The primary objective of this research was to explore the relationship between family paradigms and human emotions. The research tested the relationship between closed paradigm vs. random paradigm and positive affect vs. negative affect. As a secondary objective, the research also extended the analysis to include open paradigm and synchronous paradigm.The closed family reflects stability through tradition and focuses on the past. Relationships are cohesive with a strong sense of belonging. The family is group-oriented. Boundaries prohibit information from freely entering or exiting the family. The random family lives for today and values freedom and independence; the individual always comes first. This family often appears chaotic to other paradigms and is discontinuity-oriented as it seeks change and new ideas. The family theme supports innovation but not hierarchy. The open family orients to the past, present and future with balance between continuity and change. The family is consequence-oriented with flattened hierarchy and values both the individual and the group. Consensus occurs through communication and boundaries are semi-permeable. The synchronous family is a harmonious system that operates on timelessness with no visible hierarchy. Members share consensus without communication through a special way of knowing. This family values individuality but provides stability with rigid system boundaries. The current study occurred at a single-site location throughout four phases of data collection; the first two phases comprised the pilot study and the latter two phases comprised the working study. Participants (N=202) were college students in a Midwest University (primarily 20 - 22 years old). Demographics were collected using two surveys and the research implemented four revised versions of the Relational Paradigmatic Assessment Scale (RPAS) for collection of paradigm and emotions data. The emotions data were coded according to the Circumplex Model to produce measures of valence and arousal for each emotion word. Dialectical logic served as the framework for the study and established a system of opposites (e.g. closed paradigm vs. random paradigm and positive affect vs. negative affect). Analyses were conducted with bivariate correlation (Phase III and Phase III/IV combined), ordinary least squares analysis (Phase IV) and ordinal regression analysis (Phase III/IV combined). Results of the study were interpreted according to Kantor and Lehr's Distance Regulation Perspective. Findings supported use of the distance regulation model in family paradigms research and further suggested that, in its current state, the model does not adequately consider emotions that accompany change in family structure. Findings addressed the research question, is there a relationship between family paradigms and human emotions? Results showed negative correlation between cohesive paradigms (closed and synchronous) vs. distant paradigms (random and open). In addition, results also indicated that closed-type individuals respond least favorably to alternate paradigms (closed, open or synchronous) and open-type individuals respond most favorably to alternate paradigms (closed, random or synchronous). Moderating effects were revealed for education, relationship and religion. Gender served as a control variable. Results are applicable toward assessments of families undergoing system change.
Read
