McCubbin, 1983, p. 48).
Adaptability is measured by family power, negotiation
styles, role relationships, and relationship rules. Family
power relates to the ability of one family member to
influence the outcome she desires (Scanzoni & Szinovacz,
1980; Fitzpatrick and Badzinski, 1985; Galvin and Brommel,
1982). Fitzpatrick and Badzinski (1985) point out that it
is important not only who makes a particular decision, but
also who decides that this person may make those decisions
and who determines who will decide which family member will
make a decision.

Communication, which is another property, which falls at
the dynamic and abstract ends of the continuums, may be

viewed as a symbolic, transactional process, or the process

41

of creating and sharing meanings (Galvin and Brommel,
1982). Olson and McCubbin (1983) consider communication to
be the facilitating dimension critical to cohesion and
adaptability. They suggest that positive communication
skills, i.e. empathy, reflective listening, and supportive
comments enable families to share with each other their
changing needs and preferences as they relate to cohesion
and adaptability. Fitzpatrick and Buadzinski (1985) also
see communication as an underlying mechanisms which
produces and reproduces the social structure of the family.

Each family develops its own Family Image which is a
third dynamic abstract property. Families vary in
satisfaction, capability i.e. capable families to inept
families (Beavers and Voeller, 1984), effectiveness (Burr
and Lowe, 1987), resiliency (McCubbin and McCubbin, 1988),
and ability to function, i.e. families that work well
together (Galvin and Brommel, 1982). In addition, through
its own development, each family develops its assumptions
about the world in which it lives. The family paradigm
serves as a central organizer of its shared constructs, and
expectations about its world (Reiss, 1981). As each family
builds its history and develops its paradigm, it forms an
image of itself and how it differs from other families
(Handel, 1967; Melson, 1980). The family is continually
modifying its image.

Several family scholars have described the

developmental nature of the family, how the family system

moves through transitions or Family Life Stages, e.g. Hill

42

(1974), Duvall (1988), and Aldous (1978). The family
begins as a childless couple, adds the first child and so
on until the children leave home and the couple has no
children at home again. Galvin and Brommel (1982) and
others point out the need to account for families with
numerous children or widely spaced children so that the
family system is in several stages at the same time, i.e.
simultaneous stages. The need to develop appropriate
categories for divorced, remarried and step families has
also been recognized (Aldous, 1978). Olson and McCubbin
(1983) found that "Marital and family satisfaction was
higher at early and later stages of the family life cycle
when couples were living without children. Satisfaction
was lowest at the Adolescent stage, when family stress was
the highest" (p.39). Family life stage is not considered a
family property in the schema presented here. It is an
analytical device for classifying families on the basis of

selected criteria such as presence and/or age of children.

Family Congruency

 

Family congruency is defined as the degree of
agreement among the family members. Congruency and
discrepancy form a continuum of agreement/disagreement. As
Jesse Bernard (1972) has pointed out in discussing ’his
marriage’ and ’her marriage,’ if you ask both spouses the
same question, there is rarely high congruency in their
answers. Olson and Rabunsky (1972) point out that there

are substantial differences in men’s and women’s answers

43

about the length of premarital acquaintance, length of
engagement, age at marriage, frequency of sexual relations,
social interaction, household tasks, and decision making.
Ball and McKenry (1983) suggest that a major methodological
problem in family research is the heavy reliance on wives
as the sole source of data. In discussing marital
power studies, Quarm (1981) reports that most studies have
found large discrepancies. She reported studies that have
found between-spouse correlations ranging from .15 to .86
and suggests that most correlations are low considering the
fact that husbands and wives are supposed to be reporting
on the same reality. Low congruency is usually explained
by differences in perception of husbands and wives or
ideology (Quarm, 1981). She also found that part of the
lackof congruency was attributable to random measurement
error and that increasing the reliability of measures can
increase the correlation between spouses.

Gecas and Schwalbe (1986) found there was also little
congruency between parents’ reports of their behavior and
their adolescent’s perceptions of this behavior. Thompson,
Acock, and Clark (1985) found that both mothers and fathers
had limited ability to gauge the attitudes of their young
adult sons and daughters. Except for "Fundamentalist
Religious Beliefs" and "Sexual Permissiveness", parents did
not even agree between themselves about their sons’ and
daughters’ opinions. Additionally, other researchers have
found little congruency on family life (Jessop, 1981; Hess

and Torney, 1971).

44

Generally, low levels of congruency have been found in
families. However, when congruency among family members
was examined in light of the type of family property, it
was found that there was higher family congruency on
concrete, stable properties than on abstract, dynamic
properties. There may be differences in congruency among
family members depending upon the nature of family
property. Olson (in Szinovacz, 1983) suggests that such a
difference occurred when he advocated a clear
differentiation between "behavioral" and "attitudinal"
self-report data. He argued that the indicators of
specific behaviors should be minimally affected by
perceptual divergencies and thus result in similar
responses by all family members. Attitudinal indicators

can be expected to be less similar.

Concrete, Stable Properties

 

Cohen and Orum (1972) found high agreement on
socio-economic factors. Ezell et a1. (1984) in a study of
107 randomly selected families (husband, wife, oldest
child) found congruent perceptions about the child’s
household production responsibilities. Berk and Shih
(1980) in a study of 748 couples in a national study found
that couples generally agreed on who did household tasks.
Niemi (1974) found high congruency among parents and their
son/daughter on the demographic variables of number of
children in the family, father’s education, mother’s

education, and father’s occupation in a study of over 1500

45

college students and their parents. These family
properties remain somewhat stable over long periods of time

and therefore are easily and objectively measured.

Abstract, Dynamic Prgperties

 

Ezell et a1. (1984) found that the triadic perceptions
of quality of whole life were not congruent. Niemi (1974)
in his study of college students and their parents found
much lower levels of congruency on abstract, dynamic
properties such as reports of other’s politics, parent’s
relationship, student-parent closeness, and family decision
making than he did on stable, concrete properties such as
demographics. These family properties are evolving due to
the interaction process of the family system and
consequently are difficult to measure when based on the
perception of one family member.

Although researchers have been encouraged for over 25
years to collect data from more than one family member,
researchers continue to rely on data from one family member
(Bokemier and Monroe, 1983). Most researchers do not study
families but rather individuals in a family setting (Ezell
et al. 1984; McDonald, 1980). In a content analysis of 80
research articles published in professional journals,
Bokemier and Monroe (1983) found that 37 per cent of the
authors had relied on one family member for data to be
generalized to the family unit. They also suggest that one
of the major reasons for the continued reliance on

individual respondents is a pragmatic, convenience

46

rationale. Collection and analysis of data from more than
one family member significantly increase the costs and
complexity of a study (Szinovacz, 1983; Ezell et a1. 1984).
Niemi (1974) further suggests that observations and
experimentation of more than one family member require a
degree of cooperation not usually given to researchers. It
requires more time to gather data and it is more difficult

to arrange interviews with more than one family member.

Research Problem and Question

 

One way to minimize the cost, but yet secure the
necessary data, would be to gather some data from one
member of the family and other data from several members of
the family. If the researcher could be assured that the
data collected from the individual would accurately
represent the whole family system, i.e. that there is high
family congruence, then family research would be easier and
less expensive. If there are differences found in family
congruency depending upon the nature of the family
property, then the researcher could obtain data
inexpensively from one family member on highly congruent
properties and use higher cost multi-family member data for
low congruent properties. This concept has been supported
in Quarm’s (1981) work which found that acceptable measures
can be developed for certain spheres of power using the
responses of only spouse. For instance, if power over the

wife’s work status were being measured for a study of

47

working women, asking the husband would not add information
to that of the wife.

The purpose of this study is to determine which family
properties are amenable to survey research and which
properties are best studied using observation. This leads
to the following research question: Are there differences
in the degree of congruency among family members based on

the family property being studied?

CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY

This study is a secondary analysis of the Michigan
Early Adolescent Survey (MEAS), a larger study, sponsored
by the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, the
Department of Family and child Ecology at Michigan State
University and the 4H youth programs of the Michigan
Cooperative Extension Service. Dr. Joanne Keith and Dr.
Leah Hoopfer were directors of the study. The study was
undertaken to determine the degree of congruence among
mothers, fathers, and their early adolescent children on
several family properties.

Although assumptions of the interpretive perspective
or science were the basis of this dissertation, it was not
possible to use interpretive methodology which would yield
mutual understanding and intersubjective agreement on
meanings of experiences, norms, rules and values. The data
used were obtained through structured questionnaires and
did not involve direct reciprocal communication between

the researcher and the persons studied.

48

49

Hypothesized Relationship

 

Hypothesis: Stable, concrete family properties such
as family income, urbanicity and shared family activities
will have higher family congruency than dynamic, abstract
family properties such as family stress level, family

closeness, and communication patterns.

Sampling Procedure

 

A sample of 285 Michigan families was interviewed
using the Michigan Early Adolescent Survey. Early
adolescents, 10-to-14 years of age, chosen for this study
were selected using a stratified multistage cluster
approach. Using the stratifier early adolescent, population
clusters were randomly assigned to counties. The three
strata identified were: (1) highly urban counties; (2)
counties with large cities and rural areas; (3) highly
rural counties. Stratum 1 was assigned eight clusters;
stratum 2 nine clusters; and stratum 3, eight clusters to
represent the proportion of early adolescents in each
stratum.. Eighteen counties were initially selected from
among Michigan’s 83 counties. Two densely populated
counties, Wayne and Oakland, had more interviews assigned
than could possibly be conducted, consequently,
substitutions were made based on similarity of
demographics. Three of Wayne County’s clusters were
reassigned to Genessee and Jackson Counties. Since Wayne

County’s sample was to have been drawn from the Detroit

50

Public Schools, primarily a black, inner-city group, the
reassigned clusters were chosen from Flint and Jackson
Public Schools because their respective student bodies
represented inner city populations. One cluster from
Oakland County was assigned to Macomb County, again
geographically and demographically most like the original
county. A second problem occurred whensome counties
chose not to participate in the study necessitating further
substitutions. Insuring sampling representative of the
substrata, county substitutions were made as follows:
Ingham for Washtenaw, Presque Isle for Emmett, and
Marquette for Chippewa. The list of counties with their

respective numbers of clusters is shown below:

Final Counties and Number of Clusters for Sample

Wayne (2) Eaton (1) St. Clair (1)
Oakland (2) Lenawee (1) Calhoun (1)
Macomb (2) Allegan (1) Benzie (1)
Kent (1) Van Buren (1) Delta (1)
Saginaw (2) Tuscola (1)

Ingham (1) Marquette (1)

Kalamazoo (1) Presque Isle (1)

Genessee (2) Jackson (1)

Within each county, the clusters were then randomly
assigned to public and private school districts which had
been weighted according to their student population using
the official Department of Education head count record of

public and private schools for the 1982-83 school year.

51

School districts were unable to provide information
regarding the exact number of 10-14 year olds in their
schools, therefore weighting was based upon the total
number of students enrolled in each district. There was a
possibility of bias in the selection process at this point
if there were disproportionate numbers of 10 to 14 year
olds in some districts. However, it would be surprising to
find that one school is substantially larger in grades 5
through 8 and substantially smaller in the other grades
than other schools in the state. A
School districts in fourteen of' twenty counties
cooperated by providing student names:' It was necessary to
make substitutions in the six remaining counties as the
school districts initially identified refused to
participate in the study. In four counties, permission was
secured from the next district chosen by random selection.
Oakland county needed to contact four school districts
before receiving permission to sample in two districts.
Jackson Public Schools refused to participate so the
Catholic schools in that city were substituted and sampling
took place from their inner city schools. This brought the
largest amount of bias into the sample, in terms of
possible racial and religious difference.
At each school, lists of youths in grades 5, 6, 7, and
8 were obtained, and one boy and one girl from each grade
were randomly selected. Three alternate names were chosen
for each boy and girl. If the youth drawn first would not

participate in the study, the next alternate name could be

52

contacted. Slightly over two times the number of families
needed had to be contacted in order to fill the designated
interview positions. The most difficult subjects to
recruit into the study were the fourteen-year-old males.
This sampling technique assured that all 5th through 8th
grade youths in the state of Michigan had an equal
probability for being selected for the study.

A total of 304 youths were selected. Only 285 were
subsequently interviewed, since some counties were unable
to interview sufficient respondents to fulfill their
assigned number. To insure that strata were
- proportionately represented, weighting was used to bring
each stratum up to the desired number. Stratum 1, the
urban group, had the most difficulty with data collection
and therefore underrepresented the youth living in urban
areas. The total number of actual respondents for each
stratum was identified and then divided by the target
number for the stratum resulting in the number used for
weighting for the particular stratum. Weights for the
strata were: Stratum 1, 1.1566265; Stratum 2, 1.046729; and

Stratum 3, 1.0105263.

Interview Procedure

 

Each family was interviewed at home by a trained
interviewer. The interviewer asked the parents and youth
the questions on the "Household" Questionnaire which
included items such as household occupants and ethnicity.

Then the interviewer interviewed the youth, and a

53

questionnaire was administered to each parent separately in
two—parent homes and to the parent in one-parent homes.
Interviewers were instructed to conduct the questioning of
the adolescent at the same time as the adult family members
completed the written questionnaire, but in a location
separate from the adults for privacy and to insure
confidentiality of the adolescent responses. The interviews
dealt with several topic areas in addition to that which is
presented in this study. Each interview took about an hour
to complete.

Interviewers were residents of the target counties and
were recruited into the study by local county 4—H staff.
The interviewers, as volunteers, were prepared for their
role during ten hours of training conducted by the primary
research staff in February, 1983. Training involved:
information dissemination on early adolescence and
interviewing techniques; role playing to familiarize them
with the interviewer role; and critique of video taped
interviews. The interview instruments were reviewed in
detail to insure that the interviewers were clear about the
specific directions for each question. The MEAS study was
explained in some detail so each interviewer would
understand the purposes of the study and the tools that
would be used in carrying out the interview process.

Interviewers were similar in age to the parents they
were interviewing. Over one half were between the ages of
31 to 45. They were likely to have had some college or to

be college graduates and to be employed.

54

Potential study families were contacted with an
introductory letter to explain the survey and to request
their participation. Families were instructed that an
interviewer would contact them to confirm their willingness
to participate in the study and to schedule an interview
appointment. Most interviews were completed by June, 1983,
although a few interviews were delayed until September,
1983, due to staffing shortages in local 4-H offices.

Once the study, the Michigan Early Adolescent Survey,
was designed, it was submitted for approvaI to the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects.
Data collection was started when approval was granted that
confirmed protection of the rights of sample subjects. (See

(Appendix.)

Description of the Study Sample

 

MEAS respondents included 304 adolescents, 283 mothers
and 212 fathers. Of the early adolescents who completed
the survey 50.5 percent were females. Approximately
three-fourths of the youths sampled were evenly split into
ages eleven, twelve, and thirteen. The remaining
one-fourth was evenly divided between 10 and 14 year olds.
These early adolescents were distributed evenly over the
5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th grades.

Eighty-two percent of the sample was white. Sixteen
percent was black. The remaining families were

Mexican-American and other ethnic groups. The income of

55

the MEAS sample using data obtained from the mothers was
very much like the Michigan census information on families
with early adolescents.' Thirty percent of the families in
this study reported a family income of $20,000-$30,000.
Another 30 percent reported an income of $30,000-$50,000.
Four percent were over $55,000. A little over 30 percent
reported income under $20,000.

Using data obtained from the mothers, 40 percent of
the families lived in rural areas, another 30 percent
reported living in towns of 25,000 people or less. Twenty
percent lived in large cities and their suburbs.

Many more early adolescents (94.8%) lived with their
natural mothers than lived with their natural fathers
(75.5%). Adoptive parents made up 2 percent of the mothers
and 2.5 percent of the fathers. Step-parents made up 1.2
percent of the mothers and 4.7 percent of the fathers.
These proportions are very similar to the Michigan census
data. The number of children in the families was as
follows: one, 11 percent; two, 37 percent; three, 30
percent; four, 15 percent; five, 4 percent; six, 3 percent;
and seven or more, less than 2 percent.

Over 50 percent of fathers reported having a high
school education or having attended college (but not
graduating). Almost one-third were college graduates
and/or had attended professional school which was almost
twice as many as compared to the Michigan census data.
Two-thirds of the fathers were in the age group 36-50 years

of age. The majority of parents, both men (91%) and women

56

(63%), were employed outside the home. Seventy percent of
the fathers were employed by others, most of them in
skilled work, professional or management positions. Ten
percent of the mothers were self-employed and 50 percent
reported they were employed by someone other than
themselves. Thirty-three percent of the women were engaged
in office work. Thirteen percent of the mothers were
professional people, and 27 percent of MEAS mothers were

fulltime homemakers.

Description of Variables

 

Family congruency was assessed using three stable,
concrete family properties; i.e. income, urbanicity, and
shared family activities and three dynamic abstract family
properties; i.e. stress, relationship, communication
pattern. No variables which could be used as indicators of
stable abstract properties were available. Figure 4
identifies the properties, subjects, relevant questions and

the possible responses.

577

 

Theoretical . .
Family Property Subjects Question as Stated Options
Stable Concrete
INCOME Parents Please indicate the amount Less than $10 000
that comes closest to your $10,000-20,000
total net family income before 30,000-55,000
taxes last year (include all 555,000-75 000
forms of income) Over $75,000
URBANICITY Parents Where does your family live? On a faom (40 acres or
more
Rural area not
a farm (<40
acresi
In a sma l town of
5,000-25,000
In a City of
.25,0 0-100,000 .
Insrde the c1ty limits
of a lar e c1ty
over 1 0,000
In a suburb of a laroe
City over 100,000
FAMILY Parents/ How frequently do Every day
ACTIVITIES Adolescent Most days each week

you do this activity?
at evenlng meal to ether
Eat breakfast to et er
Play games with amily

Once or twice a week
Once or twice a week
Once or twice a month
Less than once a month
Never

Figure 4. Overview of family properties, subjects, and survey questions.

Theoretical .
Family Property Subjects

5E3

Question as Stated Options

 

Dynaaic Abstract
STRESS LEVEL Parents

Adolescent

RELATIONSHIP Parents/
Adolescent

COMMUNICATION Parent/
PATTERN Adolescent

Figure 4. (cont’d)

Have aoy of the Yes
following things . No
happened to your Chlld
in he past year? .
Haye an of he following
things ap ned to you
1n t e pas. year?
A paren die .
Close family member died
Serioos illness 1n family
or friend _
Parents separate, divorce,
or remarry .
Parent lost gob
Mother went 0 work .
Birth of a brother or-srster
Threatened by Violence .
Theft of rsonal posse531ons
Older bro her or Sister left
home .
Trouble with grandparents or
other relatives ' .
Moved to another City or different
part of town ,
ecelved or lost a pet
Trouble with teacher . .
Started menstrual periods (girls)
Chan ed to a new school or a
teac er . -
Grew 3-6 inches
Good friend moved
Experimented with drugs or alcohol
Upset by gym class showers
Body looks changed a lot
V01ce changed (boys)
Started da 1ng ot er sex. .
Serious illness/hospitalization (self)

In geheral what words Very good, very close
describe your relation- Goo , close

ship with your Chlld Fair, not so close

(mo her, father)? Poor, not close at all

Who do you (your child) Neither parent
find it ea51er to talk Father

to about each of these , Mother
subjects: Both parents
Schoolwork

Mohey

Friends

Body changes

Something you’ve (he/she)

has done wrong

Permission to go somewhere

Somethingayou're (he/she)

18 upset out

59

Income

Each parent was asked to indicate the total net family
income before taxes. The options were: (1) less than
$10,000, (2) $10,000-20,000, (3) $20,000-30,000, (4)
$30,000-55,000, (5) $55,000-75,000, and (6) over $75,000.
A measurement of congruency on income was formed by
subtracting the father’s score from the mother’s score.
(For example, if the the mother’s score equalled 3 and the
father’s score equalled 4, the congruency score was 1).
The means, standard deviations, and the range are presented
in Table 1. '

Urbanicity

 

Each parent was asked to indicate where his/her family
lived. The options were (1) on a farm (40 acres or more),
(2) in a rural area but not a farm (less than 40 acres),
(3) in a small town (under 5,000), (4) in a town of
5,000-25,000, (5) in a city of 25,000-100,000, (6) inside
the city limits of a large city over 100,000, (7) in a
suburb of a large city over 100,000. A measurement of
congruency on urbanicity was formed by subtracting the
father’s score from the mother’s score. The means,
standard deviations, and the range are presented in Table
1.

Family Activities

 

The youth and each parent were asked separately about
shared family activities. Specifically, they were asked if
they eat the evening meal together, if they eat breakfast
together, and if they play games together. The options
were every day, most days each week, once or twice a month,
less than once a month, and never. These items were
combined to form a separate shared family activities index
for mothers, fathers, and youths. The possible range of
scores was 3 to 18. A measurement of congruency on shared
family activities was formed by taking the mean of the
three scores and then subtracting each individual’s score

60

from the mean score and then summing the absolute value of
these differences. (If the mother’s score was 12, the
father’s score was 13 and the child’s score was 11, the
mean would be 12 and the family congruency score would be
2). The means, standard deviations, and the range for the
variable are presented in Table 1.

Stress Level

 

Variables were created to assess the family congruency
in three abstract, dynamic family properties, i.e. family
stress, family closeness, and family communication
‘patterns. The youth and each parent were asked separately
about family stress events. The family stress variable was
based on the assumption that the occurrence of certain
events creates stress in the family. The higher the number
of stress inducing events, the higher the stress level in
the family. Each person was asked if the following has
happened during the past year: a parent died; close family
member died; serious illness of family or friend; parents
separated, divorced, or remarried; parent lost job; mother
went to work; birth of a brother or sister; child was
threatened by violence; theft of personal possessions;
older brother or sister left home; trouble with
grandparents or other relatives; moved to another city or
different part of town; received or lost a pet; trouble
with teacher; good friend moved; experimented with drugs or
alcohol; serious illness/hospitalization of youth. The
options were yes, no. These items were totalled to create
an index of family stress for mothers, fathers, and youths.
Possible index scores ranged from 0 (no stress events) to
17 (all events occurred). A measurement of congruency on
family stress was formed by taking the mean of the three
scores and subtracting each individual’s score from the
mean score and then summing the absolute value of these
differences. The means, standard deviations, and the range

are presented in Table 1.

61

Relationship

Each parent was asked what words best describe his/her
relationship with his/her child. Each youth was asked the
same about his/her mother and his/her father. The options

 

were (1) very good, very close; (2) good, close; (3) fair,
not so close; and (4) poor, not close at all. To form a
congruency score for family closeness, the child’s score‘
about his/her mother/father was subtracted from the
mother/father’s score, which gave two sets of scores, i.e.
closeness for child/mother and closeness for child/father.
Since the correlation for these was significant at the
.0001 level, these two scores were combined. The score for
the child/mother was added to the score for the
child/father to form the family congruency score. A
measurement of congruency on shared family activities was
formed by taking the mean of the three scores and then
subtracting each individual’s score from the mean score and
then summing the absolute value of these differences. The
means, standard deviations, and the range are presented in
Table 1.

Communication Pattern

 

The youths were asked whom they find it easiest to
talk to about various topics including schoolwork, money,
friends, body changes, something they have done wrong,
permission to go somewhere, and something they were upset
about. The options were neither parent, father, mother,
both parents. The parents were asked whom their child
talked to about these topics. The list of topics and the
options were the same as on the youth’s survey. The data
were examined to determine the congruency in perceptions of
communication patterns among the three family members for
each topic. In order to determine whether or not there was
congruence in the family member’s perception of the use of
communication with neither parent/both parents, scales were
formed. The categories of "father only” and ”mother only"
were combined, consequently, the scale was (0) neither

62

parent, (1) one parent, (2) both parents. Each scale
included all the topics. The alpha for reliability for the
youth scale was .90; father scale was .99;
mother/two-parent scale was .96. A measurement of
congruency on family communication was formed by taking the
mean of the three scores and then subtracting each
individual’s score from the mean score and then summing the
absolute value of these differences. The means, standard

deviations, and the range are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Description of Variables

 

 

 

Variable N Mean SD Range
INCOME 185 .20 .47 0—2
URBANICITY 201 .26 .76 0-5
FAMILY ACTIVITIES 247 3.36 2.25 0-13.33
STRESS LEVEL 247 3.26 2.29 0-13.33
RELATIONSHIPS 201 3.72 1.59 0-6
COMMUNICATION PATTERNS 247 3.94 2.58 0-12

 

CHAPTER V: ANALYSIS AND IMPLICATIONS

Results and Analysis

 

The data were analyzed using a one sample t test.

This is a specific kind of t test which tests the mean of
the variable against the assumed mean of zero (Arrow, 1960,
Bruning & Kintz, 1968). Following the procedures outlined
in Sokal & Rohlf (1969), six t tests were performed on the
variables, i.e. income, urbanicity, family activities,
stress levels, communication patterns, and family
relationships. With high levels of congruency as were
hypothesized with income, urbanicity, and family
activities, very low levels of difference would be
expected, i.e. the mean difference scores would be near
zero which would be no difference or complete congruence.
It was hypothesized that the null hypothesis would not be
rejected with the variables of income, urbanicity, and
family activities. The basic hypothesis was:

Stable, concrete family properties such as family

income, urbanicity and shared family activities

will have higher family congruency than dynamic,

abstract family properties such as stress level,

family closeness, and communication patterns.

In the case of the abstract family properties, it was

expected that the mean difference scores for these

variables would differ significantly from zero and the t

63

64

scores would be significant and the null hypothesis would
be rejected. The significance level, set at .05,
determines the probability that the null hypothesis will be
accepted as reasonable or that errors made in the decision
are due to chance (Keppel, 1982).

All of the t tests for the concrete, stable variables,
income, urbanicity, and family activities were significant,
thus, not supporting the hypothesis. Incongruency was high
for these variables. The t test for all of the abstract,
dynamic variables, stress level, family relationships, and
communication patterns were significant, indicating a low

level of congruence, thus supporting the hypothesis.

Table 2. Analysis of Variables

 

 

 

Variable N Mean SD T Sig. r

INCOME 185 .20 .47 5.79 .05 .39
URBANICITY _ 201 .26 .76 4.86 .05 .33
FAMILY ACTIVITIES 247 3.36 2.25 23.47 .01 .83
STRESS LEVEL 247 3.26 2.29 23.06 .01 .83
RELATIONSHIP 201 3.72 1.59 33.17 .01 .92
COMMUNICATION PATTERN 247 3.94 2.58 24.00 .01 .84

 

Significance level: pn.01

Because t scores cannot be compared due to their
sensitivity to group size, the data were further analyzed
by converting the t scores to r scores in order to look at

the strength of the effect. The r score is not used in its

65

usual manner as a correlation, but as a comparable metric
measure (although the r is a correlation between the family
score and the assumed population). In other words, since
we cannot compare t scores, these scores were
mathematically converted to r statistics which are
comparable. In this way, it can be seen that the effect or
the amount of difference in family scores for family
activities, stress events, family relationship, and
communication pattern is more than twice the amount of

difference in family scores for income and urbanicity.

Relationship of Findings to Schema

 

The present study demonstrated there were differences
in congruency among family members depending upon the
nature of the family property. Figure 5 locates the six
family properties of this study on the continuum, based on
the hypothesis. Family relations, stress level, and
communication patterns fell into the Dynamic, Abstract
portion of the continuum, while family activities,
urbanicity, and income fell into the Stable, Concrete

portion of the continuum.

66

 

 

Abstract
FAMILY RELATIONS
STRESS
COMMUNICATION
PATTERNS
Stable Dynamic
FAMILY ACTIVITIES
URBANICITY
INCOME
Concrete

Figure 5. Hypothesized continuum of family properties.

Although the results of the study suggested there was
incongruency on all family properties, higher levels of
congruency were found among family members on stable,
concrete family properties. As was hypothesized, income,
and urbanicity showed lower levels of discrepancy. The
results for abstract, dynamic variables, family relations,
stress level, and communication patterns and the stable,
concrete variable of family activities showed high.
discrepancy. Figure 6 locates the family properties on the

continuum as indicated by the findings.

67

 

 

Abstract
FAMILY RELATIONS
STRESS
COMMUNICATION
PATTERNS
FAMILY ACTIVITIES
S:ab;e Dynamic
URBANICITY
INCOME
Concrete

Figure 6. Continuum of family properties according to
research findings.

These findings were similar to the research of Niemi
<19“éé and Cohen and Orum (1972) whose results suggested
higher congruency with concrete, stable family properties

such as demographics. Conversely, Niemi’s (1974) findings

ll)
U)

.—

: suggested high discrepancy for abstract, dynamic

far;;y properties such as family relationship, closeness,

)1)

no family decision making just as the findings in this
Study suggest high discrepancy for family relationship,
communication patterns, and stress. Ezell et a1. (1984)
also found that family perceptions of quality of whole life
were not congruent which again is similar in abstractness
to family relationship, communication patterns, and stress.
Thus the findings on five of the family properties, i.e.
income, urbanicity, stress, communication patterns, and
family relationships, in this study resembled the findings
in other studies. Ezell et a1. (1984) and Berk and Shih
(1984) found congruent perceptions about household tasks
which are similar in concreteness to family activities and

it was expected that similar levels of congruence would be

68

found. However, low levels of congruence were found which
did not coincide with other findings.

This study did avoid one of the problems encountered
by earlier congruency research. Congruency found in
earlier research on families was influenced by the high
percentage of the responses of both wives and husbands that
fell into the same category (Quarm, 1981), i.e. bias in
socially acceptable directions. This research avoided that
problem by examining items which did not have a socially
acceptable answer.

In addition, Quarm (1981) suggested that discrepancies
between spouses may arise from the fact that spouses, when
asked identical questions, interpret the questions
differently because they are too general or ambiguous.

This could certainly be true of almost all questions even
those used in this study. It is hard to predict ambiguity
in the urbanicity question. However, it is understandable
that different family members could have interpreted "your
relationship with your mother/father/child" differently.
In addition, the respondents may have understood the
questions, but they were not sure about the meaning of the
possible answers (Quarm, 1981). The parent and youth may
have felt exactly the same about their relationship, but
may have different meanings for the words "very close."
The more abstract the concepts used or the more complex the
behavior being asked about, the more measurement error
based on ambiguity of questions and answers would be

expected. Quarm (1981) found that this measurement error

69

could be reduced through the use of scales and indexes.
Consequently, scales or indexes were formed for the three
variables where there were multiple questions.

Two of the stable concrete questions dealt with
factual information to which one or both of the spouses did
not know the answer. The spouses may not have known how
much the household income is or one might not have known
what size city in which the family lived. It may have been
a problem in lack of knowledge rather than in discrepancy
between the spouses.

Consideration might be given to the idea that income
and urbanicity were not part of the family system but
rather part of the the human built environment which
provides the physical setting in which the family syStem
operates. Income could be defined as the amount of
resources with which the family has to operate and with
which they can sustain, provide and enhance their built
environment. However in this study, income and
urbanicity were used as measures of the family system since
family systems differ based on these variables. A rural
family system differs from an urban family system, just as
a highly cohesive family system differs from a family
system which is low in cohesion. These are complex
variables which affect more than one environment and
measuring them as family system variables would be
realistic. This discussion raises questions which could be
studied in further research i.e. to identify differences

in family properties based on urbanicity and also on

70

income. Do families in urban areas have different levels
of cohesiveness than rural families? Do family systems
with higher incomes have different communication patterns?
Previous research has generally found low family
congruency. The findings here emphasize the importance of
continuing to differentiate between the types of family

properties being studied.

Limitations of the Study

 

1. The youth and parent interviews were designed to
cover a wide array of topics, many of which were not used
in this dissertation. This is a secondary analysis which
accounts for the limited variety of subjects on which

youths and parents were asked about each other.

2. The survey instrument needed more precision. For
example, the options on the income had large ranges within
each option. The mother could have believed the family
income was $20,000 more than the father did, but both would
have chosen the same option.

In addition, the stress level variable was a mixture
of abstract and concrete indicators. It had concrete
stress events such as the death of a parent or the birth of
a sibling mixed with abstract indicators such as "trouble
with teacher" and "threatened by violence."

The dynamic abstract family property family
communication was measured through the use of concrete,

specific indicators, e.g. who do you/your child ususally

71

talk to about schoolwork. The family property schema is
clouded when dynamic abstract properties are measured using

stable, specific indicators.

3. While this was a strong sample which drew upon
families of early adolescents from across the state of
Michigan, the limitations of the sample were apparent.

Only by inference can the validity of reports from young
children, or from young couples be discussed since all the
families in this study were from one stage in the life
cycle. Nevertheless, the validity of reports received from
middle-aged youths as well as from middle-aged couples can
be accurately determined and some worthwhile benchmarks for
future studies using different age groups can be

established.

4. Family members were asked about specific events or
to label relationships, but they were never asked to
explain their perceptions or behavior. Greater
understanding of family processes and their meaning to
family members would have been gained if they had been
asked why they were close to one family member and not
another, or why they talked to one parent and not the other
or what was the meaning of eating together every night.
Questions of this nature are more consistent with the
interpretive mode of science which this researcher believes
is more suitable for gaining insight into family structure

and process.

72
Implications for Research and Theory

Additional research in this area must address several
concerns. First, the previously mentioned limitations of
the present study must be overcome in order to extend the
results. More empirical verification is needed if these
findings are to be generalized to other family properties.
Future research needs to address all of the family
properties rather than a selected few. In order to avoid
problems with measurement, each property needs to be
studied with a variety of instruments. Niemi (1974)
suggests that agreement can be improved by the use of
detailed questions or series of questions. Overcoming
these limitations leads to several theoretical and
methodological implications.

As Fay (1975) suggested the task of the interpretive
social scientist is to discover the set of rules or
patterns or underlying processes which regulate the family
system. This study attempted to organize family system
properties in a schema which can be utilized by researchers
and practitioners. Based on the congruency findings of
this study and others, Concrete, stable family properties
can be more accurately reported by one family member than
dynamic, abstract properties. However, large amounts of
incongruency are found even in concrete, stable family
properties. More importantly, the'abstract, dynamic family
properties are those the social scientist needs to study

because they represent the processes which operate in the

73

family system. Because of the high discrepancy demonstrated
by these properties when reported by various family members
in this and other studies, these properties are only
discoverable empirically by observation of behaviors of all
family members. This study reinforces the belief that
family processes must be studied directly and cannot be
inferred from individual data. Each individual has his/her
own perception of reality., What is important is to study
the family processes not the individual's perceptions.
These family processes can best be studied through
direct observation of the family. Ideally, families from a
variety of life stages would be observed over long periods
of time engaged in a variety of activities.' Of course, the
researchers would have to observe until they began to the
see processes which the familes utilize, and not just
observe until the researchers confirmed their preconceived
notions of family processes. Observers would then discuss
the families' interpretation of the family processes with
the family. Only in this way can the scientist generate
propositions about family processes which can be tested
more widely and consequently, generalized to all families.
These abstract, dynamic properties of the family
system exist as a part of the total life system and
therefore must be studied as a part of the environment
which surrounds them. Just as the family system is more
than the sum of its total parts, combining individual
family member scores does not represent the total family as

was demonstrated by this study. The researcher needs to

74

ask the participants the meaning of the behavior or their
perception of the environment and thus draw inferences
directly from the participants in order to find causal or
intentional explanations. In other words, an interpretive
or hermeneutic mode of science is needed. ‘

In addition to the need for interpretive science being
the basis for research, a different theoretical schema,
could be suggested from the findings. The differences
found in the levels of congruency suggest a difference
among the variables other than that which was hypothezised.
Income and urbanicity had much lower levels of incongruency
than family activities, stress level, communication, and
family relationship. These findings suggest a different
schema for organizing family properties. As was suggested
earlier, consideration might be given to the idea that
income and urbanicity were not part of the family system
but rather part of the the human built environment which
provides the physical setting in which the family system
operates. Income could be defined as the amount of
resources with which the family has to operate and with
which they can sustain, provide and enhance their built
environment. The other variables in this study represented
process or relationships in the family system. The
typology or family property schema suggested by this data
consists of family environmental factors and family
relational properties. Family relational properties are
‘ those which are deal with social processes within the

family system. Most of the stable, concrete variables,

75

discussed earlier would be environmental factors in this
schema, while stable, abstract properties, e.g. family
culture would be relational properties. All of the dynamic
family properties would be relational properties, e.g.
cohesion, adaptablity, communication. This study found
differences in these two types of variables. The task of
the researcher would be to extend this research to other
.families and other family properties. Researchers need to
examine family systems to see if these two types of family
properties do have different characteristics. This study
suggests differences in amounts of incongruency.
Commonsense tells us that since family environmental
factors are more concrete, they are easier to quantify and
therefore easier to objectively study than the more
abstract family relational properties. In addition, one
might hypothosize that family relational properties would
be more predictive of family satisfaction or of family
functioning. Moreover, it would be interesting to find out
how family members’ perceptions and evaluations of family
envrironmental factors differ from those of family

relational properties.

Conclusions

 

The significance of this dissertation comes not from
its importance as a study of family congruence, but as a
theoretical schema in the larger issue of the study of the
family. It is apparent that to study the family, one must

arrive at inter-subjective understanding of one another.

76

Yet, if individual family members fail in this
understanding, the researcher will also fail in his/her
task. Interpretive science philosophy, i.e. the
inter-subjective understanding of one another, integrated
with the family systems perspective, provides the
appropriate research schema. If, as Paolucci stated, "the
family is the most elemental group, for it is here that
individuals interact more frequently, more intimately, and-
over a longer period of time...", then, the research must
focus on family properties, not individual properties of
family members. Furthermore, family properties must be
studied from the systems perspective, encompassing all of
the environments in and with which the family interacts.
Only then, will contributions be made to the improvement of

the quality of life.

APPENDIX

77

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

UNIVERSITY comm‘m-z 0N RESEARCH INVOLVING EAST LANSING . MICHIGAN . «sums
HUMAN susjscrs wow) ‘

230 ADNINISI‘IIATION BUILDING

(m) ass-m6

February 3, 1983

Dr. Joanne Keith
Family & Child Ecology

Dear Dr. Keith:

Subject: Proposal Entitled, "A Comprehensive Approach to Research
and Programming for School-Aged Youth"

UCRIHS' review of the above referenced project has now been completed. I am
pleased to advise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to
be adequately protected and the Committee, therefore, approved this project
at its meeting on February 2, 1983.

You are reminded that UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year. If you
plan to continue this project beyond one year, please make provisions for
obtaining appropriate UCRIHS approval prior to February 2, 1984.

Any changes in procedures involving human subjects must be reviewed by the
UCRIHS prior to initiation of the change. UCRIHS must also be notified
promptly of any problems (unexpected side effects, complaints, etc.)
involving human subjects during the course of the work.

Thank you for bringing this project to our attention. If we can be of any
future help, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely,
’ L_.
Henry E. Bredeck, Ph.D.
Chairman, UCRIHS
jms

cc: Dr. Leah B. Hoopfer
Christine Nelson

”5!! 9': on A/flrnutt'os Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

B I BL I OGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ackerman, N. J. (1984). A theory of family systems. New
York, NY: Gardner Press, Inc.

 

Aldous, J. (1978). Family careers: Developmental change in
families. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

 

 

Ahrons, C. R., & Bowman, M. E. (1981). Analysis of couple
data: Theoretical and methological issues. Paper
presented at the NCFR Pre-Conference Workshop on Theory
Construction and Research Methology, Milwaukee, WI.

Allen, A. & Thompson, T. (1984). Agreement,
understanding, realization, and feeling understood as
predictors of communicative satisfaction in marital
dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, fig, 915-921.

 

Allen, C. M. (1979). Defining the family for
post-industrial public policy. In D. P. Snyder. The
family in post-industrical America. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.

 

Anderson, S. A., Russell, C. 8., & Schumm, W. R. (1983).
Perceived marital quality and family life-cycle
categories: A further analysis. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, flé, 127-139.

 

 

Andrews, M. P., Bubolz, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1980). An
ecological approach to study of the family. Marriage and
Family Review, 3, 29-49.

 

 

Apel, K.O. (1977). The a priori of communication and the
foundation of the humanities. In F. R. Dallmayr and T.
A. McCarthy. Understanding and social inquiry. Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

 

Arrow, K.J. (1960). Decision theory and the choice of a
level of significance for the t-test. In I. Olkin, S.
Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. Madow, and H. Mann (Eds.).
Contributions to probability and statistics, (pp.70-78).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

 

Babbie, E. (1973). The practice of social research. 3rd ed.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

 

78

79

Ball, D., 8 McKenry, P. C. (1983). Use of
repeated-measures designs in family research. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 45, 885-896.

 

 

Beavers, W. & Voeller, M.N. (1984). Family models:
Comparing and contrasting the Olsen Circumplex model with
Beavers’s system model. Family Process, El, 250-260.

 

Beck, R.N. (1979). Handbook in social philosophy. New
York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

 

Bell, R. R. (1979). Marriage and family interaction (5th‘
ed.). Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

 

Belsky, J., Lerner, R. M., & Spanier, G. B. (1984). The
child in the family. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.

 

Berger, K. S. (1980). The developing person. New York, NY:
Worth Publishers, Inc.

 

Berk, S.F. & Shih, A. (1980). Contributions to household
labor: Comparing wives’ and husbands’ reports. In S.F.
Berk (Ed.), Women and household labor. (pp. 191-227).
Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

Bernard, J. (1972). The future of marriage. New York, NY:
World Publishing Co.

 

Bernstein, R. J. (1985). Beyond objectivism and
relativism: Science, hermeneutics, and praxis.
Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

 

 

Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York,
NY: Braziller.

 

Bleicher, J. (1980). Contemporary hermeneutics:
Hermeneutics as method, philosophy and critique. London:
Boutledge & Kegan Paul.‘

 

 

Bochner, A. P. (1976). Conceptual frontiers in the study
of communication in families. Human Communication
Research, 2, 381-397.

 

Bokemier, J., & Monroe, P. (1983). Continued reliance on
one respondent in family decision-making studies: A
content analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family,
45, 645-652.

 

Book, C. L. (Ed.). (1980). Human communication:
Principles, contexts and skills. New York, NY: St.
Martin’s Press.

 

 

Boulding, K. E. (1973). The economy of love and fear.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc.

 

80

Boulding, K. E. (1955). An application of population
analysis to the automobile population of the United
States. Kylos, 2, 109-24.

Broderick C., & Smith, J. (1979). The general systems
approach to the family. In W. Burr, R. Hill, F.I. Ney,
and I. Reiss. Contemporary theories about the family,
(Vol. 1 and 2), (pp. 112-129). New York, NY: The Free
Press.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979)." The ecology of human
development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

'Brown, B. F. (1980). The transition of youth to adulthood:
A bridge too long: A report to educators, sociologists,
legislators, and youth policymaking bodies. National
Commission on Youth. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

 

 

Brown, L. H., Pittman, J. F., & Norrell, J. E. (1984).
Development of a qualitative measure of a family from
self-reports of family members. Paper presented at the
NCFR Pre-Conference Workshop on Theory Construction and
Research Methodology, San Francisco, CA.

Brown, M. M. (1984). Needed: A critical science perspective
in home economics. Paper presented at the American Home
Economics Association Annual Meeting, Cincinnati, OH.

Brown, M.M. (1985). The need for alternative modes of
research in home economics. Paper presented at the
Midwest Regional Research Conference in Home Economics
Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.

Bubolz, M. (1985). Teaching with a critical science
perspective. Journal of Vocational Home Economics

Education, Winter.

Bubolz, M. (1988). Philosophy of science perspectives in
family research and theory. Paper presented at the NCFR
Round Table Discussion, Philadelphia, PA.

Bubolz, M. M., Eicher, J. G., & Sontag, M. S. (1979). The
human ecosystem: a model. Journal of Home Economics,
28-31.

 

Bubolz, M. M., & Whiren, A. P. (1984). The family of the
handicapped: An ecological model for policy and practice.
Family Relations, 33, 5-12.

 

Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., & Covert, A. M. (1982). An
argument for adoption of a rules-based perspective for
studying family system communication. Paper presented at
the NCFR Pre-conference Workshop on Theory Construction
and Research Methodology, Washington, D. C.

81

Buerkel-Rothfuss, N. L., & Yerby, J. (1981). Two studies in
member perceptions of family communication. Paper
presented at the NCFR Conference, Milwaukee, WI.

Burns, 8. (1975). The household economy: Its shape,
origins, and future. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

 

 

Burr, W. R., & Lowe, T. A. (1987). Olson’s Circumplex
model: A review and extension. Family Science Review,
1, 5-22.

 

Burr, W., Hill, R., Ney, F. I., & Reiss, I. (1979).
Contemporary theories about the family, (Vol. 1 and 2).
New York, NY: The Free Press.

 

Bruning, J. L. & Kintz, B. L. (1968). Computational
handbook of statistics. Glenville, IL: Scott Foresman.

 

 

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and
quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL:
Rand McNally College Publishing Co.

 

 

Chalmers, A. F. (1976). What is this thing called science?
London: University of Queensland Press.

 

Checkland, P. B. (1976). Science and the systems paradigm.
International Journal of General Systems, g, 127-134.

 

Cohen, R.S. & Orum, A.M. (1972). Parent-child consensus on
socioeconomic data obtained from sample surveys. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 3§(1), 95-98.

 

Constantine, L.L. (1983). Dysfunction and failure in open
family systems, I: Application of a unified theory.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, ll, 725-738.

 

Constantine, L.L. (1988). On fundamental limits of
variation in family systems: Logical extensions to the
theory of family paradigms. Family Science Review, 3,
283-298.

 

Cooper, J. 8., Holman, J., & Braithwaite, V. A. (1983).
Self-esteem and family cohesion: The child’s perspective
and adjustment. Journal of Marriage and the Family, gé,
153-9 0

 

Coopersmith, S. (1981). Self-esteem inventories. Palo Alto,
CA: Counsulting Psycologists Press, Inc.

 

Cortes, F., Przeworski, A., & Sprague, J. (1974) Systems
analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons.

 

82

Covert, A. M., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., Keith, J., 5 Nelson,
C. (1987). Early adolescent and parent communication
patterns. Unpublished paper, Department of Family and
Child Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI.

Covert, A. M., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., Keith, J., & Nelson,
C. (1986). The role of communication and gender in
coping with adolescent stress. Unpublished paper,
Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Covert, A.M., & Miller, A. M. (1980). Overview of
commUnication: Instructor’s manual. Department of
Communication and Instructional Media Center, Michigan
State University. East Lansing, MI:

 

 

Covert, A. M., Whiren, A.P., Keith, J., & Nelson, C.
(1985). Pets, early adolescents, and families. In M. B.
Sussman (Ed.), Pets and the Family. New York, NY:
Haworth Press, 95-108.

 

Covert, A. M., Whiren, A. P., Keith, J., & Nelson, C.
(1985). Pets, early adolescents, and families. Marriage
and Family Review, 8,(3/4), 96-108.

 

Crain, W. C. (1980). Theories of development: concepts and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

 

Cushman, D. P. (1977). The rules perspective as a
theoretical basis for the study of human communication.
Communication Quarterly, gg, 30-45.

 

Dell, P. F. (1982). Beyond homeostasis: Toward a concept of
coherence. Family Process, 21, 21-41.

 

Dreyfus, H. L. (1980). Holism and hermeneutics. Review of
Metaphysics, 35, 3-23.

 

 

Dubin, R. (1978). Theory building. New York, NY: The Free
Press.

 

Duvall, E. M. (1988). Family development’s first forty
years. Family Relations, 31, 127-134.

 

Eastwood, D. B. (1985). The economics of consumer behavior.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

 

Elkind, D. (1984). All grown up & no place to go:
Teenagers in crisis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.

 

 

Eshleman, J. R. (1978). The family: An introduction.
Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

 

83

Ezell, M.P. (1982). Family members’ perceptions of
household production in relationship to quality of life.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Ezell, M. P., Paolucci, B., & Bubolz, M. J. (1984).
Developing family properties. Home Economics Research
Journal, 22, 563-574.

 

Fay, B. (1975). Social theory and political practice.
Boston, MA: George Allen & Irwin.

 

Fischer, J. L. (1980). Reciprocity, agreement, and family
style in family systems with a disturbed and nondisturbed
adolescent. Journal of Youth and Adolescent, 2,

391-406.

 

Fisher, L. (1982). Transactional theories but individual
assessment: A frequent discrepancy in family research.
Family Process, 22, 313-320.

 

'Fisher, L., Kokes, R., Ransom, D., & Rudd, P. (1985).
Alternative strategies for creating "relational" family
data. Family Process, 23, 213-224. .

 

Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Badzinski, D. M. (1985). All in the
family: Interpersonal communication in kin relationships.
In M.L. Knapp and G.R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of
Interpersonal Communication. (pp. 687-736). Berverly
Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

 

Fitzpatrick, M. A., Fallis, S., & Vance, L. (1982).
Multifunctional coding of conflict resolution strategies
in marital dyads. Family Relations, 22, 43-51.

 

Fuchs, V.R. (1983) How we live. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

 

Gagnon, J. H., & Greenblat, C. S. (1978). Life designs:
Individuals, marriages, and families. Glenview, IL:
Scott, Foresman, and Co.

 

 

Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (1982). Family
communication. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

 

Gecas, V., & Schwalbe, M. L. (1986). Parental behavior
and adolescent self-esteem. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 32, 37-46.

 

Gladhart, P. M., & Roosa, M. W. (1987). Family lifestyle
and energy consumption: An energy adaptation model. In
P.M. Gladhart, B. M., Morrison, & J.J. Zuiches, (Eds.).
Energy & families. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.

 

84

Goldberg, S. R., & Deutsch, F. (1977). ‘Life-span
individual and family development. Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., Inc.

 

 

Gordon, M. (1978). The American family: Past,gpresent, and
future. New York, NY: Random House.

 

Greenberg, B. S., Perry, K. L., & Covert, A. M. (1983). The
body human: Sex education, politics, and television.
Family Relations, 22, 419-25.

 

Guess, R. (1981). The idea of a critical theory. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.

 

Guralnik, D. B. (1984). Webster’s new world dictionary of
the American language. New York, NY: Warner Books, Inc.

 

 

Habermas, J. (1976). Communication and the evolution of
society. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

 

Haley, J. (1964). Research on family patterns: An
instrument measurement. Family Process, 2(1), 41-65.

 

Hall, A. S., & Fagen, R. E. (1956). Definition of system.
Journal of General Systems, 2, 18-28.

 

Handel, G. (1967). The psycholosocial interior of the
family: A source book for the study of whole families.
Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing Co.

 

 

Hefferan, C. (1980). The household as producer--A look
beyond the market. Washington, D.C.: The American Home
Economics Association.

 

 

Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory.
Berkely, CA: University of California Press.

 

Herrin, D. A., 5 Wright, S. D. (1988). Percursors to a
family ecology: Interrelated threads of ecological
thought. Family Science Revieg, 2, 163-183.

 

Hess, R.D. & Torney, J.v. (1971). Religion, age and sex in
children’s perceptions of family authority. Child
Development, 22, 781-789.

 

Hill, J. P. (1980). The family. In M. Johnson. Toward
adolescence: The middle school years. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

Hill, R. (1974). Modern systems theory and the family: A
confrontation. Social Science Information, 29, 7-26.

 

Hill, R. (1981). Family research in the 19803:
Continuities, emergents, constraints, and new horizons.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 22, 255-261.

 

85

Hill, R., & Klein, D. (1972). Toward a research agenda and
theoretical synthesis. In E. B. Sheldon (Ed.), Family
economic behavior. Philadelphia, PA: J. B. Lippincott Co.

 

Holman, T. B., & Burr, W. R. (1980). Beyond the beyond: The
growth of family theories in the 19703. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 22, 7-19.

 

 

Huston, T. L., & Burgess, R. L. (1979). Social exchange in
developing relationships: An overview. In Burges, R. L.,
& Huston, T. L..Social exchange in developing
relationships (pp. 3-25). New York, NY: Academic Press,
Inc.

 

 

Indivik, J., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1982). "If you could
read my mind, Love....," Understanding and '
misunderstanding in the marital dyad. Family Relations,
22, 43-51.

 

Jessop, D.J. (1981). Family relationships as viewed by
parents and adolescents: A specification. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 22(1), 95-107.

 

 

Jurich, J. (1987). Implications of post-positivism for the
theory mehtod-data relationship in family studies. Paper
presented at NCFR Pre-conference Workshop on Theory
Construction and Research Methodology, Atlanta, GA.

Kagan, J. (1972). In J. Kagan and R. Coles. (Eds.). Twelve
to sixteen: early adolescence, (pp. 90-105). New York,
NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

 

Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

 

Keats, R., & Urry, J. (1975). Social theory as science.
Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

 

Keith, J., Hoopfer, L., Nelson, C., & Covert, A. (1985).
Michigan early adolescent survey: Final report.
Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

 

Klein, D. M. (1984). The problem of multiple perception in
family research. Paper presented at the NCFR
Pre-Conference Workshop on Theory Construction and
Research Methodology, San Francisco, CA.

Kleinbaum, D. G., & Kupper, L. L. (1978). Applied
regression analysis and other multivariable methods.
Boston, MA: Duxbury Press.

 

Knox, D. (1979). Exploring marrigge and the family.
Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.

 

Laszlo, E. (1972). The systems view of the world. New York,
NY: George Braziller.

 

86

Leslie, G. R. (1979). The family in social context, (4th
ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

 

Levene, H. (1960). Robust tests for equality of variances.
In I. Olkin, S. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. Madow, and H.
Mann, (Eds.), Contributions to probability and
statistics. (pp. 278-292). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.

 

 

Levinger, G., Rands, M., & Talaber, R. (1977). Th2
assessment of rewardingness in close and causal pair
relationships. Washington D.C. National_Science
Foundation. ‘

 

 

Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. B. (1979). Theorizing about
the quality and stability of marriage. In W.R. Burr, R.
Hill, F.I. Nye, and I.L. Reiss, (Eds.). Contemporary
theories about the family. New York, NY: The Free Press.

 

 

Lindley, R., Fellows, R., & Macdonald, G. (1978). What
philosophy does. London: Open Books.

 

Lipsitz, J. S. (1980). Growing up forgotten: A review of
research and programs concerning early adolescence. New
Brunswick: Transaction Books.

 

 

Lipsitz, J. S. (1980). The age group. In M. Johnson. Toward
adolescence: The middle schoolgyears. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.

 

Matthews, K. L., & Serrano, A. C. (1981). Ecology of
adolescence. Adolescence, 22, 605-612.

 

McCarthy, T. (1978). The critical theory of Jurgen
Habermas. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.

 

 

McCubbin, H. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1988). Typologies of
resilient families: Emerging roles of social class and
ethnicity. Family Relations, 21, 247-254.

 

McDonald, G. W. (1980). Family power: The assessment of a
decade of theory and research 1970-1979. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 32, 111-124.

 

 

McKinney, J. P., Fitzgerald, H. E., & Strommen, E. A.
(1982). Developmental psychology: The adolescent and
ypung adult. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

 

Melson, G. F. (1980). Family and environment: An ecosystem
perspective. Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing Co.

 

 

Miller, B. C., Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D. L. (1982). On
methods of studying marriages and families. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 53, 851-873.

 

 

87

Miller, G. R., & Steinberg, M. (1975). Between people: A
new analysis of interpersonal communication. Chicago:
Science Research Associates, Inc.

 

 

Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill Book Co.

 

Morgan, E. A. (1988). Clarifying some post-positivist
issues: Response to Joan Jurich. Unpublished paper,
Department of Family and Child Ecology, Michigan State
University, East Lansing, MI.

Morrison, B. M. (1987), Energy and family lifestyle. In
P.M. Gladhart, B.M. Morrison and J.J. Zuiches. (Eds.).
Energy & families. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University Press.

 

Morrison, B. M. (1974). The importance of a balanced
perspective: The environments of man. Man-Enviornment

 

Nass, G. D. (1978). Marriage and the family. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

 

Nelson, C., Keith, J., Hoopfer, L., s Covert, A. M. (1986).
Research + volunteers = success. Journal of Extension,
(2),~14-17.

 

Newman, B. M., & Newman, P. R. (1979). Development through
life: A psychosocial approach. Homewood, IL: Dorsey
Press.

 

 

Niemi, R.G. (1974). How family members perceive each
other. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 

Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., & Associates. (1983).
Families: What Makes Them Work. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE
Publications.

 

Olson, D. H., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A.,
Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1982). Family inventories. St.
Paul, MN: University of Minnesota.

 

Olson, D. H., 5 Rabunsky, C. (1972). Validity of four
measures of family power. Journal of Marriage and Family,
(May), 224-234.

 

Osmond, M.W. (1981). Rethinking family sociology from a
radical-critical perspective. Paper presented at NCFR
annual meeting, Milwaukee, WI.

Paolucci, B. (1973). Values and family ecology. Paper
presented at Kent State University, Kent, OH.

88

Paolucci, B. (Unpublished Paper). A conceptual framework
for family resource management, Department of Family and
Child Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
MI.

Paolucci, B., & Bubolz, M. (1980). Toward a critical
theory of the family--Analysis and synthesis of three
perspectives with suggestions for a critical theory of
the quality of family life. Paper presented at the NCFR
Pre-conference Workshop on Theory Construction and
Research Methodology, Portland, OR.

Paolucci, B., Hall, 0. A., & Axinn, N. W. (1977). Family
decision making: An ecosystem approach. New York: John
Wiley 8 Sons.

 

Pratt, V. (1978). The Philosophy of the social sciences.
London: Methuen & Co.

 

Quarm, D. (1981). Random measurement error as a source of
discrepancies between the reports of wives and husbands
concerning marital power and task allocation. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 42, 521-535.

 

 

Reiss, D. Oliveri, M. E., & Curd, K. (1983). Family
paradigm and adolescent social behavior. In H.D.
Grotevant and C.R. Cooper (Eds.). Adolescent development
in the family: New directions for child development. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

Reiss, I. L. (1980). Family systems in America. New York,
NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

 

Reiss, I.L. (1981). The family’s construction of reality.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Rice, A. S. (1981). An economic framework for viewing the
family. In F. I. Nye and F. M. Berardo (Ed.). Emerging
conceptual frameworks in family analysis. {New York, NY:
Praeger Publishing.

 

Ricoeur, P. (1977). The model of the text: Meaningful
action considered as a text. In F.R. Dallmayr and T.A.
McCarthy (Eds.). Understanding and social inquiry.
Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

 

Ruben, B. D., 8 Kim, J. Y. (1975). General systems theory
and human communication. Rochell Park, NJ: Hayden Book
Company, Inc.

 

 

Rudner, R. S. (1966). Philosophy of social science.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

 

Sartori, G. (1984). Guidelines for concept analysis. In G.
Sartori (Ed.). Social science concepts. Beverly Hills,
CA: SAGE Publications.

 

89

Scanzoni, J. (1988). Families in the 19803: Time to refocus
our thinking. Journal of Family Issues, 2L 394-421.

 

Scanzoni, J., & Szinovacz, M. (1980). Family
decision-making: A developmental sex role model. Beverly
Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

Schucts, R. A., & Hicks, M. W. (1981). Beyond
confrontation--tran3formation. Paper presented at the
NCFR Pre-conference Workshop on Theory Construction and
Research Methodology, Milwaukee, WI.

 

Schutz, A. (1963). Concepts and theory formation in the
social sciences. In M. Natanson. (Ed.). Philosophy of the
social sciences. New York, NY: Random House.

 

 

Schumm, W. R., Barnes, H. L., Bollman, S. R., Jurich, A.P.,
& Milliken, G. A. (1984). Approaches to the statistical
analysis of family data. Paper presented at the NCFR
Pre-Conference Workshop on Theory Construction and
Research Methodology, San Franscico, CA.

 

 

Schumm, W. R., Jurich, A. P., Bollman, S. R., & Bugaighis.
(1985). His and her marriage revisited. Journal of Family
Issues, 2, 221-227.

 

Shimanoff, S. B. (1980). Communication rules: Theory and
research. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

 

Skolnick, A. (1978). The intimate environment: Exploring
marriage and the family. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Little,’
Brown, and Co.

 

 

Smith, T. E. (1981). Adolescent agreement with perceived
maternal and paternal educational goals. Journal of
Marrigge and the Family, 5;, 85-93.

 

 

Sokal, R. R. and Rohlf, F. J. (1969). Biometry. San
Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman & Co.

Sommers, R. (1969). Personal Space: The behavioral basis of
design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

 

Sontag, M. S., & Bubolz, M. M. (1985). A case study in the
conduct of human ecological research: The family farm
ecosystem. Paper presented at the First Annual Meeting
of the Society for Human Ecology, University of Maryland,
College Park, MD.

Sprey, J., (1988) Current theorizing on the family: An
appraisal. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 22,
875-890.

 

Strommen, E. A., McKinney, J. P., & Fitzgerald, H. E.
(1983). Developmental psychology: The school-aged child.
Homewood, IL: The Dorsey Press.

 

90

Szinovacz, M. E. (1983). Using couple data as a
methodological tool: The case of marital violence.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 22, 633-644.

 

Tanner, J. M. (1978.) Education andgphysical growth, 2nd
ed. New York, NY: International Univeristies Press, Inc.

 

Teune, H. (1984). Integration. In G. Sartori (Ed.). Social
Science Concepts. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications.

 

Theodorson, G. A., & Theodorson, A. G. (1969). A modern
dictionary of soiciology. New York, NY: Thomas Y.
Crowell Co. '

 

Thompson, L., Acock, A. C., & Clark, K. (1985) Do parents
know their children? The ability of mothers and fathers
to gauge the attitudes of their young adult children.
Family Relations, 25, 315-320.

 

Thompson, L. & Walker, A. (1982). The dyad as the unit of
analysis: Conceptual and methodological issues. Journal
of Marriage and the FamilyL 32(4), 889-900.

 

Tiggle, R. B., Peters, M. D., Kelley, H. H., & Vincent, J.
(1982). Correlational and discrepancy indices of
understanding and their relation to marital satisfaction.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 23, 209-15.

 

Turner, R.H. (1970). Family interaction. New York, NY:
John Wiley & Sons.

 

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory:
Foundations, development, applications. New York, NY:
George Braziller.

 

 

Walters, L. H., Pittman, J. F. Jr., & Norrell, J. E.
(1984). Development of a quantitative measure of a
family from self-reports of family members. Journal of
Family Issues, 2, 497-514.

 

 

Watters, M. E. (1985). Critical approach to family
research: An illustration. Home Economics Research
Journal, 22, 92-111.

 

Watzlavick, P., Beavin, J., 5 Jackson, D. (1967).
Pragmatics of human communication. New York, NY:
Norton.

 

White, J. M. (1984). Not the sum of its parts. Journal of
Familnyssues, 2, 515-518.

 

 

White, K. M., Speisman, J. C., & Costos, D. (1983).
Adolescent development in the family. In H.D. Grotevant
and C.R. Cooper (Eds.). New directions for child
development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

 

91

White, S. L. (1978).. Family theory according to the
Cambridge model. Journal of Marriage and Family
Counseling, 2, 91-100.

 

 

Zalesny, M.D. & Farace, R.V. (1986). A field study of
social information processing: Mean differences and
variance differences. Human Communication Research,
22(2), 268-290.

 

   

"‘IIf"lllllllllflllliE5