University of South Carolina Scholar Commons

Faculty Publications Psychology, Department of

1-1985 All In The aF mily: Interpersonal Communication in Kin Relationships Mary Anne T. Fitzpatrick University of South Carolina, [email protected]

Diane M. Badzinski

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/psyc_facpub Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Psychology Commons

Publication Info Published in Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 1985, pages 687-736. © Handbook of Interpersonal Communication, 1985, Sage Fitzpatrick, M. A., Badzinski, D. M. (1985). All in the Family: Interpersonal Communication in Kin Relationships. Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. 687-736.

This Book Chapter is brought to you by the Psychology, Department of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318826902

All in the Family: Interpersonal Communication in Kin Relationships

Chapter · January 1985

CITATIONS READS 31 99

2 authors, including:

Mary ANNE Fitzpatrick University of South Carolina System

89 PUBLICATIONS 2,369 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Marriage and gender View project

Health communication View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mary ANNE Fitzpatrick on 01 August 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Handbook of Interpersonal Communication

Edited by Mark L. Knapp Gerald R. Miller

~ SAGE PUBLICATIONS ~ Beverly Hills London New Delhi 686 CONTEXTS

Miller, G. R., & Parks, M. (1982). Communication in dissolving relationships. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Personol relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships (pp. 127-154). London: 15 All in the Family: Academic Press. Morton, T. L., Alexander, J. F., & Altman, !. ( 1976). Communication and relationship de finihon In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 105-125). Beveily Interpersonal Communication in Hills, CA: Sage. Neimeyer, R. A., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1983). Structural similarity and the acquaintance process. Kin Relationships Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 146-154. Notarius, C., & Pellegrini, D. (1984). Marital processes as stressors and stress mediators· Implications for marital repair. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships 5: Repairing personal relationships (pp. 67-88). London: Academic Press. Olson, D. H. (1977). Insiders' and outsiders' views of relationships: Research studies. In G. MARY ANNE FITZPATRICK Levinger & H. L. Raush (Eds.), Close relationships (pp. 115-135). Amherst: University 0, DIANE M. BADZINSKI Massachusetts Press. Penman, R. (1980). Communication processes and relationships. New York: Academic Press University of Wisconsin-Madison Raush, H. L. (1977). Orientations to the close relationship. In G. Levinger & H. L. Raush (Eds.I. Close relationships (pp. 163-188). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Rose, S. (1984). How friendships end: Patterns among young adults. Journal of Social md Personal Relationships, 1, 267-277. Rubin, R. B. (1977). The role of context in information seeking and impression formation. MALE and a female held hands and they strolled along together. Communication Monographs, 44, 81-90. They were small people, the male only four feet, eight inches and his Sants, H.K.A. (1984). Conceptions of friendship, social behaviour and social achievement in 6-year-old children. Journal of Social and Persona/ Relationships, l, 293-309. A female companion not much more than four feet tall. Behind the Shaver, P., Furman, W., & Buhrmester, D. (in press). Aspects of life transition: Networ~ couple walked an adolescent, carefully stepping in the footsteps of the older changes, social skills, and loneliness. In S. W. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Understanding ~ale. Although this scene could have taken place anywhere, recently persona/ relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Trower, P. (1981). Social skill disorder. In S. W. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Persond d1SCovered fossils indicated that it actually occurred some 3.6 million years relationships 3: Personal relationships in disorder (pp. 97-110). London: Academic Press ago. Indeed, the discovery of this group is the first sign of the existence of a Winch, R. F. (1958). Mote selection: A study of complementary needs. New York: Harper & 1983). Row. nuclear (hominid) family (Fisher, Anthropologists have shown that as Wright, P.H. (in press). The acquaintance description form. In S. W. Duck & D. Perlman (Eck.I. early as four million years ago, males and females had begun to bond, to share Understanding personal relationships: An interdisciplinary approach (Vol. 1). Beverly H:c.-s. and lo work together in the rearing of their offspring. CA: Sage. The presence of an adult male is, however, not necessarily a universal characteristic of the family. The only universal family type is a small, kinship­ structured group whose primary function is the nurturant socialization of the newborn. Three independent lines of evidence can be adduced for the cro:'5·:ultural and cross-historical universality of this family type. First, most sonet1es of which we have records have such a kinship-structured group. Prolonged maternal care coupled with pronounced socialization of the young and extended relationships between mother and child occur in all human groups (Reiss, 1965; Stephens, 1963). Second, such prolonged maternal care for helpless and dependent infants is a characteristic shared with most other primates (Wilson, 1975). Young monkeys, for example, favor a cloth mother that purportedly dispenses nurturance during stressful or dangerous times o...er the wire mother figure that dispenses food (Harlow, 1958; Harlow & Harlow, 1965). Third, the loss of a primary caregiver seems to have a severe a.'XI devastating effect on human infants regardless of the amount of ~'..:THOR\ NOTE: The authors would like to thank Professor Joseph N. Cappella, Professor ,.!r",e"$ P. Di.lard, and Professor Kathy Kellerman or the Department of Communication Arts t.:~,,,.,~!kty of Wisconsin, and Professor Robert McPhee of the Department of Communication' r_,·~,·-~!y of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, for their insightful comments and criticisms of an earlie; =i:4i: °' this chapter.

687 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 689 688 nourishment they receive {Spitz, 1945; Yarrow, 1963). As the giving and cation is necessary in any attempt to explain, predict, and understand family receiving of emotional support is primarily accomplished through the ver~ outcomes. and nonverbal exchange of messages, the universality of this family form The linchpin around which our rationale for the theoretical importance of suggests the centrality of communication for understanding the family. communication in kin relationships revolves is a recent codification by From such early simple dyadic structures, more elaborated kinship con Reuben Hill of the most frequently utilized factors in all major theoretical nections evolve. Kinship is often defined as the possession of a common approaches to the family (Burr, Hill, Nye, & Reiss, 1979, p. xiii). This ancestor in the not too distant past (Wilson, 1975). This definition suggests a taxonomical effort charts the exogeneous and endogeneous factors of biological reckoning yet it is the social definition of who belongs to whom and central concern to family theorists. As the major concepts of interest in who is related to whom that is more critical (Reiss, 1971). To be kin to analyzing the family are outlined in this perspective, the role of communication someone acknowledges a special tie of who stands in what relationship to becomes crystalline when they are examined. whom, who owes what to whom, and how individuals of particular kinship are expected to pay their social debts. Consideri\tions of complex kinship struc.:· Exogenous Variables tures automatically entail the discussion of marriage and the family (5chne-id­ er, 1968). Through marriage, for example, husbands and wives become kin to Exogenous variables in the study of the family include both the extreme one another. Each takes on a series of rights and duties to one another, and exogenous factors affecting family structures and processes as well as input both stand in the same kin relationship to their children. For many theorists. variables that are more proximate to internal family processes. The extreme kinship, marriage, and the family are an inseparable trinity whose defmmg exogenous variables are those that deal with the social, political, and features and interrelationships are frequently debated (Adams, 1968; Good· economic environment in which a kin group finds itself. Input variables enough 1970; Reiss, 1965; Winch, 1968). Most agree, however, that essential include value orientations, social class, and access to resources and social to any definition of kinship, marriage, and the family is some reference 10 networks (see reviews by Lee, 1980; Leigh, 1982). Historians who study both social relationships, their behavioral content, and the regulatory power 0, types of exogenous variables have shown us that nostalgia for a lost family norms expressed in terms of rights and duties (Verdon, 1981). tradition that never existed has prejudiced our understanding of the This chapter is primarily concerned with the communication that occurs'::, contemporary family (Goode, 1963). Current family forms are considered the family. First, we demonstrate the importance of communication in a.~­ d<.,-sfunctional to the extent that they deviate from such nostalgic views. theoretical or conceptual attempt to understand the family. 5€cond, ...,~ The nineteenth-century family has been described by one historian as an selectively examine some of the research that has been conducted across a emotional iceberg (Shorter, 1975). In contrast, the twentieth-century family number of academic disciplines on interaction within the nuclear far..:\· has become an emotional refuge in an increasingly bureaucratic environment Third, we offer some suggestions for future research. I Parsons & Bales, 1955), an environment that has taken over many of the ott'M?r major functions of the family {for example, socialization of children, the care and nurturance of its members). The emotional relationships between A COMMUNICATION APPROACH parents and children are significantly altered in a society in which peers, and TO KIN RELATIONSHIPS not parents, socialize adolescents. Likewise, in a society in which the aged are cared for by the state, the emotional bonds between adult children and their Six major meta-theoretical perspectives dominate theorizing about 1~ parents are changed. The functions performed by families are highly interde­ family. During the 1960s, the structural-functional, the interaclional. and t~ pendent. limiting the family, once a multifunctional unit of society, to the developmental perspectives were predominant (Nye & Berardo, 1981). D: performance of only one function damages its ability to handle the one ing the 1980s, greater emphasis has been placed on the conflict (Sprey. 19i'9l. emotional function that remains (Lasch, 1977). exchange (Nye, 1979), and system theory (Burr, Leigh, Day, & Constant-")I'. When emotional and psychological factors achieve preeminence in a 1979) perspectives. Of these, only the interactionist approach, which def-~ society's view of the family, different demands are placed on communication 1 the family as a "unit of interacting personalities" (Burgess & Locke. 1%.3 • a:nong family members. If the major function of the modern family is assigns a central role to communication. This symbolic intern-:-ticr:is~ emotional, greater demands are placed on all participants to engage in viewpoint is espoused in Bochner's (1976) article on communicatio'l in ~">t e:c.pressive communication. A societal commitment to expressivity is poten­ family. We intend to show in this section that regardless of the me"~ tt.al!y risky (Bochner, 1982; Moscovici, 1967; Parks, 1982). Such commit­ theoretical orientation to the study of the family, the concept of comm-_-,, ments may also be potentially physically dangerous. The open expression of 690 COffWT1UJlicolion in Kin Relationships 69 1 strong negative feelings to individuals with whom one lives in close s>t¥,-a TABLE 15.1 proximity may exacerbate tensions. An individual is more likely to obsofr,it. ~bjor Endogenous Variables Across All Theories of the Family commit, or be a victim of violence within his or her own family than in~ ~·· ' ' ,,.:~,,,.,, (8) Performance (CJ Output other setting (Gelles, 1974). The modern family is a place in which hatred~ ,J,..,h rul~ Marrying Marital satislactio 11 violence are felt, expressed, and learned as consistently as love. ,~._,., ,.1,!fo~•tion Relationship adjusting Parental satisfactiv n A consideration of such exogenous variables strengthens our theorett.ii II. :l,r d,lfcrcntdtion Problem solving Family solidarity work on the family. Exogenous factors set the scope conditions fol c,.r A ..c.;t 1on •nd support structure Child socializing Adequacy ot tu n, ti"" C,:.,,municJtion structure conceptual efforts by reminding us of the historical and cultural limitatior'Ad Family planning Status attainment ,,.,,,,,.,. cion Processing structure Tension managing our empirical generalizations. Additionally, exogenous variables can Cit (.,.,..cfi,,Jtion of s:ibsystems directly and productively linked to internal family processes (for exar11pr. Bott, 1957). At the very least, these factors remind us of the range~ diversity possible in family systems (van den Berghe, 1978). Envirom-.rtltlil ~opriate role behavior for spouses. Like all roles, those of husband and diversity dramatically affects the input variables and through thew ~ 111~ have culturally prescribed rights and duties associated with them meaning and even the frequency of communicative exchanges are allend fl.inton, 1945). The difficulty arises because there is a subtle revolution occurring in American family life (Smith, 1979). The U.S. Census Bureau Endogenous Variables rte~ized this in 1980 when they announced that the male would no longer The internal, performance, and output variables are the endogeno.;a bf a.ssumed to be the head of the household. Males no longer exclusively factors in theoretical approaches to the family. The specific variables~ ~ for their wives and children. The good provider role, once central to by these factors are diagrammed in Table 15.l. As we have argued.~ bmily life and exclusively male, has been reduced to the status of senior or exogenous variables can be used to predict kinship communication pan~ <~ow:ler (Slocum & Nye, 1976). Communication, however-save in its most narrow definition of C()(l'l1!'U"Jt:.t­ The new male family role has been expanded to include the display of more tion structure, that is, who speaks to whom-is overlooked in this tax~ tl"'t!rNCy. nurturance, and expressivity. Not only are demands being made for of major family variables. Although the centrality of communication r ~ ~,e male communication and tenderness but also for more child care and variety of relational processes is commonplace for communication sd~ ~~rk. Such a major role realignment directly increases the amount of communication is assigned a peripheral role in traditional psycholog,c~.-c ;-roo{em solving and negotiation that occurs between husbands and wives sociological studies of families and close relationships.' tStmard, 1981). There are at least three senses in which communication can be conce;,t'~ In addition to the increasing role burdens placed on husbands, there is a related to these endogenous variables. First, communication can be c~ tr.arked divergence between the attitudes of the culture and the behaviors of as the underlying causal mechanism that translates the set of ~.!trill "1mb.ands and wives. Individuals do not attitudinally support wives in a variables into the outcome variables. Second, communication can be 1'N'L!'l• ~,def role for the family (Slocum & Nye, 1976), yet over 51 percent of the intervening variable linking internal, performance, and output procndlt'L rr-o1rned W'Omen work outside the home as of 1982 (Thorton & Freedman. Third, communication can be seen as constitutive in that it prod,.xes M"~ t~). Furthermore, although husbands are now expected to be more reproduces the social structure of marriage and the family (Mc~. 195,,C-= m.:rtunnt and expressive and to help with housework and child care, they do One's meta-theoretical framework determines which of these three OOfl"'f'j ~ appear to have adopted these behaviors. The majority of husbands in a tions toward communication in kin relationships can be most fn:d.lli, nr:oom sample of 224 married couples rated themselves as neither expres- adopted. The specification of the relationships between the inte-rnat ;1"' 1M nor nurturant (Fitzpatrick & lndvik, 1982). And wives still do the formance, and output variables is incomplete without the explicat,oc: cl :-ir ,-.,.~rk and child care (Thorton & Freedman, 1983). For both husbands nature and function of communication. .ard ·.i."--es, the prerogatives of their respective positions have faded far more Turning to Table 15.1, let us consider the relationships among one r~r.iii: 1lr.,.,1y than have the obligations. one performance, and one output variable. Consider one varia').~ ~ Su::h attitudinal and behavioral inconsistencies in marital role performance column A (role differentiation), one from column B (problem s,ol,.~l. .:.t l-11',e "direct negative impact on marital satisfaction (Burr, 1973; Indvik & one from column C (marital satisfaction). fitn,,atrick, 1982; Ort, 1950; Tharp, 1%3). The inconsistencies between the The need for problem solving in the working out of the role-s ol ~ ~;i,tetations and the behaviors of husbands and wives lead to conflict. Such and wife in a marriage arises because of the cultural shifts in what c~ •I n:~tencies, as well as the tension they can generate, must be resolved to CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 692 693 the ongoing satisfaction of both parties. The resolution of these t~nsions Table 15.1 are behavioral episodes that occur in families. These episodes can requires communication and problem solving, which implicates techniques of be examined at either the molar or molecular levels. Gattman (1979), who negotiating, bargaining, decision making, and so forth. . . views conflict resolution as the major behavioral episode capable of Internal Variables. Internal family variables are frequently operahonahzed predicting marital satisfaction, coded the specific molecular cues exchanged by a variety of verbal and nonverbal messages. The gestures, words, actio~s, between couples during conflict. The interaction sequences between marital silences even the presence or absence of a family member, are representative partners were the best predictor of a couple's experienced satisfaction with a of a nu~ber of different internal family concepts (Raush, Grief, & Nugent, marriage (Gattman, 1979). 1979). Family rules are often defined through observation of the interaction An explicit analytical separation of classes of internal and performance that takes place among family members (Napier & Whitaker, ~978). Power variables may help in the development of concepts and theories at the samparent-child relationship. Family solidarity is a stability dimension that sumes the affection and support structures (Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, objectively examines whether or not a given family is intact. Parents separate Larsen, Muxen, & Wilson, 1983). or divorce and children run away, and such events can be taken as measures The trend toward using verbal and nonverbal communication as opera- of family instability. tional definitions of internal family variables obscures important theoretical Family functioning is a multidimensional construct. It has been defined in aspects of these variables. Although the direct exchang_e ot verbal and three major ways. First, does the family accomplish major family goals? The nonverbal messages is central to family processes, commumcatton alone can goals to be accomplished successfully by the family are specified by the not explain all of the variance in family outcomes. The affective and cognitive theorist. These goals may include the appropriate socialization of the children perspectives as represented by these internal family variables would be better and the stabilization of the adult personality. Or optimal family functioning operationalized through a consideration of the attitudes, valu~s, and/~r may include the development of a specified set of interaction competencies relational theories that individuals and families hold concerrnng family (Farber, 1964). Second, does the organization of the family violate societal interaction. Internal variables are best construed as the factors that account principles? A family is, for example, organized along age and gender lines. for the observed regularities in the performance variables and not as The presence of coalitions across such lines results in dysfunctional performance variables per se. . outcomes (Lewis, Beavers, Gossett, & Phillips, 1976; Mishler & Waxler, Performance Variables. Performance variables are overt behavioral 1968). One way to measure these coalitions is to see if parents are more activities. For communication researchers, these activities are primarily responsive interactively to one another than either is to the children. Third, verbal and nonverbal exchanges. The six performance variables isolated in does the family contain a diseased member? The psychological or even some 694 ccwnxn C0"1"1Unicotion in Kin Relationships 69:i physical problems of a child are defined as prima facie evidence ol t.ei!~ "3"r.O'red the role of communication in predicting family outcomes. To rectifv dysfunction (for example, Henry, 1965). thus omission, we have offered three ways to examine communication as the Embedded in the concept of functioning is a consideration of !!"'.It Gr-ck among the internal, performance, and output variables. We have alsn "normalcy" of a family. Originally, normality was defined as the absenc~ a: ptoposed that a complete theory of the family must take into accou11 1 disease in a family, although more detailed models have recently e-.lOM!d Cwit o.ogenous factors as they impinge on internal family processes. Walsh, 1982). Such an output measure necessarily involves prescriptioMett Given the plethora of research on the family in general, we have limited our 3 t.mi11 the part of the theorist. Radical critiques of the family maintain that ... ~ lo the nuclear family. We have organized the review according to a functions best, the family is the ultimate destructive social form. Or-, t"1t ¥terns theory analogy (Galvin & Brommel, 1982). Thus we have split off the family glues individuals to others based upon a sense of incomp&etfflr.111.. subsy'Stems in the family that can (and have been) examined apart from one stymies the free formation ofone's identity; exerts greater social control at. .-ocher. We have used the system theory metaphor because we believe that children need; and indoctrinates members with elaborate and unrleaSAlf'J' n..ating the family as a system has two major advantages. First, by reminding taboos (Cooper, 1970). The very intensity of such critiques reminds us of 1hr aaoltheinterrelationships of various levels of society, systems theories force prescriptive nature of many definitions of optimal family functioning.. ~-­ • 10 consider the conditions under which dyads can be examined not suggesting that this output variable be abandoned but tha.t rese.wchlft wparately.' Second, this perspective suggests that both verbal and non­ clearly specify their values and orientations as they pursue research on It.a ~bal messages can be used to study the links between ( among) members of functional family. a11,~tem. Finally, status attainment refers to the maintenance or achievemenl d> ·• We have divided the review into two categories: individual social behaviors particular socioeconomic position for a family. Often whether a ~ .w:t interpersonal processes. At times, the placement of research into a attains the same or better status level as the parent, particularly the fa the.• utegmy may seem arbitrary or even procrustean to the reader. Because of concern. Status attainment involves measuring the occupational ~ tfwre is far more research at the level of individual social behavior in the study made by a child in comparison to the father. Often the exposure toa rno&i1 ol lcinship, we have often resorted to placing behavioral observations of and the ability to talk with others about various occupations leads to achid', ir.teraction in the presence of a family member into the interpersonal process awareness and eventual choice of specific jobs or careers (WoeUel & t-t...a.n. Qt~. 1971). Our purpose is not to develop a theory of communication in kinship Although not represented in Table 15.1, Hill (1979; as cited in Bon, Hitt mlltlOnS but rather to bring many strands of research on communication in Nye, & Reiss, 1979) isolated another class of major factors often treattd ~ lfw f.amily together. Like the long-hidden sinopie underlying the frescos of the theories of the family. These are family development, family learning ();fl ~ ages, the sketch that we offer of the role of communication in kinship perio, time, intergenerational processes, economic life cycles and family ~tlOOS has the promise of illuminating the underlying structure of these mance, and family innovations. Each of these concepts adds the social-~ Nil.!nons more clearly. We now consider the dyadic subsystems within the dimension to the model and recognizes the longitudinal nature of the tamil, l.':U::!iear family. Such concepts serve to remind us that families follow a repeated pallem ci organization, disorganization, and change. Any comprehensive approach i,::, the family must take into account the repeated continuities and discontn.a, THE MARITAL PAIR ties in family life. Explicating the role of communication in predicting family outC"OIN fn the twentieth century the key question motivating much of the research variables clarifies the ways different internal variables have led to diffenr.il oni~is : Why do some marriages fail and others do not? Most theorists outcomes. A traditional orientation to male and female roles, for ex.amdit_ lt>d.!<,- agree that the major predictor of marital stability is the satisfaction constrains the communication between marital partners, which leads to~ «:apmenced by each individual in the marriage (Lewis & Spanier, 1979). high degree of satisfaction for some couples yet not for others (Fitzpatncl. ~action and related concepts such as happiness, adjustment, marital 1983). qi~. lack of distress, or integration reference subjectively experienced <'CfflfT'ttment with the marital relationship (Hicks & Platt, 1970; Lewis & Summary ~. 1979). The communication that occurs between married partners In this section, we have delineated the major factors related to f.iimll, ~.an to be the primary predictor of marital satisfaction (Gattman, 1979; processes and have argued that many family theories have un~-.ed« Niollin 1980). In the next section, we examine some of the individual social .. ~.a<."10,s that relate to marital happiness. ' 696 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 697 Individual Social Behaviors than on affect. The interactional views of families, for example, focus on P · t 1960 most scholars were concerned with the identification of a control to the exclusion of affect (Raush et al., 1979). nor o , f · l h · broad range of demographic and personality correlates o mar~~a appiness Power is the ability to produce intended effects on the behavior or (Burgess & Wallin, 1953; Terman, 1938). More recently, the ability to resolve emotions of the other (Scanzoni & Scanzoni, 1976). Power is often linked to interpersonal problems and express affect to a spouse are the f~cus ?f the ability of a husband or wife to grant or withhold resources (Blood & concern in predicting marital satisfaction (Snyder, 1979). The relationship Wolfe, 1960). The resources that contribute to one's power are not between communication variables and marital satisfaction as see~ from the necessarily economic ones (Safilios-Rothschild, 1970) but include anything perspective of the married couples themselves is remarkably ~on~iste~t; that that a husband or wife can use to exercise control in a given situation (French is the happily married believe that they have good commumcation with the & Raven, 1959). Tying power exclusively to the concept of resources is s;ouse (Fitzpatrick, 1983). Such views include openness (Norton & Mont- theoretically myopic because it misses the ongoing and dynamic nature of gomery, 1982)., self-disclosure of thoughts and feelingsb 1 to the spouse· f power between intimates. Resources work, for example, because they (L · & Senn 1967)· perceived accuracy of nonver a commumca ion evinger , , ,, · t· h ges influence the choice of message strategies (deTurck, 1984) effective in (Navran, 1967); and the frequency of "successful commumca 1ve exc an producing the desired outcome. (Bienvenu, 1970). . . . Power is seen during interactions in which husbands and wives have at The above findings appear to resolve the relationship between communi­ least partially conflicting interests. Conflicting interests can arise during cation and marital happiness, except that all couples are capable of family discussions, problem solving, conflict resolution, or crisis management nipulating their verbal communication behavior to conform to a happy or (Olson & Cromwell, 1975). Interactively, speakers exercise control by ;nahappy marital stereotype (Vincent, Friedman, Nugent, & Messerly, 19_79). maintaining attention on themselves and by extensive verbal participation. The facility with which couples can feign a happy or an unhappy marriage Spouses also control the contributions of others through attempted and suggests that such stereotypes are pervasive. Furthermore, as~ed to ~ate a successful interruptions and the skillful use of questions (Mishler & Waxler, conversation purportedly occurring in a ~app~ ?r unhappy mar~1ag~ (Giles & 1968). F·t t ·ck 1985) individuals correctly identified the communication corre­ i zpa n , , t· t d ommu A number of systems define couples according to their usual patterns of lat es of such relationships. The stereotypes of what cons 1tu es goo c · control in conversations (Ericson & Rogers, 1973; Mark, 1971; Sluzki & nication in a happy marriage are robust ones. . . . Beavin, 1965). Three types of couples can be defined by the message Such stereotypes have recently been attacked as representing ideological exchange patterns that are observed as couples communicate with one b"ases1 and/or as representing simplistic views of the nature of hum~n another: symmetrical, complementary, and parallel (Lederer & Jackson, re1 a t·ions h. 1ps (Bochner , 1982·, Parks ' 1982). These. critiques, althoughf vahd,h 1968; Watzlawick, Beavin, & Jackson, 1967). Symmetrical couples have may be missing a critical point; that is, the pervas~ve~es~ and p~wer ~ t ef higher levels of role discrepancy; the couples who manifest lower proportions stereot ypes m ay have a ma1·or impact on communication m mamage.· · t app1· Y) of competitive symmetry have higher levels of satisfaction in their marriages arried spouses may direct interaction (for example, questioning stra eg1e~ (Rogers, 1972). Symmetrical exchanges are more common among upper­ ~ such a way as to validate the kind of communication they expect to see 1n class couples (Mark, 1971), although these results are not replicated (Eric­ their own marriage (Snyder, 1981). The stereotype of the ha~py couple as son, 1972). Complementary couples, in which the husband is dominant, open and expressive may subtly influence a couple to sel~ct topics that do ~ol report higher levels of satisfaction and less role discrepancy (Millar & Rogers, reveal problems or disconfirm one's view of the marnage _or ~f the o! er 1976; Courtright, Millar, & Rogers-Millar, 1979). Parallel couples use a spouse. Stereotypes may create happiness because_both beheve in them and balance of these patterns across topics or situations. Because the research decode the communication in the marriage accordingly. These stereotypes has been limited on both topics discussed and on interaction duration, it has may set expectations for a relationship that cannot be met and hence may been difficult to define parallel couples. lead to dissatisfaction. Outcomes of power processes are usually measured as who wins or who makes the decision in an interaction (Olson & Cromwell, 1975). One recent Interpersonal Processes study has added a measure of marital satisfaction to the usual "who wins" measure because in intimate relationships, there are many Pyrrhic victories In predicting marital satisfaction, both theories of power and affect, (Dillard & Fitzpatrick, 1984). particularly as exercised in conflict situations, have been expound~d._ Much greater emphasis has been placed on the study of power between intimates Our understanding of power in intimate relationships would benefit from a serious consideration of four points. First, power is not a unidimensional CONTEXTS 698 Communication in Kin Relationships 699 concept (Haley, 1%3). Not only who makes particular decisions, but ~\so scheme(Fitzpatrick, 1976, 1983, 1984;Fitzpatrick&lndvik, 1982)isbasedon who decides that this person may make those decisions and who ~etermmes three conceptual dimensions: interdependence, communication, and ideolo­ who will decide which spouse will make a decision are necessary p1e~es of the gy. Interdependence and communication are affect dimensions, measured power puzzle. Second, a dynamic view of power would be ennched ~Y through the self-reports of individuals. Control has been measured, following acknowledging the range of outcomes that a persuader might be interested m the lead of Ericson and Rogers (1973), by the interaction of the couples achieving in family situations (deTurck, 1984). Third, both the ac_t~al (Fitzpatrick, Best, Mabry, & lndvik, 1985; Williamson, 1983). In addition to resources that an individual brings to a family exchange and the preva1hng affect and control, the ideological beliefs and standards that couples hold on a normative beliefs about who should exercise power interact to predict what variety of family issues have been salient in distinguishing among couples. occurs communicatively and how satisfied the parties are with the ?ut~ome. Based on these dimensions, individuals can be categorized as one of three Fourth a focus on sequences of interaction necessitates an examination of relationship definitions. These three definitions are: traditional, independent, how c~mp\iance (noncompliance) affects husbands' or wives' attempts to and separate. T raditionals are very interdependent in their marriage; have assert power over one another (Sprey, 1979). conventional ideological values about marriage and family life; and report an The expression of affect between married partners has also been expressive communication style with their spouses. Independents are moder­ examined most often under conditions of conflict or disagreement_- . In ately interdependent in their marriage; have nonconventional views about contrast to unhappy couples, happy couples exhibit more nonverbal pos1t1ve marriage and family life; and report a very expressive communication style affect cues (Rubin, 1977); agreement and approval (Birchler, 19?2); atte~pts with their mates. Separates are not very interdependent in their marriage, are to avoid conflict (Raush, Barry, Hertel, & Swain, 1974 ); supportive behaviors ambivalent about their views on marriage and family life, and report very little (Wegener, Revenstorf, Hahlweg, & Schindler, 1979);_ comp~omise~ (Birchler, expressivity in their marital communication. 1972)· agreement than disagreement in conversations with their spouses The individual relational definitions of husbands and wives are compared (Gott~an, 1979; Riskin & Faunce, 1972); and consistency in the use of and couple types are generated. Nine couple types can be constructed from nonverbal affect cues (Noller, 1982). the possible combinations of husband and wife relational definitions. In A major affect model is the Structural Model of Marital lnt~raction previous research, approximately 60 percent of the individuals agree with (Gattman, 1979). This model suggests that there !s _more patterning and their spouse on a relational definition. These are the "Pure" types: Tradi­ structure in the interaction of dissatisfied than satisfied couples. Further­ tional, Independent, and Separate. The other 40 percent are distributed more the satisfied exhibit more positivity and are less likely to reciprocate among the other six couples types. These couples are called the "Mixed" negat'ive behaviors. All the concepts in the model are tested in terms of affec_t. types. The "Separate/Traditional" (Fitzpatrick, 1984) type does not occur Even dominance, a type of patterning, is measured by the asym~etry m with any greater frequency than any other Mixed type but it is often predictability of emotional responsiveness between.hu~~ands and '-':'1ves. significantly different from the other couples on a number of variables. Thus it Based on this model, both the frequencies of the md1v1dual behaviors that is often treated as a defined couple type and appears separate of the other couples exhibit in the presence of one another and their int~raction patt~~ns Mixed types. are examined. Although all couples are equally likely to reciprocate positive An active program of research (Fitzpatrick, 1976, 1977, 1981a; Fitzpatrick affect, unhappy couples are more likely to reciprocate negative comm~ni­ & Best, 1979; Fitzpatrick & lndvik, 1982; Fitzpatrick, Fallis, & Vance, 1982; cation behaviors than are happy couples (Gottman, Markman, & Notanus, Fitzpatrick, Vance, & Witteman, 1984; Sillars, Pike, Redman, & Jones, 1983; 1977; Rubin, 1977). The interaction of an unhappy pair shows more Williamson & Fitzpatrick, in press; Witteman & Fitzpatrick, in press) has asymmetry in predictability than does the interaction of a happy one. In an shown that the couple types can be discriminated on a number of self-report unhappy marriage, one spouse is more emotionally dominant !han _another. and behavioral dimensions. Table 15.2 displays some of the major findings in Such extreme patterning seems to occur even at the phys1olog1cal level this program of research. For clarity, the findings on the relational typology (Levenson & Gottman, 1983). As they communicate with one another e~en have been organized along the lines of the first figure, listing the major family on the topic of "How was your day?," the unhappily married s~owed a high variables. degree of predictable physiological responses to one another s comments. The range of the empirical findings indicates that the typing of couples is Such physiological chaining of responses suggests one reason why couples not merely artifactual but reflects important underlying dimensions of report feelings of being trapped in a marriage. . . . relationships. Displaying the findings in this manner indicates that other A major approach that links affect and power 1s that of F1t~patnck -~nd ~er outputs of family processes have been ignored in this typology. It is evident, colleagues (Dindia & Fitzpatrick, in press). This polythehc class1f1cahon however, that in the descriptions of ongoing relationships such as marriage, it CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 701 700 TABLE 15.2 NOTES (CONTINUED) TABLE l 5.2 Double pluses (++) indicate extremely posi tive statistie&lly signiticant relationships '"'" Couple Types and Related Endogenous Variables: found between the two variables, double negatives(-·-) indicate extremely ncl(,llhc 1cl.1 Self-Report and Behavioral Correlates tionships. The plus{+) and m inus (- ) signs indicate that these couple typt:s were intcrn1n li ate on t he endogenous va riables studied. T signifies T rdditionals; I, Independents; S , Sep." T I S S/T M ates; S/T, Separale/Traditionals; and M, Mixed couple t ypes. a. This signifies the concept was measured through self-report. Input Variables b. This indicates that behavioral measures were obtained. Belief Structure 3 + *l his Indicates that the differences displayed were obtained only for the wives. Mo n• Ideology traditionalism + 3 + + detailed description of the various research studies may be found in Fitzpatrick (198J , Ideology uncertainty 1984), or the specific studies cited in the references. Affective and Support Structure ++ + Sharinga + + Autonomy3 + appears to be useful to categorize couples along a number of internal Undifferential spacea + + variables, to code their performance, and predict their outputs. Temporal regularitya + Communication Structure + Stages in the Marital Relationship Conflict avoidancea + + Assertivenessa One of the difficulties in discussing the family in a developmental perspec­ Role Differentiation ++ Conventional sex rolesa + tive is that most of the research conducted on the topic has used cross-sec­ Performance Variables tional post hoc designs. Such designs provide a poor basis for detecting Relational Adjusting developmental trends (Baltes, 1%8; Rollins, 1975} because there is potential + Sel f-d isclosu rea + + confusion between cohort effects and actual developmental changes. The Spouse disclosurea Expression of feelings(+) + scarcity of longitudinal research is not the only problem in studying family + Inhibition of feelings3 (+) development. Most family stage theories, concerned only with intact families, + + Talk frequentlyb • + ++ + mark family developmental stages according to the age of the oldest child Coorientational accuracy a + ++ + + (Duvall, 1971). This approach ignores other family systems, for example, the Self-disclosureb + + ++ + Edificationb common one of a single mother rearing two female children (Aldous, 1978). + ++ Questionsb ++ + Furthermore, the age of the oldest child may not be a particularly sensitive Acknowledgmentsb mark of internal family dynamics. Despite these difficulties in achieving a Conflict Management Salient Conflict b reasonable and broadly applicable model of family development, theorists ++ ++ Competitive symmetry ++ have dealt increasingly with notions of change through time in family systems. Complcmentarityb In the section that follows, we treat some of the research on stages in the Nonsalient contlict b ++ + Competitive symmetry + marital relationship. ++ Complementarityb + Courtship and Early Marriage. The voluminous literature on initial Problem-Solving 0 ++ Meb attraction has been little help in explaining or predicting courtship progress or + + ++ Youb 0 early marital processes (Huston & Levinger, 1978). One major explanation 0 0 ++ usb ++ + for this fact may be the overidentification of the concept of attraction with the Activityb ++ ++ 0 concept of attitude (Berscheid, 1982). In ongoing relationships, individuals do Extern alb + + ++ Searchb not have the clear, bipolar unambivalent responses to one another implied by + + + Powerb + the attitude construct. Commitment to attraction as attitude skews research Directb + + + ++ Compromiseb + and theory on relationships into both a stability framework and an exclusively cognitive one at that (Berscheid, 1983; Graziano & Musser, 1982). Output Variables Marital Satisfaction + The theoretical approaches concerned with the processes through which 3 ++ ++ Con~cnsus + partners select mates are stage or filter theories (Duck, 1976; Kerckhoff & Alfoctiona + + + Davis, 1962; Lewis, 1973; Murstein, 1967). Each implies that individuals Satislactiona ++ + + Cohcsiona progress toward long-term commitments by filtering various pieces of Status Attainment 0 0 0 0 information concerning cognitive compatibility. The successful completion SES differencesa O or passing through of a particular stage is accomplished through the · d -- te that the comparisons have not been made auoss couple types NOTE· BIan k spaces in ca · · in so~e studies. zeros indicate that differences were not obtained through statlstica1 tests. 702 CONTF.X.TS Communication in Kin Relationships 703 discovery (mutual) of similarities and value consensus. In some approaches, tion during pregnancy and throughout the first year of the infant's life is the relational partners are viewed as rational buyers in the marriage marketplace, quality of her marriage. Women who are happily married have fewer physical moving from a state of surface contact to a state of deep mutual involvement symptoms during pregnancy and are substantially better adjusted at the time through an incremental exchange of rewards (Huesmann & Levinger, 1976; of childbirth than are women who are unhappily married. Marital adjustment Levinger & Huesmann, 1980). An excellent critique of these approaches can does not, however, predict maternal adaptation (Grossman, Eichler, & be found in Bochner (1983). Winickoff, 1980). During actual childbirth, the presence of a husband in the Huston and his associates (Huston, Surra, Fitzgerald, & Cate, 1981) delivery room serves as an effective analgesic. During childbirth, when developed a typology of courtship styles based on the time and rate trajectory husbands talk to wives about the course of labor, her well-being, and topics of couples' reports of relational progress. These styles were further discrim­ unrelated to the childbirth, wives seem to experience less pain (Anderson & inated by the frequency and character of the interaction within the couples as Standley, 1978; Henneborn & Cogan, 1975). Such analgesic effects warrant well as between the couples and others. Although we can not fully describe further investigation. the courtship styles, one style is particularly striking. A couple type emerges When another party is added to the family constellation, some change in marked by less positive affect and less companionship than other couples. the husband and wife dyad can be expected to occur. From one dyad, the Intriguingly, these couples resemble a type of married couple, called the family now contains three (husband-wife; father-child; mother-child). The "Separates," identified in another theoretical perspective (Fitzpatrick, 1984). birth of a child represents a 200 percent increase in the number of dyads in the It appears that some couples begin marriage relatively disaffiliated and non­ family as well as the possibility of a triad. Thus new structural constraints are companionate yet holding traditional sex role ideologies (Huston et al., 1981). introduced into the family system. Change from an existing pattern may Interaction in courtship has significant impact on early marriage out­ induce stress, crisis, and even dysfunction, yet change is often a necessary comes. There is strong support for the sleeper effect (Markman, 1979, 1981). condition for developmental growth. In other words, the effect of conflict during courtship does not show up until For many couples, the arrival of a child has a negative impact on their later in a marriage. Even serious conflict during courtship does not appear to marital quality, especially for wives (LeMasters, 1957; LaRossa, 1977). The affect a couple's satisfaction with the relationship at the time but it does birth of the first child has even been called a "crisis" (LeMasters, 1957). predict dissatisfaction with the partner and the marriage up to five years later Considering the birth of a baby as a crisis is an overstatement, although the (Kelly, Huston, & Cate, in press). event necessitates rather complex shifts in identity, role behavior, and Transition to Parenthood. A major stage in the marital career is the communication (Cowan, Cowan, Coie, & Coie, 1978). The arrival of a child transition to parenthood (Rossi, 1968). Strong pronatalist pressures exist in completes the move from equalitarian and less differentiated role patterns in our society, and such pressures establish a closely defined link between a marriage into more traditional ones. One national probability sample marriage and parenthood (Peck & Senderowitz, 1974). Voluntarily childless indicated that after the birth of a first child, wives lose decision-making power couples are often viewed as selfish, unhappy, lonely, immature, and in their relationships and the help of their husbands with housework. Not only emotionally unstable (Pohlman, 1966), although these stereotypes may be did such self-reported behaviors change, but the ideological beliefs of couples fading (Veevers, 1981). Negative social sanctions are reserved for those also took a turn toward traditionalism (Hoffman & Manis, 1978). couples who choose to have one child and thus reap many of the benefits and Levels of marital satisfaction change curvilinearly across the history of a fewer of the burdens of child rearing. The transition to parenthood starts a marriage. For couples who stay married, general satisfaction decreases family that should include two to four children (Aldous, 1978). simultaneously with the arrival of the oldest child until he or she reaches Important attitudinal changes begin to occur during pregnancy. Women adolescence. As children mature and leave home, satisfaction again in­ begin reevaluating their parents along traditional lines, especially their own creases, yet it never attains its early marriage high (Rollins & Galligan, 1978). mothers (Arbeit, 1975). Pregnancy sets off a traditionalizing process, The decline and rise of marital satisfaction may occur at various stages of the reinforced by the withdrawal of the wife from the workplace to await the birth family career because of the decrease in companionship between husbands of the child. Less equalitarian relationships between husbands and wives are and wives. A decline in the frequency of positive companionship experiences one outcome of childbearing (Rossi, 1968). Expectant mothers become more with the spouse from the birth of a child through the preschool stage may introspective during pregnancy, and this serves to distance a husband and account for the decrease in marital satisfaction during this period (Lerner & wife (Lamb, 1978a). Spanier, 1978). The decrease in marital satisfaction during these years may Much of the research focuses on the woman during pregnancy and later be compensated for by the increase in satisfaction in the parental role. (Lamb, 1978a). The strongest predictor of a woman's psychological adapta- Children give couples a shared task, a common goal, and undoubtedly a topic for flagging marital conversations. A consideration of how various levels of 704 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 705 output variables of family processes compensate for one another would These are stage theories concerning the dissolution of close relationships greatly expand our understanding of the family. (Baxter, 1984; Bradford, 1980; Duck, 1982a, 1982b; Knapp, 1978; Lee, 1984). Separation and Diuorce. Although it may seem curious to list separation The most comprehensive model (Duck, 1982b) incorporates social and and divorce as stages in the marital career, estimates on the divorce rate psychological factors into the process of relational termination. Like revision­ suggest between 30 to 40 percent of all marriages experience this stage ist views of courtship (Bolton, 1961), disengagement is now conceptualized as (Thorton & Freedman, 1983). Even larger percentages of couples separate at a dialectical process that does not follow the same trajectory for all couples. some point in the marriage. Separation and divorce can be viewed as stages in The research on what individuals actually say during relational disintegration a marital career not only because they occur frequently but also because they is nonexistent, although Miller and Parks ( 1982) have developed a taxonomy are viewed by individuals as serious crises involving major developmental of disengagement strategies. Disengagement processes are difficult to changes. Most people marry, and marrying is associated with significant examine as they occur. The procedures developed for retrospective ac­ changes in the way we view ourselves, our partners, and our world. counts of courtship progress may be profitably adapted in this area (Huston Consequently, the breakup (or potential break up) of this relationship is a et al., 1981). serious crisis (Bloom, White, & Asher, 1979). In most scales of stress and What couples say to others is critical in the dissolution process. Six illness, the death of a spouse, divorce, and marital separation receive the months after separation, women rehash and ruminate on the causes of the highest stress scores (Holmes & Rahe, 1976). relationship disintegration (Harvey, Weber, Yarkin, & Stewart, 1982). Today, few societal barriers exist to the breakup of a marriage. As the Women relate dissolution to interpersonal problems rather than to the external barriers are removed, the internal barriers become paramount. The structural factors that men mention (Hill, Rubin, & Peplau, 1976). Called interpersonal and dyadic factors, such as companionship, emotional grati­ grave dressing (Duck, 1982b) or accounts (Harvey et al., 1982; Weiss, 1975), fication, and communication, account for an increasingly high amount of the these statements are histories of a relationship that structure events in a variance in marital satisfaction (Lewis & Spanier, 1979). There is, however, a narrative sequence to allocate blame for relationship failures. Such accounts dark side to this dependence on the internal barriers to relational disinte­ bring the social context into the study of relationships. Theorists in other gration. As more pressure is placed on internal factors, individuals in­ areas of family processes would be wise to follow this lead. creasingly examine their own reasons for remaining in a marriage. Such a In considering marital dissolution, not only the stages through which a heavy justificatory burden on the internal contents of the relationships may relationship passes but also patterned differences among individuals or turn the relationship sour (Berscheid & Campbell, 1981). Each partner couples (Kressel, Jaffee, Tuchman, Watson, & Deutsch, 1980) demand watches the pulse of the relationship. Time and energy are spent discussing consideration. Kresse! and his associates (1980) isolated types of divorcing and assessing the state of the relationship. Such pulse watching leads to couples. s These couple types, demonstrating as they do particular patterns of increased insecurity, for each knows that the connections in the marriage affect and conflict, are similar to couples in ongoing marriages isolated in the may be tenuous. Increased importance is thus placed on maintaining intense relational typology (Fitzpatrick, 1984). positive feelings for one's spouse. Unfortunately for the longevity of many In this section, we have attempted to show how communication operates marriages, it is not only difficult to retain a high level of intensity of feelings for in a marriage. The similarity in some of the work across these disparate areas anyone through time, but also relational vigilance increases negative feelings is striking. Three independent lines of investigation of marriage at three of jealousy and possessiveness (Berscheid & Campbell, 1981). different points in time-courtship (Huston et al., 1981), marriage (Fitz­ Divorce is not a single event but a series of legal, psychological, sexual, patrick, 1984), and divorce (Kresse! et al., 1980)-yield remarkably similar economic, and social events strung out over a period of time (Bohannan, results. From early in courtship, some couples seem to start their relation­ 1970; Wallerstein & Kelly, 1980). One of the difficulties of studying divorce is ships as "Separates," emotionally and psychologically less involved with one that the legal fact is a poor marker for an interpersonal process. This legal another. These Separate couples, who emerge in cross-sectional studies of step can occur at any number of places along a psychological continuum of marriage, tend not to communicate very much with one another and rarely relational dissolution. The separation that proceeds a divorce involves engage in serious conflicts. Such a type of couple appears again in divorce repeated distancing, partial reconciliation, new withdrawal, and eventual mediation. From early in courtship, it appears that some couples do not equilibrium for many couples (Weiss, 1975). This approach-avoidance occurs develop the numerous interconnected sequences of interaction that Ber­ because love erodes before attachment fades (Weiss, 1975). The latter is a scheid links to the experience of strong emotion in close relationships bonding to the other that gives rise to a feeling of ease when the other is (Berscheid, 1983). Whether the couples who begin in this fashion are the ones accessible (Bowlby, 1972). Attachment explains why couples who are who end this way; our current cross-sectional data cannot tell us. Un­ separating experience extreme distress even if both desired to separate. doubtedly, the process of relational growth and disintegration takes marked· 706 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 707 ly different paths for different couples. In the next section, we examine some Relying on the impressive recent work of Steinmetz ( 1979) and Rollins and of the issues typically studied concerning parent-child communication. Thomas (1979), we summarize the empirical relationships between parental communication strategies and selected child outcomes, particularly aggres­ sion, dependency, cognitive development, conformity, moral development, 7 THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP creativity, and self-esteem. We sorted the relationships according to the sex of the interactants. Because a basic discrimination in definitions of the family Early work on the relationship between parents and children can be surrounds age and sex, we did not want to speak of general parent-child termed social mold theories. These theories assume that the child is a passive patterns without first examining the individual dyadic combinations. Gender­ partner in socialization, awaiting the molding of its parents (Hartup, 1978). based differences have been understudied in close relationships (Peplau, 1983), and ours was an attempt to remedy that situation. With the realization that a child contributes to the marriage and the family, more child-centered theories and research emerge (Bell, 1968). Not only The effect of supportive parental messages on children of all ages seems when they reach adolescence or adulthood but also as an infant, a neonate, or clear. Across all possible combinations of parent-child dyads (father-son, even in utero, children can influence a broad variety of family processes father-daughter, mother-son, mother-daughter), supportive messages lead (Lerner & Spanier, 1978). The behavior of even the youngest child can to higher self-esteem, more conformity to the wishes of the parents in both stimulate, elicit, motivate, and reward the actions of parents. Currently, both young children and adolescents, and inhibition of aggression or antisocial the social mold and the child-centered orientations have been supplanted by behavior in a variety of settings. Rejection, the opposite of support, leads to a perspective that views parents and children as simultaneously and mutually greater dependency on the part of all children. With the exception of the influencing one another. Each serves as the stimuli for the other's behavior. In mother-daughter dyad, supportive messages also facilitate the development this section, we examine some of the major research efforts directed toward of higher moral standards in children. Based on a careful examination of the understanding this parent-child communication process. research, there is little doubt that making a child feel loved, supported, and comfortable in the presence of a parent leads to the development of a large Individual Social Behaviors range of socially valued behaviors in the child. The relationship between cognitive development and supportive parental Research on individual social behaviors generally focuses on how parental communication holds clearly only in same-sex pairs. Supportive messages message selection influences the development of a variety of characteristics from a father lead to academic achievement, masculine sex-role identification, 6 in the child (Hess, 1981). Parental messages can be broadly characterized as and cognitive development in a son. For mothers and daughters, an inverse support and control messages (Rollins & Thomas, 1979; Steinmetz, 1979). relationship exists between supportive messages from a mother and a Behaviors that make a child feel comfortable in the presence of a parent daughter's achievement in school. When the mother engages in positive and are support messages. These include praising, approving, encouraging, warm interactions with her daughter, she faciliates the daughter's cognitive physical displays of affection, giving help, and cooperating with a child. development and feminine sex-role identification, yet curiously not her drive Behaviors designed to gain compliance with the wishes of the parent are to succeed in school. This finding is our only indication of negative outcomes called control messages. Control messages include coercion, induction, and resulting from supportive communication messages. Perhaps supportive and love withdrawal. Coercive messages focus on external reasons why the child loving messages from a mother cause a female child to reject external success should comply with the parent and involve physical punishment, the direct as measured by school performance and to turn to more traditional activities. application of force, the deprivation of material objects or privileges, or the Alternately, the mothers in these dyads may have little ambition concerning threat of these. Induction messages focus on the internal reasons why the their daughters' achievement in school. child should comply with the parent and involve explanations, reasons, or The development of socially valued and prosocial behaviors in children is pointing out the consequences of an act for the child or for others. Love facilitated not only by the use of supportive messages but also by maternal withdrawal focuses on a combination of internal and external forces for responsiveness, the discussion and acceptance of feelings, and the reinforce­ compliance. These techniques indicate disapproval of the child's behavior ment and modeling of prosocial behavior (Bryant & Crockenberg, 1980). A with the implication that love will not be restored until the child does what the nurturant parent-child relationship is basic to the development of prosocial parent wishes. Love withdrawal is manifested by ignoring the child, isolating behavior in children (Hoffman, 1970). Because it reduces a child's needs the child, explicit statements of rejection, or nonverbal behaviors signaling nurturance helps to increase positive orientations toward others and coldness or disappointment (Rollins & Thomas, 1979). identification with the nurturant parent (Staub, 1978). 708 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 709

The relationship between extreme parental control strategies and child is little empirical support that double binds actually lead to dysfunction<1I outcomes is also demonstrably clear based on the empirical research. family outcomes (Olson, 1972). This construct is difficult to examine as it mo~' Extreme control attempts such as physical punishment lead to aggression in be impossible to create double binds, given all of the previously named virtually all children, and coercive attempts of any kind lead to less conditions, in any laboratory. Further, the most obvious pathology associotPcl internalization of moral standards in children. Other more subtle forms of with the double bind, namely, schizophrenia, is now believed to haw .i parental control do not necessarily lead to any obvious child outcomes. More neurochemical basis (Garmezy, 1974). research is needed in parental control strategies. The lack of theory-based Despite the disappointing laboratory tests on double bind, studies on the discriminations of various forms of parental persuasion beyond the extremes consistency of verbal and nonverbal channels of communication continue to of physical aggression has limited our understanding of parental control be viewed as valuable enterprises. There appear to be significant differences messages and child outcomes (deTurck, 1984). in the communication consistency of mothers of disturbed versus normol Because families are defined by age and gender hierarchies, dyadic sex children (Bugental & Love, 1975). Specifically, mothers of disturbed children composition must be considered when studying the effects of parental sent more inconsistent messages than mothers of normal children (mean age: message styles on children. It would be of great theoretical utility to link the 9; see Bugental, Love, Kaswan, & April, 1971). Most mothers may have input and performance variables that we have been discussing to the output "perfidious female faces" in that in both normal and disturbed families. variables in Table 15.1. Certain compliance-gaining procedures may work mothers smiled regardless of the content of the messages they sent to their equally well in socializing a child to the wishes of a parent yet have remarkably children (Bugental, 1974; Bugental, Love, & Gianetto, 1971). A key question different effects on family solidarity. remaining is when do children of varying ages begin to see and understand The research results on how the withdrawal of parental love actually these communicative discrepancies. affects child outcomes are very mixed. Because these messages involve the Although intriguing, these results have not been replicated in five other manipulation of affect to achieve an end, their operationalizations may have studies (Jacob& Lessin, 1982). Although the examination of inconsistency in to be carefully delineated. The theoretical relationship between affect and family communication continues to be a topic of importance for all interested power in intimate relationships needs greater attention from theorists. It in family processes, two oversights must be corrected in future research. stands to illuminate many facets of family life, not only child socialization. In First, developmental issues such as the age of the children must be any consideration of human relationships, affect is inextricably related to considered_ Children show developmental differences across a number of power (Waller, 1938). From the beginning of the parent-child relationship, nonverbal recognition and encoding skills. These differences may be sex there is a unique union of love and discipline, which makes socialization linked (Mayo &Henley, 1981)_ Research must thus take into account not only possible. the developmental age of the child but also his or her sex. Second, more:> The research results on the use of induction techniques, that is, reasoning attention should be paid to theoretical models of the relationships among with one's child, are also mixed, The use of such a technique can be expected channels of communication. Communication channels carry differentiol to vary in subtlety as the child develops cognitively (Applegate, Burke, levels of information for receivers. This area may be especially important in Burleson, Delia, & Kline, 1983). Indeed, the ability of a mother or father to studying individuals who have interaction histories with one another such as adjust his or her messages based on the developmental level of the child is family members. Third, across any age group, inconsistencies must reach il paramount in all styles, not only the inductive one. Thus the neglect of particular level before they are perceived by communicators (Atkinson & developmental differences may be obscuring our understanding of how Allen, 1983). The psychological reality of channel inconsistency is a major induction messages work in producing child outcomes. point that must be considered in studies of family communication (Folger & Our discussion of parent-child communication has proceeded as if Poole, 1980). Fourth, a consideration of recent functional approaches to thi:> communication existed on only one level. Of course, communication occurs study of nonverbal communication may give the study of inconsistent famil~· across many levels (Bateson, 1975)_ Messages that contradict one another communication a needed theoretical transfusion (for example, Patterson. across the various levels of communication are taken to be related to a variety 1983). of dysfunctional outcomes for families. Messages from different channels (verbal, prosodic, kinesic, facial, and so forth) may create a paradox by the Interpersonal Processes simultaneous assertion of contradictory meanings. If this situation occurs many times, in an intense relationship in which partners can not comment on As young as seven weeks, infants and their mothers have been observed in the paradox or even escape the field, it constitutes a double bind (Abeles, "proto-conversations" or interactive sequences characterized by eye gazing, 1976). Despite the importance of this construct in the interactional view, there face-to-face orientation, patterns of tum-taking, variations in vocal intonation, 710 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 711 and obvious mutual pleasure (Bateson, 1975; Stern, 1977). Researchers in may be extended to adult conversations. In families or close relationships, mother·infant interaction have developed elaborate and powerful models of those who are perceived as incompetent may periodically be addressed int lw dyadic interaction to explain these processes. In these models, communica· comm register and those who inspire affection may be addressed at certcJin tion, in its most basic form, involves mutuality, intersubjectivity, and times in the aft register. Recent research on care giver-elderly interaction reciprocity (Ryan, 1974). suggests that the elderly, during caretaking interactions in nursing homes, Infants are predisposed to the development of primitive communication are addressed in the comm register (Giles, 1984) and that spouses and lovers skills. From early on, the behavior of an infant forms patterned, functional tend to be addressed in the aff register (Hopper, Knapp, & Scott, 1981). units that are easy to recognize. The first communication from a baby is a cry. The interaction we have been describing takes place during the first six Infants selectively attend to the world around them. They indicate a prefer· months of an infant's life. These interaction patterns set the stage for the ence for human faces over other shapes and look at faces and try to talk to development of the attachment bond. Attachment is a tie that one person them rather than bottles or breasts (Bell, 1974). Infants also have preferences forms to another specific person, binding them together in space and for the human voice, and by the end of the first month can be quieted by soft, enduring over time. An infant appears to become attached to the figure or high.pitched talking (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1971). figures with whom he or she has the most interaction (Ainsworth, 1973; Care givers recognize these patterned units and assume that at least some Ainsworth & Bell, 1969). Attachment is indicated by behaviors that promote of them provide indications of what is happening inside the infant (Richards, proximity such as signaling behavior like crying, smiling, and vocalizing; 1974). They respond to the differential cries of an infant and identify three orienting behavior such as looking, moving toward, or following the other; types of cries: hunger, pain, or anger. Objectively, these cries differ in terms and active physical contact such as clinging or embracing. of pitch, pattern, and intonation (Wasz·Hockert, Lind, Vuorenkoski, Parten­ The attachment bond between a mother and an infant predisposes the en, & Valarne, 1968; Wolff, 1971). The care giver helps the infant not only to infant to comply, at a later date, with the wishes of the mother. The achieve appropriate levels of tension and arousal but also to organize the willingness to be obedient rather than any understanding of the content of the behavior to which the care giver contingently responds (Sroufe, 1979). A mother's message emerges from the development of a secure attachment baby's smiles, burps, and coos are responded to by an adult as turns in bond in the dyad. Infants categorized as securely or anxiously attached to conversation. Care givers use tag questions and other postcompleters to their mothers at 18 months of age were followed at 24 months. Infants who pass the conversational turn to a baby (Snow, 1972). Indeed, the greater the could employ their care givers as a secure base from which to explore and use of questions by the mother, the greater the mother's desire to interact who positively greeted their mothers following a stressful separation experi reciprocally with her infant (Snow, 1977). Effective care givers even fill-in a ence (or were comforted by her presence) displayed more skill in problem turn for an inactive baby {Spieker, 1982) by acting as if the baby had solving and were more cooperative than were the less securely attached responded in the appropriate sequence. toddlers (Matas, Arend, & Sroufe, 1982). Infants appear initially inclined to be Care givers adjust their speech when speaking to infants and children at social and somewhat later ready to comply with the wishes of those persons early stages of language acquisition. Mothers adjust their speech to young who are most significant in their environment (Stayton, Hogan, & Ainsworth. infants to keep the conversation going and to engage the attention of the 1982). Compliance from the young occurs only when affect has been infant (Kaye, 1980; Snow, 1977). With infants of six months or older, the established in the relationship. mother adjusts her speech by using syntactically simpler utterances in order Previous work on attachment placed primary emphasis on emotion. to make herself understood by the child. This adjustment helps both the Recent explanations have, however, assigned a central role to cognitivP child's understanding and general linguistic capacity (Bellinger, 1980). factors. The appearance of separation anxiety between 8 and 12 months is "Baby talk" differs from other talk in prosody, in redundancy, and in considered the behavioral manifestation of attachment. Separation distress grammatical complexity (Wells & Robinson, 1982). The various feature~ of at the temporary (permanent) loss of the care giver occurs at this stage in baby talk serve different and orthogonal functions. The clarification funchon cognitive development because the infant can retrieve a schema for an event is served by the "comm register," which includes the attention-getting that is not in the immediate visual field. The infant's ability to recall stored devices noted in "motherese" (Snow, 1977) and in the simplification of speech information, to retrieve a past schema, and to compare that schema to the and its prosodic characteristics. The expressive function is served by the "aff present information is now thought to lead to the emotional distress (Kagan. register," which is primarily verbal and includes the the use of pet names, the 1979). playful repetition of names, and the use of diminutives and endearments. In our discussion, we have shifted between the terms care giver and Because babies are both linguistically incompetent and typically inspire mother. Most theories assume the primacy of the mother-infant bond affection, baby talk occurs in both comm and aff registers. These functions (Bowlby, 1972; Freud, 1949; Winnicott, 1964). In these theories, the mother is 712 CONTEXTS C0mmunicati0n in Kin Relationships 713 uniquely important in the child's life because she spends the most time with count of the duration or frequencies of attachment behaviors (Sroufe, 1979) the child and has the most interaction. The amount of actual mother-infant rather than with any conceptual inadequacy. From this we have learned that interaction is, however, highly overestimated, and simple time spent together in studying emotional phenomena, we have to look for stable categories of is a poor predictor of the quality of an infant's relationships with anyone behavior rather than stable discrete behaviors. For a number of reasons, the (Lamb, 1976b). A few hours of pleasurable interaction appear to be more infant may show one type of attachment behavior at two months but a very conducive to the development of a bond between the infant and an adult than different type of attachment at 20 months (Sroufe, 1979). This differential do more extensive hours with a less stimulating care giver (Birnbaum, 1971; behavioral display of the same underlying construct may occur because the Lamb; 19766). child is continuing to develop sensory-motor skills between the time periods The ability of an infant to form attachments to more than one primary when the measurement occurs. Multiple measurements of constructs appear figure has clear survival value (Mead, 1942). Infants form attachments to both necessary in the study of affect in all social relationships (Fitzpatrick, 1981b). fathers and mothers, although the nature of the interaction between infant The work on mother-infant interaction is also instructive because it offers an and each parent may differ. Fathe rs engage in more play and mothers in more implicit recognition that cognitive competencies underlie the unfolding of care-giving activities with an infant. Infants prefer the physical, nonintellectual, emotion. The consideration of both cognitive and affective explanations for rough and tumble play initiated by fathers (Lamb, 1976a; Parke & O'Leary, the development of these early bonds is a useful exemplar for the study of 1976). How much nurturance and what type of nurturance fathers give to other social relationships. Although in infant studies as in other relationship older children remain to be seen. That men can be nurturant has been clearly studies, cognitive mental schemas are viewed as affectively toned, the demonstrated. One major multinational study of men in public with children reciprocal influence of affect on cognition needs to be more extensively indicated that the touching, proximity, and visual contact maintained by men explored (Kagan, 1979). In adult relationships, the manner in which certain with male and female children did not differ from that exhibited by women affective states affect representations of the relationship is beginning to be (Mackey & Day, 1979). American fathers do not seem to mind child socializ· researched (Fallis, 1984). ing yet they still reject child care (Slocum & Nye, 1976). Even cross-culturally, In this section, we have seen that parent-child communication is often taking a child to the park is now an appropriate role for both fathers and studied at the level of an individual social process. The major lines of research mothers, yet changing a diaper is still women's work. on interpersonal processes in parent-child communication are limited The interactions that facilitate attachment also facilitate the learning of primarily to the care giver-infant domain. Across both of these divisions we language. Reciprocity (sensitivity to the partner) and intersubjectivity begin to see a conceptual confusion between affect and power in' the (experience of two persons with shared knowledge of the world) set the stage relationship of parents and children. Both parents and children use affect to for the onset of intentional communication. Babies begin to look at a desired achieve their persuasive goals; and power can create affect. In the next object, gesture and vocalize toward it, and alternate glances between the section, we turn to a consideration of one of the less frequently examined desired object and the care giver. The emergence at nine months of this family dyads: the sibling relationship. intentional signaling is a major stage in language development (Bates, 1979; Bates, Camaioni, & Volterra, 1975). By developing a stable group of conventional gestures, babies are making the discovery that the objects they SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS desire have names (Spieker, 1982). The similar focus on objects by the care giver and the infant helps the infant to learn words. Primitive communication, followed by attachment between infants and care givers, sets the stage not Eighty percent of the population live the first third of their lives in families only for language learning but for most other facets of a child's development. with siblings. The kinds of interactions that children have with their siblings The study of family relationships has much to gain from the study of care have a profound influence on the personal happiness that they experience in giver-infant interaction. A life-span developmental approach to the study of the family growing up (Bowerman & Dobash, 1974). And early affective attachment among family members would illuminate a major aspect of family relationships between sibs appear to predict interaction between them in process. Much can be learned from the research on infant attachment ~both adulthood (Bank & Kahn, 1982a, 19826). conceptually and methodologically. Debates arose in the infant literature with Influenced by Freud (1949), much of the early literature on family the realization that attachment did not demonstrate either individual stability interaction discussed the sibling relationship in terms of negative affect or trait consistency across samples, situations, or time (Sroufe, 1979). The (Bossard & Boll, 1950). Children show signs of hostility, anxiety, and problem appeared to rest with the operationalization of attachment as a competition at the birth of a younger sibling (Cameron, 1963). Sibs tend to 714 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 715 compete in the family for the love, attention, and favor of one or both of the stage in family development, leave most of the empirical findings on this topic parents (Levy, 1937). This rivalry purportedly is much stronger when the age in confusion. To sort through these findings, meta-analysis may yield some interval between children is four years or less (Koch, 1956). Some recent promising results (for example, Hyde, 1984). observational work in families finds no empirical support for this age interval hypothesis in the observed aggressive, imitative, or pro-social behaviors of Interpersonal Processes children toward their close or far interval sibs (Abramovitch, Corter, & Lando, 1979; Abramovitch, Corter, & Peplar, 1980; Dunn & Kendrick, 1981). Sibling status variables of age, birth order, birth interval, and sex do not During the beginning of the school years, however, increased positive account adequately for sibling differences (Scarr & Grajek, 1982). Dunn behavior and decreased aggression to a widely spaced (much younger) ( 1983) argues that these constructs may be inadequate to account for sibling sibling may appear (Minnett, Vandell, & Santrock, 1983). Whatever the behavior because they reference complementary behaviors (A is older than degree of hostility between sibs, it may be resolved by consistent parental B) in an attempt to predict reciprocal behaviors (A and B are mutually affection, the development of an attachment bond between siblings, and the aggressive). Conceptual discriminations between peer, sibling, and parent­ socialization of aggression (Tsukada, 1979). child interaction in terms of reciprocity and complementarity would help. Other more positive aspects of the interaction between sibs have been Although recent theoretical interest in the development and maintenance of given less attention. The possession of a sibling may make early socialization peer relationships in children may not be directly applicable to the study of complete because siblings provide peer role models and training in coopera­ sibs (for example, Hartup, 1978; La Gaipa, 1981), valuable lines of research tion, conflict management, and accommodation. They also offer to one could examine the nature of differences in peer and sibling interactions. another companionship, security, and love (Duberman, 1973). Indeed, sib­ Peer interactions are reciprocal interactions in that each can understand lings may create for one another very different environments within the the reasoning and perspective of the other. Parent-child interactions are family. complementary interactions in that the behavior of each differs from but fits that of the other. Sibling relationships include the direct reciprocity of peers Individual Social Behaviors because of their intensity, familiarity, intimacy, and the recognition and sharing of interests. The frequent imitation by siblings of the actions of one The most extensive work that has been undertaken on sibling relationships another, the demonstration of joy and excitement in coaction sequences, and examines the effects of birth order on personality development and achieve­ the willingness of each to engage in pro-social and comforting actions are ment (Falbo, 1981; Toman, 1961). Characteristic personality traits for each examples of reciprocity of interaction between sibling pairs. Given the age birth order are described. Even the eventual marital adjustment of an differences between sibs, these relationships also have aspects of the parent­ individual is linked to position in the family of origin (Toman, 1961). lt is child relationship (Dunn, 1983, pp. 788-789). Care giving, teaching, attach­ entirely plausible that individual differences in tactics, aggression, sex-role ment, and language are aspects of inherent complementarity in sibships.k preferences, and interests in latter-born children can be attributed to the Four-year-olds are capable of making speech adjustments to two-year-olds processes of identification and modeling of older siblings. The conforming, (Shatz & Gelman, 1977) and can adjust their communication to dolls achievement, and affiliative behaviors of only and first-born children may be representing others (Sachs & Devin, 1976). All the two- and three-year-olds attributed to that child's special relationship to the parents (Sutton-Smith & studied (Dunn & Kendrick, 1982) made systematic adjustments in speaking Rosenberg, 1970). Very few studies of the interaction between parents and to their fourteen-month-old siblings. Older sibs tend to clarify their speech for children or between siblings have been conducted to test these ideas. Much their conversational partner, but only those older sibs who had particularly of this research has been motivated by curiosity rather than theory. Arguing warm relationships with the infants used expressive linguistic features. that a structural subposition in a family unit leads to given personality Conversational turns in these sibling interactions were shorter than those of outcomes for an individual leaves the why question unanswered. Some the mother with the infant and were not responded to as strongly by the appreciation of the psychological or communication conditions that occur infant. Both mother and infant attempted to maintain the attention of the when an individual occupies a birth-order position (Schvaneveldt & !hinger, other, whereas sibling-infant turns were primarily nonverbal sequences such 1979) is necessary to understand why a specific birth position in a family leads as alternate imitations of one another over a shorter span of time. to given outcomes for a family member. Furthermore, serious methodologi­ Comparisons of the interaction of 4- to 8-year-old children with parents cal flaws must be corrected in these studies (Schooler, 1972). Sampling error, and with sibs indicated that the interaction behavior of a target child wo~ as well as failure to control for socioeconomic status, cohort effects, or the remarkably different with parents versus siblings (Baskett & Johnson, 1982). 716 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 717

Interactions with the parent were more numerous and varied than were those Little work has been done on the interaction patterns of older sibling pairs. with a sibling. Children talked, laughed, and touched the parents more and The majority of adolescents say they are close to their sibs. Adolescent were more compliant with their wishes. Undesirable behaviors directed to females report more affect toward their sibs than do males; same-sex sibs are parents seemed designed primarily to draw attention (for example, whining, preferred; and younger children have stronger affect toward older sibs than demands for attention, and so forth). The only pro-social behavior that vice versa. In addition, affect decreases with age and is stronger in families occurred more frequently in sibling interaction than in parent-child interaction with two children (Bowerman & Dobash, 1974). The sib relationship with the was that children tended to play or work with one another more. In general, greatest contrast in feeling, and hence the most at risk for conflict, is the older brothers and sisters used more physical aggression, yelling, hitting, and brother-younger sister relationship. The least contrast in feeling and the less negative commands with one another than they did with parents. Regardless at risk for conflict is the older sister-younger brother relationship. of the state of the relationship between the sibs, the sibs preferred interacting More than peers or even other family members, siblings are accessible to with a parent to interacting with their sib. one another during the entire length of the developmentally formative years. Preschool-age children both offer their toys and talk to their 18-month-old They share time, space, and personal history to a degree unlikely in peer sibs. The toddlers watch and imitate the older children and take over the toys relationships (Bank & Kahn, 1982a, 1982b). Perhaps more importantly, the older child abandoned (Lamb, 1978b). Both same- and mixed-sex sibling siblings influence one another at every stage in the development of their dyads of close and far spacing interact a great deal. Once a minute, in this personal identities. Such influence may be accomplished through the social study, a sib initiates or responds to the other member of the dyad. Older comparison process, which specifically occurs in sibling but not necessarily in children in each pair initiate most (84 percent) of the antagonistic acts, peer interactions (Tesser, 1980). Sibs tend to compare themselves to one regardless of the sex or age differences among the dyads, and most of the another on a number of dimensions not limited to attractiveness, intelligence, pro-social acts as well. Younger children initiate most of the imitative accomplishments, and so forth. Finally, we may turn to our sibs later in life in behaviors in both same- and mixed-sex dyads. In same-sex dyads, older boys times of family crises, such as divorce (Ambrose, Harper, & Pemberton, are more physically aggressive than older girls. Girls tend to initiate more 1983). Indeed, at the end of our lives, our living companions and our best pro-social acts and respond positively to the pro-social acts of a sister friends will often turn out to be our sibs. (Abramovitch et al., 1979, 1980). In this section, we have indicted the individual social process research on Eighteen months later a subset of the same-sibling pairs (mixed and same sibling relationships for its theoretical and methodological weaknesses. In the sex) was observed. Their ages ranged from three years to seven years and as study of interpersonal processes of siblings in the family , systematic research before they were categorized according to a small age spacing (I to 2 years) efforts are just beginning. As a consequence, these efforts are primarily aimed or a large age spacing (2.5 to 4 years). The interaction patterns among the at describing the interaction process in different age and sex-sibling pairs. children were approximately the same. Older children engaged in more The mapping of these interaction patterns needs to be supplanted with cooperation, help, and praise. Although older children initiated interaction theoretical models explicating why the patterns emerge. Such efforts are vital more often, the younger child maintained the interaction by reciprocating to an understanding of family processes not only with younger children but pro-social behavior, submitting to aggressive behavior, and imitating his or also across the life span of the individual and the family. her siblings. As children got older, they tended to increase the number of pro-social acts in their sibling contacts. Yet there also was an increase in mixed-sex antagonism and a decrease in mixed-sex imitation. The occurrence THE FAMILY AS A UNIT of these sex differences in the interactive behaviors of siblings may indicate the beginning of sex typing (Peplar, Abramovitch, & Corter, 1981). Riskin and Faunce's (1972) observation that the least studied family unit Children as young as 4-years-old serve as attachment figures for siblings. was the family itself still holds today. Most of the research on the family Over 52 percent of one sample of young children were active and effective in involves studying the husband-wife or mother-child dyads. Although some caring for their younger siblings who were distressed when the mother left the research does consider triads or even a four-person family group, relatively room. Although infants may prefer a paternal attachment figure (for example, little research effort is directed at the whole family. The major paradigm Lamb, 1978b), infants allow themselves to be comforted by a sibling. With guiding research on the family as a unit was that which linked disturbed family strangers, infants also seem to use the sibling as an attachment figure and a communication processes to psychological and social deviance outcomes for secure base from which to explore (Stewart, 1983). offspring. Such a perspective dates to at least the 1950s. Bateson's group at Palo Alto, Bowen and Wynne at NIMH, Lidz and his associates at Yale, and 718 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 719

Ackerman's research group at the Family Mental Health Clinic in New York and indicates an important trend for future studies of family communication. were independently arriving at the conclusion that observable, ongoing family Because there is so little empirical research mapping and comparing interaction patterns could be directly linked to outcomes for children (Raush individual social behaviors of the family as a unit (for an exception, see Olson et al., 1979). et al., 1983), the next section primarily examines the interpersonal processes When the family is studied as a unit, the research involves bringing families within selected family triads. For theoretical and pragmatic reasons, we need together to discuss a problem or to engage in a task that allows the family to to know far more about the range and diversity of the functioning of the family interact (Bochner, 1974). The interaction of the family is then transcribed and as a unit before we can understand or recognize dysfunctionality. some verbal and/or nonverbal coding scheme is applied to the material. The purpose of the research is usually to discriminate functional from dysfunctional Mother-Infant-Toddler Triads families on the basis of their interaction patterns. Whereas work in the early 1960s concentrated on the differences between normal and schizophrenic Interaction between a mother and a first-born child changed markedly families (see the review by Jacob, 1975), research in the 1970s branched out when the mother was feeding or caring for the newborn (Kendrick & Dunn, to include abusive and neglectful families (for example, Burgess & Conger, 1980). During feeding or holding of the newborn, a mother increased her 1978); families with an abnormally aggressive (for example, Patterson, 1976) attention and positive interaction with the newborn and her confrontation or delinquent child (for example, Alexander, 1973); or an alcoholic parent (for and negative interaction with the older child. When the mothers were bottle example, Mead & Campbell, 1972). Overall, researchers have found that feeding, although not breast feeding, there was an increase in the deliberate clinic-referred children and adolescents are likely to come from families in naughtiness on the part of the older child. In general, children become which positive, nurturant, and supportive behaviors occur at depressed rates increasingly demanding of the mother's attention when she is caring for an whereas noxious, aversive, or negative interactions are relatively frequent infant (Dunn & Kendrick, 1981; Kendrick & Dunn, 1980). (Conger, 1981, 1983). Although some research was conducted to see how Maternal interaction patterns have indirect effects as well. The intervention normal families of various levels offunctioning interacted (for example, lewis of a mother in sibling quarrels has been linked to differences in the frequency et al., 1976; Loeb, 1975), most family research explores the interaction of hostile behavior between siblings three months later (Kendrick & Dunn, differences between healthy and unhealthy families. The differences between 1982). When the second born was eight-months-old, mothers prohibited a these two types are expected to outweigh the differences within these types. significantly larger number of physical quarrels than they did six months later. In the 1980s, the orientation of mapping interaction differences in When mothers frequently restrained or punished the physical quarreling disturbed and nondisturbed families continues (for example, Reiss, 1981). behavior of first-born sons, these boys responded more aggressively six More concern is shown, however, for describing normal family processes in a months later to their sibs. The pattern of first-born daughters was exactly range of different temporal, structural, and sociocultural contexts (Walsh, opposite (Dunn 1983). 1982). Developmental researchers are also beginning to study "normal" family triads, particularly mother, father, and infant (Parke, 1979). A Father-Mother-Infant Triads consideration of the triad reveals that there are at least nine different direct The relationship between spouses appears to have an effect on how the and indirect ways that the interaction in any triad can be modified (Parke, infant is treated. In general, the greater the negative affect between the 1979). Consider the parents Pl and P2. One could examine the impact of (1) husband and wife, the greater the negative affect directed toward the infant Pl's modification of P2's behavior on the child; (2) P2's modification of Pl's (Pederson, Anderson, & Cain, 1977). behavior on the child; (3) Pl-child relationship on P2-child interaction; (4) Parent-infant interaction is affected by the presence of the other parent. P2-child relationship on Pl-child interaction; (5) Pl's modification of child's Mothers interact and smile more at their infants alone than they do in the behavior on P2-child interaction; (6) P2's modification of child's behavior on presence of the fathers; fathers engage in those activities with the infant only Pl-child interaction; (7) Pl-child relationship on Pl-P2 relationship; (8) P2- when the mother is present (Parke & O'Leary, 1976). The overall quality of child relationship on Pl-P2 relationship; and (9) Pl-P2 relationship on the mother-infant interaction appears to be decreased by the presence of the child. Each of these nine ways that interaction can be studied in a triad (and father (Clarke-Stewart, 1982; Parke & O'Leary, 1976). Yet it appears that the generalizations beyond to the four- and five-person family) are important quality of the father-infant interaction is higher when the mother is present. pieces of the puzzle of family process. These potential relationship linkages To the degree that this finding generalizes to other family dyads at different have not been as yet examined in any great detail. ages of the child, the radical shift in interactional quality with the addition of In the next sections, we consider the work that has been done on the father to the mother-child dyad will have intriguing implications for interpersonal processes in healthy family units. This work is relatively new models of family communication. It may be that there is an inherent limitation 720 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 721

in the amount and quantity of affect that can be expressed in these family shows that no reliable differences can be uncovered from the empirical triads. research. Methodological problems in these works abound, not the least of Infants at both 8 and 13 months appear to be equally attached to both which is the noncomparability of the studies in terms of age, sex, and even mothers and fathers. Infants prefer their fathers, however, and direct a number of family members present during an interaction (Jacob, 1975). The greater number of affiliative behaviors (smiling, laughing, looking) toward within-group variability was too high in the samples of disturbed families. For fathers than mothers. The question of the differential strength of the example, the ages of the schizophrenic children in the same study might attachment of an infant to mothers and fathers is still an open one (Parke, range from 12 to 47. In addition, no attempt is made to consider the possible 1979). The importance of studying the family as a unit, especially the father­ within-group variability in the "normal" families against whom the dysfunc­ infant-mother triad, is viewed as a promising direction for future research tional are compared. Without any controls on the samples, these normal (Parke & Asher, 1983). Such research makes important conceptual distinc­ families can be expected to exhibit different patterns (Olson et al., 1983). tions between attachment and affiliation in human relationships. A program of research comparing normal and disturbed families that stands out for its theoretical and methodological sophistication is that of Father-Mother-Young Child Triad Reiss and his colleagues (Reiss, 1981; Oliveri & Reiss, 1981a, 19816). There is a strong relationship between parental discord and negative child Believing that theories of the family built around impulse, affect, or power outcomes. The observation of family interaction in structured situations have fared badly in explaining or predicting family behavior, Reiss (1981) has indicated that unhappily married parents directed more negative behaviors developed a model emphasizing the families' construction of reality. Families toward their child and were more likely to have children with severe behavior are said to differ along three dimensions: (1) their experience of the world as problems (Johnson & Lobitz, 1974). Furthermore, in a free interaction task, ordered; (2) their belief in the world as open, accessible, or accommodating; problem family members provided fewer positive and more aversive conse­ and (3) their experience of novelty in the world. This program of research is of quents for pro-social behavior and more positive and fewer aversive conse­ special importance to communication researchers for two reasons. First, a quents for deviant behavior than did nonproblem families (Conger, 1983). family's construction of social reality is represented in the interaction of family Not only do problem families exhibit more negativity than nonproblem members with one another. The social construction of reality is indicated by families, but there also appears to be more negativity overall in families than the lexical speech, the nonlexical speech, and the nonverbal behavior of in stranger groups. Mothers appear to use more negative sanctions with their family members as it is organized into recurring patterns. Second, the model own children and more positive, encouraging statements with other children offers a rigorous communication explanation for how parental abnormalities as they supervise the performance of a task (Halverson & Waldrop, 1970). lead to deficiencies in offspring. Children are more obedient to strangers than to their mothers and show In this section, we have seen that the interaction between any two family greater task performance with strangers (Landauer, Carlsmith, & Lepper, members can be affected in a variety of direct and indirect ways by the 1970). In comparing the interactions of middle- and lower-class families with presence and behavior of a third person (Hinde, 1979). Although this point is 11- and 16-year-old boys, Jacob (1974) found that both social class and age of often acknowledged by theorists, very little systematic research has addressed child significantly changed both the patterns of conflict and dominance in the this question. The research that we have reviewed points to major interaction triad. Specifically, families with an 11-year-old expressed greater disagree­ differences when the dyad becomes a triad. One of the greatest difficulties in ment with members than did families with a 16-year-old. Middle-class families this research (apart from its scarcity) is how rarely these interactional talked more and interrupted one another more successfully than did lower­ differences are connected to major family outcomes. When we undertake class families. Sixteen-year-old sons gained in influence in these family triads; such research in the future, it should be in the interest of linking interaction to in middle-class families this was at the expense of the mother, whereas in a variety of important theoretical outcomes. Although the proper domain of lower-class families such influence gain was at the expense of the father. communication research is the study of messages, these messages must be connected to the theoretically relevant internal and output family process concepts. Father-Mother-Older Child In his review of 57 family interaction studies composed of both triadic (33 studies) and quadradic (24 studies) interaction designs, Jacob (1975) CONCLUSION systematically divides the studies into those with quantitative and qualitative 9 measures of affect, dominance, communication clarity, and conflict. He In treating a subject as broad as kinship relations, it is helpful to read a number of social science literatures and attempt to draw parallels among CONTEXTS 722 Communication in Kin Relationships 723 these areas. This is too rarely done by social scientists. The purpose 0f this breakthrough in understanding the role of communication in marital review was to give the reader a sense of the range of questions that have been processes. Because many of the dyadic-level concepts are actually communi­ asked about communication in families. Although not comprehensive in cation constructs (reciprocity, symmetry, dominance, attachment, control. coverage, the review does establish a fundamental question for the study_ of and so forth), such explications will help in theory-building efforts in interper­ communication in kin groups. That is, in each of the subsystems of the family, sonal communication. how do the input variables (Figure 15.1) affect performance and consequently Our review of the kinship literature suggests directions for new research lead to particular outputs? Throughout the review, we have seen that schol­ and theory. Few studies consider more than one family dyad at a time, and ars in various traditions have taken pieces of this question. Some have been most of the research energy is spent on husbands and wives. Certainly, concerned only with the performance variables, rarely linking these to major sibling pairs are still underresearched (Irish, 1964), and the similarities and family outcomes. As Cappella (1984) has argued, extensive analyses of differences between siblings and peers will become an important topic in the interaction sequences, although not without their descriptive charm, do not next decade of research. In addition to an expansion of the family dyads and yield much information about potential connections among important con­ triads that are studied, greater care will be paid to sampling not only actors cepts. When a link is made, it is usually between a performance and an output (family dyads or units) but also behaviors and contexts. The need for well­ variable with little consideration of internal variables. Researchers, for exam· designed laboratory studies of family interaction is apparent. Given the pie, typically relate interaction patterns to levels of marital satisfaction (Ting- difficulty of drawing careful samples of family dyads and triads, more social T oomey, 1983). scientists will turn to meta-analysis procedures to make sense out of the In the field of communication the relationships among the internal, knowledge base already accumulated (Glass, McGraw, & Smith, 1981). In performance, and output variables have been largely ignored. We usually doing such analyses, attention must be paid to the fact that much of what we consider only a very limited number of family outputs. Marital processes have know about given areas of family life emerges from the analysis and reanalysis demonstrated effects on child outcomes, yet it would be rare to see in a of the same data set. Some fairly careful detective work would be useful in an communication study any variables linked to marital communication other analysis of this literature. than those that represent marital quality. As our research into family We suggest a life-span developmental approach to three major concepts processes expands so it is hoped will our concern for alternative o~tput isolated in this review: attachment, affiliation, and control. Although we see variables. It is also interesting to note that only marital and parental satisfac­ these concepts discussed again and again across the family subsystems, few tion are considered in Table 15. l. We remind scholars that children, even the theorists explicitly acknowledge the relationships among them. For all its very young, are capable of qualitatively assessing their family relationships, members, the family represents a curious combination of love and control. including the job being done by their parents. Whether the dyad be a dating pair in which romance conceals an ongoing Twenty years ago, Haley (1963) argued that our theories of family process power struggle between males and females that requires the control of one's were stymied by a lack of dyadic-level constructs. This is no longer true, for a emotions (Waller, 1938), a married couple arguing over a serious issue, or a variety of such concepts appear in the kinship literature. Naturally, the names parent trying to socialize a child, attachment and affiliation are inextricably of what are actually the same concepts often differ or perversely different bound up with control in intimate relationships. Extensive interaction with concepts often have the same name. Although this confusion is to be family members and close physical proximity lead to the development of an expected when researchers come from different academic disciplines, it attachment bond. In human development, the attachment bond predates cannot be tolerated. Take, for example, the concept of complementarity. In affiliation and in human relationships seems to outlast it (Weiss, 1975). the sibling literature, this concept has a decidedly cognitive flavor, for it is There is a legitimate monopoly of coercion in family life, with each member defined as not sharing the same point of view (Dunn, 1983). In the marital attempting to control the attitudes, behaviors, and feelings of the other. This literature, complementarity has a decidedly behavioristic tinge, for it is the control is rarely active without a high degree of affect (positive and negative) exchange of maximally different control messages (Millar & Rogers, 1976). in family interactions. Love is used in the service of control and control is used The area of communication in kinship relations would greatly benefit from a in the service of love in family life. Babies are obedient months later because series of concept explications that would allow theorists to draw together parents showed their love and concern earlier and an attachment bond much disparate literature (see, for example, Bochner & Krueger, 1979). The between parents and child developed. The withdrawal of love is a control move by Lewis and Spanier ( 1979), treating the numerous marital satisfaction technique used by parents (and by children) to gain compliance. Dominance concepts as all tapping marital quality (a new one), was an important can be defined as the asymmetrical response of one spouse to the emotional displays of another. Repeatedly, research shows that love and control 724 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 725 operate simultaneously in family life. Explicit theoretical statements about the occurs among family members without concern for the meaning that these expected relationships among these constructs across the life span are individuals are assigning to these messages is as futile as to present messages needed. to intimates out of the stream of interaction. One immediate requirement of a life-span developmental approach to the Innumerable pronouncements have been made about the modern family study of these concepts is a description of clusters of behaviors that and its alleged demise. Despite changes in traditional family patterns, represent these constructs and are hypothesized to change over time in Americans consistently report that a happy marriage and a good family are family life. The operationalizations of these constructs can thus be sensitive the most important aspects oflife (Thorton & Freedman, 1983). The study of to the developmental changes in individuals and in the family. Attachment communication in the family will become a major part of interpersonal implies accessibility, and the manner in which an infant demonstrates the communication theory and research in the next decade not only because the level of accessibility that he or she wants from adults around him or her is family is of import to the society at large but it also presents an interesting different than that needed by a toddler, a spouse, or a divorcing partner. context in which to pursue important questions about human communication. Such operationalizations need not ignore self-reports, for these are important assessments of the views of family members on their interactional NOTES processes. Although there are a number of steps that can be taken to I. For example, only 26 references are directly made to communication in the over 800-pag<' improve self-report measures (lndvik, 1980), an innovation in family studies authoritative two-book series on the most recent theories regarding the family (Burr, Hill , Nye, & would be a consideration of the different perspectives that family members Reiss, 1979a, 1979b). In the first three volumes of Personal Relationships (Duck & Gilmour, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c), only six references in 850 pages were made lo communication, although have on the same issues. Even when using well-designed measures, the the fourth volume (Duck, 1982a) does contain one essay on communication in dissolving pen,pectives of family members may be expected to differ (Duck & Sants, relationships. 1983). Multiple perspectives should be of primary concern to communication 2. This chart is essentially an analytical device isolating the central factors employed in the theoretical approaches to the study of kin relationships. Theories that employ a constitutive theorists. approach would tend to see less of a conceptual differentiation between inter.,al and Measurement of these important constructs must move beyond observa­ performance factors (Poole, McPhee, & Seibold, 1982). For example, role differentiation would tions of behavior in the presence of target others to an examination of pattern not exist separate and apart from its instantiation in the ongoing conflict or problem-solving activities of a couple or a family. and sequence in family interaction. Complex interactional models of family 3. All these output measures are clearly value laden. It is clearly a value of the society that processes need to be tested. The results of these models should include individuals be satisfied in relationships and that children achieve the same (or higher) status as frequency data, simultaneous behaviors, tests of interactional structure their parents. The concept of family functioning and normalcy is a different order of value orientation because it is hidden in the conceptual arguments of the theorist. Our point here is through time, and sequential analysis. Reporting findings in this manner (for only to consider the nature of the assumptions of the theorists studying adequacy of family example, Gottman, 1979; Sillars, 1980; Williamson, 1983) allows numerous functioning. connections to be built with other programs of research. This type of 4. The system analogy reminds us of the fundamental law of family interaction (Bossard, 1956, p. 293). That is, the number of reciprocal relationships or dyads (X) in a family with a given methodological reporting will also prove useful in examining the psychological number of members(Y) is: X = Y(Y- 1)/2. Consequently, a family with 7 children has36 possible reality of communication for family members. It is possible that family dyadic combinations. Even the proverbial two-child family has six dyadic links. This equation members themselves count frequencies of behavior and not complex ignores the possibility of potential for triads and larger size combinations. All of these should be considered for a complete theory of the family , yet adding or subtracting even one family member interactional sequences when assessing their relationships. Individuals in has dramatic implications for the structure of family interactions (Broderick & Smith, 1979). ongoing relationships may not be able to see the patterns in which they are 5. These couples were labeled enmeshed, autistic, direct conOict, and disengaged conOicl. enmeshed even though these patterns actually predict certain classes of The enmeshed couples evidenced high ambivalence, communication, and conflict about the divorce, whereas the autistic couples showed high ambivalence but had little explicit conflict. outcomes in family life. The direct conflict couples engaged in open conflict and communication about the divorce Models of interaction are incomplete without some consideration of decision but at somewhat lower levels of intensity than the enmeshed type. The disengaged cognitive or interpretative processes (Planalp, 1984). Indeed, it would be of couples had limited communication and conflict. 6. The selection of parental message strategies for dealing with children is strongly major conceptual importance for theorists to link the interactional and cogni­ innuenced by the parent's place in the social stratification structure (Gecas, 1979). Although tive perspectives. To accomplish this link for family systems, two points must socioeconomic status has a direct effect on a variety of parental message selection strategies be taken into account. First, major cognitive developmental differences (Bernstein, 1971), we limit ourselves to the impact of parental communication on a variety of intellectual, social, and emotional outcomes for children. We have limited ourselves to these separate not only parents and children but also siblings only a few years apart variables in conformity lo Table 15.1, which emphasizes endogenous rather than exogenous in age. Second, the study of interaction and the study of cognition are variables. radically different in levels of abstraction. Thus the rules of correspondence 7. As data for the generalizations we offer, we reexamined the charts constructed by Rollins between these levels must be specified. Third, to code the interaction that and Thomas (1979) and Steinmetz (1979). In many cases, we found the decision rules on which CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 727 726 they based their empirical generalizations about the parent-child dyads too liberal. They tended Baxter, L. A. ( 1984). Trajectories of relationship disengagement. Journal of Social and Personul to follow a simple miljority rule or tally system in examining the r~se~rch. We reanalyzed the Relationships, 1, 29-48. charts based on more stringent criteria. No subset of studies could indicate th_at the relationship Bell, R. Q. ( 1%8). A reinterpretation of the direction of effect in studies of socialization. between the variables was in the opposite direction. Furthermore, we examined separately all Psychological Reuiew, 75, 81-95. Bell, Q. (1974). Contributions of human infants to caregivers and social interaction. In M. studies of various sex of parent and sex of child combinations. . . R. 8. Few of the studies that Dunn (1983) listed, however, actually mathematically examined the Lewis & L.A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregivers (pp. J-20). New reciprocal or complementary structure of the interaction. Indeed, ~he frequen_c,es or rates of York: John Wiley. social behaviors analyzed in these studies are inadequate for summarizing social mteraclton over Bellinger, D. ( 1980). Consistency in the pattern of change in mother's speech: Some discriminant analyses. Journal of Child Language, 7, 464-487. time (Gottman & Ringland, 1981). . . 9. For a critique of this review, see Doane ( 1978a). For a response to that cnt,que, see Jacob Berger, C.R. . & Bradac, J. J . (1982). Language and social knowledge. London: Edward Arnold. Bernard, S. (1981). The good-provider role: Its rise and fall. American Psychologist, 1·12. and Grounds (1978). For a rejoinder, see Doane (1978b). J . 36, Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes, and control (Vols. 1 & 2). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Berscheid, E. (1982). Attraction and emotion in interpersonal relationships. In M. S. Clark & S. T. REFERENCES Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition (pp. 37-120). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Berscheid, E. (1983). Emotions. In Close relationships (pp. 110-168). New York: W. H. Freeman. Abeles, G. (1976). Researching the unsearchable: Experimentation on the double bind: In~- E. Berscheid, E., & Campbell, B. (1981). The changing longevity of heterosexual close relation­ Sluzki & D. C. Ransom (Eds.), Double bind: The faundat1on of the communicational ships: A commentary and forecast. In M. J. Lerner & S. C. Lerner (Eds.), The justice motiues approach to the family (pp. 113-150). New York: Grune & Stratton. . in social behavior (pp. 205-234). New York: Plenum. Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., & Lando, B. (1979). Sibling interaction in the home. ChUd Bienvenu, M. (1970). The measurement of marital communication. Family Coordinator, 19, Development, 50, 997-1003. . . 26-31. Abramovitch, R., Corter, C., & Peplar, D. J. (1980). Observations of mixed-sex s1bhng dyads. Birchler, G. R. ( 1972). Differential patterns of instrumental affiliatiue behavior os a function of Child Development. 51, 1268-1271. . . degree of marital distress and level of intimacy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer­ Adams, R. N. (1968). An inquiry into the nature of the family. In R. F. Winch & L. W. C:,oodman sity of Oregon. (Eds.), Selected studies in marriage and the family (pp. 44-57). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Birnbaum, J. A. (1971) . Life patterns, personality style and self-esteem in gifted family oriented ond career committed u,omen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan. Ain:::~~;,.tD.S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. M. Cald':"'ell ~ Blood, R. 0 ., Jr., & Wolle, D. M. (1960). Husbands and wives: The dynamics of married living. H. N. Riccinti (Eds.), Review of child development research (Vol. 3, PP- 1-94). Chicago. New York: Free Press. University of Chicago Press. . Bloom, B. L., White,S. W.,& Asher, S. J. (1979). Marital disruption asa stressful lifeevent. ln G . Ainsworth, M.D.S., & Bell, S.M.V. (1969). Some contemporary pa!terns of m_other-mfant Levinger & 0. C. Moles (Eds.), Divorce and separation (pp. 184-210). New York: Basic interaction in the feeding situation. In J. A. Ambrose (Ed.), Stimulation in early infancy (pp. Books. 133-163). London: Academic Press. . . . . Bochner, A. P. (1974). Family communication research: A critical reuiew of approaches, Aldous, J . (1978). Family careers: Developmental changes in /amrhes. New York: ~ohn W_1ley. methodologies one! substantive findings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Alexander, J. F. ( 1973). Defensive and supportive communication in normal and devrant families. Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 223-231. . Bochner, A. P. (1976). Conceptual frontiers in the study of families: An introduction to the Ambrose, P., Harper, J., & Pemberton, R. (1983). Surviving dioorce: Men beyond morrrage. literature. Human Communication Research, 2, 381-397. Great Britain: Harvester. Bochner, A. P. (1982). On the efficacy of openness in close relationships. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Anderson, B. J ., & Standley, K. (1978). A meth~ology for obse_rvotion for th~ childbirth Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 109-124). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. environment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Amencan Psychological Assoc,. Bochner, A. P. (1983) . Functions of communication in interpersonal bonding. In C. Arnold & J. ation, Washington, D. C . . . W. Bowers (Eds.), Handbook of rhetorical and communication theory (pp. 544-621). Boston, Applegate, J . L., Burke, J . A., Burleson, B. R., Delia, J. G., & Kime, S. L. (1~}. Reflectron-en­ MA: Allyn & Bacon. hancing parental communication. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech Bochnl!r, A. P., Kaminski, E. P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1977). The conceptual domain of Communication Association, Washington, D. C. . interpersonal communication behavior: A factor-analytic study. Human Communication Arbeit, S. A. (1975). A study of women during their first pregnancy. Unpublished doctoral Research, 3, 291-302. dissertation, Yale University. . Bochner, A. P., & Krueger, D. (1979). Interpersonal communication theory and research: An Atkinson, M. L., & Allen, V. L. (1983). Perceived structure of nonverbal behavior. Journal of overview of inscrutable epistemologies and muddled concepts. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 458-463. Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 197-212). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Baltes, P. B. (1%8). Longitudinal and cross-sectional sequences in the study of age and Bohannan, P. (1970). The six stations of divorce. In P. Bohannan (Ed.), Diuorce and after (pp. generational effects. Human Development, 11, 145-171. . 29-55). New York: Doubleday. Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1982a). The sibling bond. New York: Baste Books. . Bolton, C . D. (1961). Mate selection as the development of a relationship. Marriage and Family Bank, S. P., & Kahn, M. D. (1982b}. Intense sibling loyalty. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith Living, 22, 234-240. (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. 251-266). Bossard, J. H. S. (1956). The large family system: An original study in the sociology of the family. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Baskett, L. M., & Johnson, S. M. (1982). The young child's interaction with parents versus Bossard, J .H.S., & Boll, E. S. (1950). Ritual in family living. Philadelphia: University of sibling: A behavioral analysis. Child Development, 53, 643-650: Pennsylvania Press. Bates, E. (1979). The emergence of symbols. New York: Academic Press.. . Bott, E. (1957) . Family and socio/ netLUOrk. London: Tavistock. Bates, E., Camaioni,L., & Volterra, V. (1975). The acquisition of performatives prior to speech. Bowerman, C . E., & Dobash, R. M. (1974). Structural variations in intersibling affect. Journal of Merrilf,Palmer Quarterly, 21, 205-226. Marriage and the Family, 36, 48·54. Bateson, M. C. ( 1975). Mother-infant exchanges: The epigenesis of conversational interaction: In D. Aaronson & R. Rieber (Eds.) Deuelopmental psycholinguistics and communication disorders (Vol. 263, pp. 101-113). New York: Annals of New York Academy of Science. 728 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 729

Bowlby, J . (1972). Attachment and loss. (Vol. 1) . London: Hogarth. Bradford, L. (1980). The death of a dyad. In B. W. Morse & L. A. Phelps (Eds.), Interpersonal Duck, S. (~982a). Personal relationships 4: Dissolving personal relationships. New York: communication: A relational perspectiue (pp. 497-508). Minneapolis: Burgess. Academic Press. Broderick, C., & Smith,J. (1979). The general systems approach to the family. In W. R. Burr, R. Duck, S. (1982b). f!', topography of relationship disengagement and dissolution. In S. Duck (Ed.), Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. Personal relatronsh1ps 4: D1ssolumg personal relationships (pp. 1-30). New York: Academic 112-129). New York: Free Press. Press. Bryant, B., & Crockenberg, S. (1980). Correlates and discussion of prosocial beh,wior: A study Duck, S., & Gilmour, R. (l98 la). Personal relationships: Studying personal relationships. New of female siblings with their mothers. Child Deuelopment, 51 , 529-544. York: Academic Press. Bugental, D. E. (1974). Interpretations of naturally occurring discrepanc!es between_ words and Duck, S., & Gilmour, R. (1981b). Personal relationships 2: Developing personal relationships intonations: Modes of inconsistency resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol­ New York: Academic Press. · ogy, 30, 125-133. Duck, S., & Gilmour,~- (1981c). Personal relationships 3: Personal relationships in disorder. Bugental, D. E., & Love, L. (1975). Nonassertive expression of parental approval and disapprov- New York: Academic Press. al, and its relationship to child disturbance. Child Deuelopment, 46, 747-752. _ Du~k, S., & San!s, H. (1983). On the origin of the specious: Are personal relationships reallv Bugental, D., Love, L., & Gianetto, R. (1971). Perfidious feminine faces. Journal of Personality interpersonal sta!es? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1, 27·41. · and Social Psychology, 17, 314-318. Dunn, J . (1983). S1b~1ng relationships in early childhood. Child Development, 54, 787-811. Bugental, D. , Love, L., Kaswan, J ., & April, C . (1971). Verbal-nonverbal conflict in parental Dunn_, J., & Kendrick, C. (1981). Soci_al behavior of young siblings in the family context: messages lo normal and disturbed children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 77, 6-10. Differences between same-sex and different-sex dyads. Child Deuelopment, 52, 49-56. Burgess, E.W., & Locke, H. (1953). The family. New York: American Book. Dunn.~;, & Kendrick, C . ( 1982). The speech of two-and three-year-olds to infant siblings: "Baby Burgess, E.W. & Wallin , P. (1953). Engagement and marriage. Philadelphia: Lippincott. talk and the conte_xt of communication. Journal of Child Language, 9, 579-595. Burgess, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (1978). Family interaction in abusive, neglectful, and normal D~vall, E. ( 1971). Family development. Philadelphia: Lippincott. families. Child Deuelopment, 49, 1163-1173. Ericson,_ P. M. (1972_). Relational communication: Complementarity and symmetry and their Burr, W.R. ( 1973). Theory construction and the sociology of the family. New York_: John Wiley. relation_ to domrnonce-submission. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Burr, W.R., Hill, R., Nye, F. J., & Reiss, I. L. (Eds.). (1979). Contemporary theories about the University. family (Vols. l & 2). New York: Free Press. Ericson,_P · M., & Rogers, L. E. ( 1973). New procedures for analyzing relational communication. Burr, W. R., Leigh, G. K., Day, R. D., & Constantine, J . (1979). Symbolic interac_tion and the Family Process, 12, 245-257. family. In W. R. Burr,R. Hill, F. I. Nye, &I. L. Reiss(Eds.), Contemporary theonesabout the Falb_o, T. (1981). Relationship between birth category, achievement, and interpersonal orienta­ family (Vol. 1, pp. 42-111). New York: Free Press. _ t_ion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 121-131. Cameron, N. (1963). Personality deuelopment and psychopathology: A dynamic approach. Fallis, S. (19_84). lnterpe_rsonal relations~ips: An affectiue explanation for relationship growth Boston: Houghton Mifnin. _ . . and decline. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Cappella, J. A. ( 1984). The relevance oft he microstructure of interaction to relat1onsh1p change. Farace, R. V., Monge, P.R., & Russell, H. M. ( 1977). Communicating and organizing Reading Journal of Personality and Social Relationships, I, 239-264. _ _ MA: Addison-Wesley. · ' Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (1982). And daddy makes three. In J. Belsky (Ed.), In the beginning: F~rber, B. (1964). Family: Organization and interaction. San Francisco: Chandler. Readings on infancy (pp. 204-215). New York: Columbia University Press. _ Fisher, H. E. (1983). The sex contract. New York: First Quill. Conger, J. J. (1981). Freedom and commitment: Families, youth and social change. American Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1976). A typological approach to communication in relationships. Unpub Psychologist, 36, 1475-1484. l1shed doctoral dissertation, Temple University. Conger, R. D. (1983). Behavioral assessment for practitioners: Some reasons and recommenda­ Fitzpatrick, M.A. ( 1977). A typological approach to communication in relationships. In B. Ruben tions. In E. E. Filsinger (Ed.), Marriage and family assessment (pp. 137-151). Beverly Hills, (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 263-278). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. CA: Sage. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1981a). A typological approach to enduring relationships. Children as Cooper, D. (1970). The death of a family. New York: Pantheon Books. . . aud,~nce to the parental relationship. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 12, 81-94. Courtright, J . A., Millar, F. E., & Rogers-Millar, L. E. (1979). Domineeringness and d ominance: F1tzpatnck, M. A. (1981b). Affiliative messages in couple types. Wisconsin Alumni Research Replication and extension. Communication Monographs, 4~, 179-192. . _ Fund Grant Proposal. Cowan, C., Cowan, P. A., Coie, L., & Coie,J. D . (1978). Becommga family: The impact of a first Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1983). Predicting couples' communication from couples' self reports. In R. child's birth on the couple's relationship. In L. Newman& W. M1ller(Eds.), Thef1rst_ch1I~ and . Bosfrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 (pp. 49-82). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. family formation (pp. 296-324). Chapel Hill, NC: California Population Center, Un1vers1ty of Fitzpatnck, M. A. (1984). _A typological approach to marital interaction: Recent theory and North Carolina. research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Aduances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 18, pp. deTurck, M. A. (1984). Power in families. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 1-47). New York: Academic Press. International Communication Association, San Francisco. Fitzpatrick, M. ~ -, &_ Best, P._ (1~79). Dyadic adjustment in traditional, independent, and Dillard, J.P., & Fitzpatrick, M.A. (1984). "Do it for me darling": Long and short term outcomes _ separate relallo nsh1ps: A vahdahon study. Communication Monographs, 46, 167-178. of compliance gaining in marital interaction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the F1tzpatnck, M. A.,_Best, P .. ~abry, E., & lndvik, J. (1985). An integration of two approaches to International Communication Association, San Francisco. relational confhct. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison Dindia, K. , & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (in press). Marital communications: Three approaches Fitzpatrick,~- A., Fallis, S., & Vance, L. (1982). Multifunctional coding of conflict resolution compared. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Sage series in personal relations (Vol. 1). Beverly strategies m manta! dyads. Family Relations, 31, 61-70. Hills, CA: Sage. Fitzpatrick, _M. _A., & lndvik, J . (1982). The instrumental and expressive domains of maritill Doane. J . A. ( 1978a). Family interaction and communication deviance in disturbed normal communications. Human Communication Research, 8, 195-213. families: A review of research. Family Process, 17, 357-388. Fitz_patrick,_M.A., Va~ce, L., & Witteman, H. (1984). lnterpersonalcommunication in the casu.il Doane, J. A. (1978b). Questions of strategy: Rejoinder to Jacob and Grounds. Family Process, mter<1chon of manta! partners. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 81-95. 17, 389-395. Folger, J. _( 1978). The communicatiue indicants of power, dominance and submission. Duberman, L. (1973). Step-kin relationships. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35, 283-292. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Duck. S. W. (1976). Interpersonal communication in developing acquaintance. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 127-148). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 730 731

Folger,J. P.,& Poole, M. S. (1980). Relationalcoding schemes and the question of validity. lnM. Hill, C. T., Rubin, Z., & Peplau, LA. (1976). Breaku s befor . . Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 235-248). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Journal of Social Issues 32 147-l68 p e marnage. The end of 103 affairs. French, J.R.D., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander Hinde R ' ' · . Hoffm~n: t.'Jtz~:~~soJ,dDs u(n19d7e8,s)taln1ing re/ation~hips. New York: Academic Press. (Eds.), Group dynamics (pp. 259-269). New York: Harper & Row. , , · - n11uencesofch1ld ·1 1 · Freud, S. (1949). An outline of psychoanalysis. New York: W.W. Norton. satisfactions and dissatisfactions In R M L & Gren on mari a mteractionand pMent.il Galvin, K. M.,& Brommel, B. J. (1982). Family communication. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman. marital and family interaction: A. life-;pa~ ;;;serect" · B( · Spanier (Eds.), Child rnf/uences 011 Press. p IVe pp. 165·214), New York: Academic Gar mezy, N. ( 197 4). Children at risk: The search for antecedents of schizophrenia. Schizophre- nia Bulletin, 1, 14-90. Hoffman, M. L. (1970). Moral development. In P. H M (E . • Gecas, V. (1979). Theinnuenceol social class on socialization. In W.R. Burr,R. Hill, F. L Nye,& psychology (pp. 261-360). New York: John Wil~y ussen d.), Carmichaels manual of clul

La Gaipa, J. J. (1981). Children's friendships. In S. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal Matas, L., Arend, R. A., & Srnufe, A. (1982). Continuity of adaptation in the second year. In J. relationships 2: Deueloping personal relationships (pp. 67-90). New York: Academic Press. Bel_sky (Ed.), In the begmmng: Readings on infancy (pp. 144-156). New York: Columbia Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). (1976a). The role of the father in child deuelopment. New York: John Wiley. University Press. Lamb, M. E. ( 1976b). Proximity seeking attachment behaviors: A critical review of the literature. Mayo, C., & Henley, N. M. (1981). Gender and nonverbal behauior. New York: Springer-Verlag. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 93, 63-89. McPhee, R. (1984). Persona! communication. Lamb, M. E. (1978a). Influence of the child on marital quality and family interaction during the Mead, M. (1942). And keep your powder dry: An anthropologist looks at America. New Yurk: prenatal, perinatal, and infancy periods. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child W. Morrow. influences on marital interaction: A li/e-spanperspectiue (pp. 137-164). New York: Academic Mead, 0. E., & Campbell, S. S. (1972). Decision-making and interaction by families with and Press. without a drug-abusmg child. Family Process, 11, 487-498. Lamb, M. E. ( 1978b). The development of sibling relationships in infancy: A short-term longit udi­ Millar: F. E., & Rogers, E. (1976). A relational approach to interpersonalcommunication. In G. R. nal study. Child Deue/opment, 49, 1189-11%. Miller (Ed.), Exploratmns in interpersonal communication (pp. 87-104). Beverly Hills CA: Landauer, T. K., Carlsmith, J.M., & Lepper, M. (1970). Experimental analysis of the factors s.. ' determining obedience of four year-old children to adult females. Child Deuelopment, 41, Miller, G. R., & Par_ks,M_. R. (1982_). Communication in dissolving relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), 601-611. Personal relat1onsh1ps 4: D1ssolv1ng personal relationships (pp. 127-154). New York: LaRossa, R. ( 1977). Conflict and power in marriage-expecting the first child. Beverly Hills, CA: Academic Press. Sage. . Min_nett, A._M., Vandell, D. L.,_& Santrock, J. W. (1983). The effects of sibling status on sibling Lasch, C. (1977). Haven in a heartless world. New York: Basic Books. interaction: Influence of birth order, age spacing, sex of child, and sex of sibling.Child Lederer, W. J., & Jackson, D. D. (1968). The mirages of marriage. New York: W.W. Norton. Development, 54, 1064-1072. Lee, G. R. ( 1980). Kinship in the seventies: A decade review of research and theory. Journal of Mishler, E.G., & Waxler, N. E._(1968). Interaction in families: An experimental study of family Marriage and the Family, 40, 923-934. prac~sses and schizophrenia. New York: John Wiley. Lee, L. (1984). Sequences in separation: A framework for investigating endings of the personal Moscov1c1, S. ( 1967). Communication processes and the properties of language. In L. Berkowitz (romantic) relationship. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 1, 49-74: (Ed.), Aduances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 225-270). New York: Leigh, G. K. (1982). Kinship interaction over the family life-span. Journal of Marriage and the Academic Press. Family, 44, 197-208. Murstein, B. L(1%7). Empirical tests of role, complementary needs and homogamy theories of LeMasters E. E. (1957). Parenthood as crisis. Marriage and Family Liuing, 19, 352-355. mate choice. Journal of Marriage ond the Family, 29, 689-696. Lerner, R. M., & Spanier, G. B. (Eds.). (1978). Child influences on marital interaction: A life-span Napier, A., & Whitaker, C. (1978). The family crucible. New York: Harper & Row. perspectiue. New York: Academic Press. . . Navran, L. (1967). ~ommunication and adjustment in marriage. Family Process, 6, 173-184. Levenson, R. W., & Gottman, J. M. {1983). Marital interaction: Physiological linkage and Noller, P. (1?80). Misunderstandings in marital communication: A study of couples' nonverbal affective exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 587-597. commun1cat1on. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1135-1148. Levinger, G., & Huesmann, L. R. (1980). An incremental exchange perspective on the pair Noller, P. (1982). Channel consis1ency and inconsistency in the communication of married relationship: Interpersonal reward and level of involvement. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 732-741. Greenberg, & R.H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. Norton, R. (1983). Communication style: Theory, applications, and measures. Beverly Hills 165-196). New York: John Wiley. CA: Sage. · Levinger, G., & Senn, D. J. ( 1%7). Disclosure of feelings in marriage. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Norton, R., & Montgomery, B. M. (1982). Style, content, and target components of openness. Behavioral Deuelopment, 13, 237-249. Communication Research, 9, 399-431. Levy, D. M. (1937). Studies in sibling rivalry. American Orthopsychiatric Association Research Nye, F. I. (1979). Choice, exchange, and the family. In W.R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye,&!. L. Reiss Monographs (Vol. 2). . (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. 1-41). New York: Free Press. Lewis, J. M., Beavers, W. R., Gossett, J. T., & Phillips, V. A. (1976). No single thread: Nye, F. I., & Berardo, F. M. (1981). Introduction. In F. I. Nye & F. M. Berardo (Eds.) Emerging Psychological health in family systems, New York: Brunner/ Maze!. . . . conceptual frameworks in family analysis (pp. 1-9). New York: Praeger. ' Lewis, R. A. (1973). A longitudinal test of a developmental framework for premarital dyadic Ohven M. E., & Reiss, D. (1981a). The structure of families' ties to their kin: The shaping role of formation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 35, 16-25. 1 . so':1al constructions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 43, 391-407. Lewis, R. A., & Spanier, G. ( 1979). Theorizing about the quality and the stability of marriage. In Oliven, M. E., & Reiss, D. (1981b). A theory-based empirical classification of family problem­ W. Burr, R. Hill , F. I. Nye, & I. R. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theorresabout thefamily(Vol. solving behavior. Family Process, 20, 409-418. 1, pp. 268-294). New York: Free Press. . . Olson, D.H.L. (1972). Empirical unbinding of the double bind: Review of research and conceptual Lint on, R. ( 1945). The cultural background of personality._ Englewood. Chffs, NJ:.Pren lice-Hall. reformulations. Family Process, 11, 69-94. Loeb, R. C. (1975). Concomitants of boys' locus of control in parent-child interactions. Deuelop· Olson, D.H.L., & Cromwell, R. E. ( 1975). Power in fomilies. In R. E. Cromwell & D.H.L. Olson mental Psychology, 11, 353-358. (Ed.), Power In families (pp. 3-14). New York: Russell Sage. Mackey, W. C., & Day, R. D. ( 1979). Some indicators of fathering behoviors in the U_nited States: Olson, D_.H.L., McCubbin, H. I., Barnes, H., Larsen, A., Muxen, M., & Wilson, M. (1983). A cross cultural examination of adult male-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Fam1/,es: What makes them work. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Family, 41, 287-299. . . Olson, D.HL, Spre_nkle, D. H., & Rus~ell, C. S. ( 1979). Circumplex model of marital and fainily Mark, R. A. (I 971 ). Coding communication at the relationship level. Journal of Communrcat1on, systems. Cohesion and adaptab1hty dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. 21, 221-232...... Family Process, 18, 3-28. Markman, H.J. (1979). App!ica1ion of a behavioral model of marriage in pred1ct1ng re!allonsh1p Ort, R. S. (1950). A study of role-connict as related to happiness in marriage. Journal of satisfaction of couples planning marriage. Jou rna1 of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 4 7, Abnormal and Social Psychology, 45, 691-699. 747-750. Parke, R. D. ( 1979). Perspectives on father-infant interaction. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.) Handbook Markman, H.J. (1981). Prediction of marital distress: A five year follow-up. Journal of Consulting of infant development (pp. 549-590). New York: John Wiley. ' and Clinical Psychology, 49, 760-762. Parke, R. D., & Asher, S. R. (1983). Social and personality developmen1. Annual Reuiew of Psychology, 34, 465-509. 734 CONTEXTS Communication in Kin Relationships 735

Parke, R, D., & O'Leary, S. (1976). Family interaction in the newborn period: Some findings, Sachs, J. S., & Devin, J . ( 1976). Young children's use of age-appropriate speech styles in social some observations, and some unresolved issues. In K. Riegel & J. Meacham (Eds.), The interaction and role-playing. Journal of Child Language, 3, 81-98. developing individual in a changing world (Vol. 2, pp. 653-663). The Hague: Mouton. Safilios-Rothschild, C. (1970). The study of family power: A review, 1960-1%9. Journal of Parks, M. (1982). Ideology in interpersonal communication. Off the couch and mto the ~arid. In Marriage and the Family, 32, 539-552. M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook 5 (pp. 79-108). New Brunswick, NJ: Scan,:oni, L., & Scanzoni, J . ( 1976). Men and women and change: A sociology of marriage and Transaction. the family. New York: McGraw-Hill. Parsons, T., & Bc1les, R. F. ( 1955). Family socialization and interaction process. New York: Free Scarr, S., & Grajek, S. (1982). Similarities and differences among siblings. In M. E. Lamb & B. Press. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships: Their nature and significance across the lifespan Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J. (pp. 357-382). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Marsh, L.A. Hc1mmerlynck, & L. C. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families (pp. Schneider, D . N. (1968). American kinship. En!llewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 267-316). New York: Brunner/ Maze!. Schooler, C. (1972). Birth order effects: Not here, not now. f'sychological Bulletin, 78, 161 -175. Patterson, M. L. (1983). Nonverbal behavior: A functional perspective. New York: Springer· Schvaneveldt, J. D., & !hinger, M . (1979). Sibling relationships in the family. In W.R. Burr, R. Hill, Verlag. F. l. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 453-467). Peck, E., & Senderowitz, E. (1974). Pronatalism. New York: Crowell. _ New York: Free Press. Pederson, F. A., Anderson, B. J ., & Cain, R. L. (1977, March). An approach to understandmg Shatz, H., & Celman, R. (1977). Beyond syntax: The innuence of conversational constraints on linkages between the parent-infant and spouse relationships. Paper presented at the annual speech modifica1ions. In C. E. Snow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Ta/king to children (pp. meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans. . . 189-198). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Peplar, O., Abramovitch, R., & Corter, C. (1981). Sibling interaction in the home: A long1tudmal Shorter, E. (1975). The making of the modern family. New York: Basic Books. study. Child Development, 52, 1344-1347. Sillars, A. (1980). Communication and attributions in interpersona/canflict. Unpublished doctor­ Peplau, L.A. (1983). Roles and gender. In Close relationships (pp. 220-264). New York: W. H . al dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Freeman. Sillars, A., Pike, G. R., Redman, K., & Jones, T. S. (1983). Communica1ion and conOict in Planalp, S. (1984). Relational schemata: An interpretive approach to relationships. Unpublished marriage: One style is not satisfying to all. In R. Bostrom (Ed.), Communication yearbook 7 doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. (pp.414-431). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Pohlman, E. (1966). Mobilizing social pressures toward small families. Eugenics Quarterly, 13, Slocum, W. L., & Nye, F. I. (1976). Provider a nd housekeeper roles. In F. I. Nye (Ed.), Role 122-127. structure and analys is of the family (pp. 81-100). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Poole, M. S., McPhee, R. D., & Seibold, D . R. (1982). A comparison of normative and Sluzki, C. E., & Beavin,J. (1965). Simetra y complementaridad: Una definicion operacional y una interactional explanations of group decision-making: Social decision schemes versus valence tipologia de parejas. Acta Psiquiatrica y Psicologica de America Latina, 1 I, 321-330. distributions. Communication Monographs, 49, 1-19. Smith, R. E. (Ed.). 0979). The subtle revolution: Women at work. Washington, DC: Urban Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M.A. (1974). Communication, conflict, and Institute. marriage. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. . . Snow, C. E. (1972). Mothers' speech to children learning language. Child Development, 43, Raush, H. L., Grief, A. C., & Nugen!, J . (1979). Communication in couples and fam1hes. In W. 549-565. Burr, R. Hill, F. l. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories abo ut the family (Vol. 1, Snow, C. E. (1977). Mother's speech research: From input to interaction. In S. C. Snow & C . pp. 468-492). New York: Free Press. . . Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 31-50). Cambridge: Reiss, D. (1981). The family's construction of_reality. Cambridge, MA_: Harvard Umvers1ty Press. Cambridge University Press. Reiss, I. L. (1965). The universality of the family: A conceptual analysis. Journal of Marnage and Snyder, D. K. ( 1979). Multidimensional assessment of marital satisfaction. Journal of Marriage the Family, 27, 443-453. and the Family, 41, 813-823. Reiss I. L. (197\). The family system in America. New York: Holt, Rinehar1 & Winston. Snyder, M. (1981). On the self-perpetuating nature of social stereotypes. In D. L. Hamiltan (Ed.), Rich~rds, M.P.M. (1974). The development of psychological communication in the first year of Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 183-212). Hillsdale, NJ: life. In K. J. Connally & J. S. Bruner (Eds.), The growth of competence (pp. 119-134). New Lawrence Erlbaum. York: Academic Press. Spieker, S. (1982). Early communication and language development. In J . Belsky (Ed.). /n the Riskin, J., & Faunce, E. E. (1972). An evaluation review of family interaction research. Family beginning: Readings on infancy (pp. 121-132). New York: Columbia University Press. Process, II, 365-455. Spitz, R. A. (1945). Hospitalism: An inquiry into the genesis of psychiatric conditions in early Rogers, L. E. (19721. Dyadic systems and transactional communication in a family context. childhood. In A. Freud et al. (Eds.), The psychoanalytic study of the child (pp. 53-74). New Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. York: International Universities Press. Rollins, B. C. ( 1975). Response to Mille r about cross-sectional family life cycle research. Journal Sprey,J. (1979). Conflict theory and the study of marriage and the family. In W.R. Burr, R. Hill, F. of Marriage and the Family, 37, 259-260. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. 130-1591. Rollins, B. C .. & Galligan, R. ( 1978). The developing child and marital sa1islaction of parents. In R. New York: Free Press. M . Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on marital and family interaction: A Sroufe, L.A. (1979). Socioemotional development. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook of infant /ife-span perspectiues (pp. 71-106). New York: Academic Press. development (pp. 462-516). New York: John Wiley. Rollins, B. C., & Thomas, D . L. (1979). Parental support, power, and control techniques in the Staub, E. ( 1978). Positive socio/ behavior and morality (Vol. l). New York: Academic Press. socialization of children. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary Stayton, D., Hogan, R., & Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1982). lnfant obedience and maternal behavior. In theories about the family (Vol. l, pp. 317-364). New York: Free Press. J. Belsky (Ed.), In the beginning: Readings on infancy (pp. 194-203). New York: Columbia Rossi, A. (1968). Transition to parenthood. Journot of Marriage and the Family, 30, 26-39. University Press. Rubin, M.E.Y. (1977). Differences between distressed and nondistre~sed couples in ~erbal and Steinmetz, S. K. (1979). Disciplinary techniques and their relationship to aggressiveness, nonverbal communication codes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University. dependency, and conscience. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Ryan, J. ( 1974). Early language development. Towards a communicational analysis. In M.P.M. Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 2, pp. 405-438). New York: Free Press. Richards (Ed.), The integration of a child into a social world (pp. 185-214). New York: Stephens, W. N. (1963). The family in cross-cultural perspective. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Cambridge University Press. Winston. 736 CONTEXTS

Stern, D. (1977). The first relationship: Infant and mother. London: Fontana/Books. AUTHOR INDEX Stewart, R. B. (1983). Sibling attachment relationships: Child-infant interactions in the strange situation. Developmental Psychology, 19, 192-199. Sutton-Smith, B., & Rosenberg, B. G. ( 1970). The sibling. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Taylor, M. K., & Kogan, K. L. (1973). Effects of birth of a sibling on mother-child interaction. Abboll, A. R. 229 Altman. I. A. 61 , 63,64,65,67, Arundale, R. B. 144 Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 4, 53-58. Abeles, G. 708 70, 72, 78, 80, 82, 83, 84. Arvey. R D. 61'1, 630 Terman, L. M. (1938). Psychological factors in marital happiness. New York: McGraw-Hill. Abelso n, R. P. 71, 182, 235, 85, 89. 90, 91, 101, 365, Arwood, E. V. 428 Tesser, A. (1980). Self-esteem maintenance in family dynamics. Journal of Personality and 266, 557, 588 409,420, 421 , 500,553, 675 Ascani, K. 584, 585. 586 Social Psyc/uJ/ogy, 39, 77-91. Aboud. F. D . 220 Altman, S. A. 356 Asch. S. 633 Tharp, R. G. (1 "63). Psychological patterning in marriage. Psychological Bulletin, 60, 97-117. Aboud, F. E 441 Alvarez, W. C. 520 Ashby, W. R. 397 Thorton, A., & Freedman, D. (1983). The changing American family. Population Bulletin, 38, Abramovitch, R. 714, 716 Aman, R. 528 Ashcraft. N. 360 1-44. Abramson, L. Y. 187 , 189,190, Ambrose, P. 717 Asher, S. J. 704 , 720 Ting-Toomey,.':; (1983). An analysis of verbal communication patterns in high and low marital 191, 192 Ander, S. 527 Asher, S. R. 597 adjustment :.!roups. Human Communicotion Research, 9, 306-319. Achinstein, P. 105 Andersen, J. F. 366, 376 Ashour, A. S. 630 Toman, W. (191,J). Family constellation. New York: Springer. Adam,J. 147 Andersen, P. A. 366, 376 Atchley, R. C. 643 Tsukada, G. K. ( l 979). Sibling interaction: A review of the literature. Smith College Studies in Adams. J. S. 449 Anderson, A. B. 120 Alhay, M. 173, 179, 193,264, Social Work. 3, 229-247. Adams, R. N. 688 Anderson, B. J . 356, 417,418, 265, 268, 295 van den Berghe. P. L. (1978). Human family systems: An evolutionary view. New York: Elsevier. Adamson, L. 418 703,719 Atkins, B K. 471, 472 Veevers, J . E. ( 1981). Voluntarily childless wives: An exploratory study. In G. K. Phelan (Ed.), Addington, D. W. 225 Anderson, D. R. 411 Atkinson, M. L. 267, 709 Family relat,,mships (pp. 139-145). Minneapolis: Burgess. Adler, A. 444 Anderson, J. C. 631 Austin, J. L. 42 , 333 Verdon, M. (!' 'll). Kinship, marriage, and the family: An operational approach. American Adorno, T . W. 446, 457 Anderson, J. G. 618 Averill,J. R. 501,507,508, 511!. Journal of~ ,ciology, 86, 796-818. Agar, M. H. 152, 297 Anderson, N. A. 101 5 19 Vincent, J .P., I tiedman, LC., Nugent, J ., & Messerly, L. (1979). Demand characteristics in Ahern, L. 440, 457 Anderson, P.A. 124 Avert!, C. P. 501 observations of marital interaction. Journot of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, Aho , L. 336, 525 Anderson, R. J . 207,211,212 Avery, A. 79 557-566. Aiello, J. R. 218,360, 407, 408, Anderson, S. W. 521 Avery, C. M. 643, 644 Waller, W. (1938). The family: A dynamic interpretation. New York: Dryden. 416 Angle, H. L. 627 Avery, R. K. 336 Wallerstein, J. S., & Kelly, J . B. (1980). Suroiuing the breakup. New York: Basic Books. Ainsworth, M. D. S. 418, 711 Anlhony, S. 526 Ayer, A. J . 539 Walsh, F. (Ed.). (1982). Normal family processes. New York: Guilford. Airasian, P. W . 148 Apple, W. 223, 224, 359, 475, Aye res, J. 500 Wasz-Hockert, 0 ., Lind, J., Vuorenkoski, J., Partenen, J ., & Valarne, E. (1968). The infant cry. Ajzen, I. 41 , 228, 409 477, 522 Ayres, J. 556 In Clinics in developmental medicine No. 29. London: S.M.I.P. Akert, R. M. 346 Applegate, J. L. 210,552, 574, Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. Albert, S. 60, 72, 80 575,576,597,669,671,708 Baaske , E. 290. 292 New York: W.W. Norton. Albrecht, T. L. 637, 638 April, C. 709 Babbitt, L. V. 620 Waxler, N. E., & Mishler, E. G. (1970). Sequential patterning in family interaction: A Alderfer, C. P. 620 Arbeit, S. A. 702 Babrow, A. S. 122, 136, 137 methodological note. Family Process, 9, 211-220. Aldous, J. 701 , 702 Archer, D. 346,358 Bach, K. 333, 338, 340 Wegener, C ., Revenstorf, D., Hahlweg, K. . & Schindler, L (1979). Empirical analyses of Alexander, A. F. 403 Archer, R. L. 72,410,558 Bacharach, S. 8 . 553 communication in distressed and nondistressed couples. Behavior Analysis and Modifica­ Al exander, C. N . 556 Arend, R. A. 711 Bachefard, G. 62 tion, 3, 178-188. Al exander, E. R. 635 Argyle, M. 62, 71, 74, 77, 80, Bachman, J. C. 578, 582 Weiss, R. S. (1975). Marital separation. New York: Basic Books. Al exander, J . F. 675, 718 212, 228, 232, 264, 265, Bachman, S. G. 630 Wells, C . G., & Robinson, W. P. (1982). The role of adult speech in language development. In C. Alkema, F. 346 270, 271, 346. 360, 376. Backlund, P. M. 172, 174, 18.1. Fraser & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Advances in the socio/ psychology of language (pp. 11-77). Allen, A. 266 400, 407, 420, 421, 524, 193 Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Allen, J. G. 402 659, 660 661, 670, 676 Backus, D. 304, 56.3, 570, 596 Williamson, R. (1983). Relatio nal control and communication in marital types. Unpublished Allen, M. 120, 121 , 126 Argyris, C. 104 Baglan, T. 374, 558 doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Allen, R.R. 174, 176, 182, 183, Arland, S. 180 Bagorixxi. D. A. 591 Williamson, R., & Fitzpatrick, M.A. (in press). Two approaches to marital interaction: Relational 193 Aries, E. J. 213,465, 469 Bailey, L.A. 213 control patterns in marital types. Commllnication Monographs. Allen, R. W. 627 Arkin, R. M. 230,232, 233, 235, Bain, R. K. 618 Wilson, E. 0. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Allen, V. L. 267, 709 236, 244, 556 Baird. J. E. 636 Press. Allison, P. D. 143, 401 Arnold, G. F. 522 Baker, F. 142 Winch, R. F. (1968). Some observations on extended familism in the United States. In R. F. Allor, M. 45 Amison, P. H. 189, 208, 209, Baldassare, M. 155 Winch & R. W. Goodman (Eds.), Selected studies in marriage and the family (pp. 127-138). Alloway, T. 375 217 Baldwin, T. L. 217 New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Allport, B. W. 38 Aron, A. P. 534 Bales, R. F. 124. 439,459,536. Winnicott, D. W . (1964). The child, the family and the outside world. London: Penguin. Al per, T . 354,375,380 Aronoff, J . 552 636,689 Witteman, H., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (in press). Compliance gaining in marital interaction. Als, H. 356,418 Aronovitch, C . D. 222, 224, Ball, D . W. 552 Communication Monographs. Altekruse, M. K. 346 227 Ball. P. 222, 227 Woelfel, J ., & Haller, A. 0. (1971). Significant others, the self reflective act and the attitude Altman, D. 59, 60, 62, 63 Aronson, E. 2ll Ball, S. J. 618 formation process. American Sociological Review, 36, 74-87. Wolff, P. H. (1971). Mother-infant relations at birth. In J . G. Howels (Ed.), Modern perspectives in international child psychiatry (pp. 80-97). New York: Brunner/ Maze). 73 7 Yarrow, L. J. (1963). Research on dimensions of early maternal care. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 9, 101- 114.

View publication stats