Family Paradigms and Human Emotions
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
FAMILY PARADIGMS AND HUMAN EMOTIONS By Lori A. Hoisington A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Family Studies 2011 ABSTRACT FAMILY PARADIGMS AND HUMAN EMOTIONS By Lori A. Hoisington The primary objective of this research was to explore the relationship between family paradigms and human emotions. The research tested the relationship between closed paradigm vs. random paradigm and positive affect vs. negative affect. As a secondary objective, the research also extended the analysis to include open paradigm and synchronous paradigm. The closed family reflects stability through tradition and focuses on the past. Relationships are cohesive with a strong sense of belonging. The family is group-oriented. Boundaries prohibit information from freely entering or exiting the family. The random family lives for today and values freedom and independence; the individual always comes first. This family often appears chaotic to other paradigms and is discontinuity- oriented as it seeks change and new ideas. The family theme supports innovation but not hierarchy. The open family orients to the past, present and future with balance between continuity and change. The family is consequence-oriented with flattened hierarchy and values both the individual and the group. Consensus occurs through communication and boundaries are semi- permeable. The synchronous family is a harmonious system that operates on timelessness with no visible hierarchy. Members share consensus without communication through a special way of knowing. This family values individuality but provides stability with rigid system boundaries. The current study occurred at a single-site location throughout four phases of data collection; the first two phases comprised the pilot study and the latter two phases comprised the working study. Participants (N=202) were college students in a Midwest University (primarily 20 – 22 years old). Demographics were collected using two surveys and the research implemented four revised versions of the Relational Paradigmatic Assessment Scale (RPAS) for collection of paradigm and emotions data. The emotions data were coded according to the Circumplex Model to produce measures of valence and arousal for each emotion word. Dialectical logic served as the framework for the study and established a system of opposites (e.g. closed paradigm vs. random paradigm and positive affect vs. negative affect). Analyses were conducted with bivariate correlation (Phase III and Phase III/IV combined), ordinary least squares analysis (Phase IV) and ordinal regression analysis (Phase III/IV combined). Results of the study were interpreted according to Kantor and Lehr’s Distance Regulation Perspective. Findings supported use of the distance regulation model in family paradigms research and further suggested that, in its current state, the model does not adequately consider emotions that accompany change in family structure. Findings addressed the research question, is there a relationship between family paradigms and human emotions? Results showed negative correlation between cohesive paradigms (closed and synchronous) vs. distant paradigms (random and open). In addition, results also indicated that closed-type individuals respond least favorably to alternate paradigms (closed, open or synchronous) and open-type individuals respond most favorably to alternate paradigms (closed, random or synchronous). Moderating effects were revealed for education, relationship and religion. Gender served as a control variable. Results are applicable toward assessments of families undergoing system change. Copyright by LORI A. HOISINGTON 2011 To my husband Carl and Dr. Tom Luster You both should have been here for this day v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It’s difficult to find words to express the gratitude I feel for the support I received toward completion of my dissertation. When I began this journey nearly five years ago, I never imagined that I would complete the project without all the members of my support system. Two of my key supporters – my husband, Carl and Committee member, Dr. Tom Luster – provided guidance that helped to establish my research and set me on the path to success. Sadly, they are not with us to celebrate its completion. While we may not understand such losses, their influences and ideas continue to live through my research and my professional career. I am deeply grateful to my Committee Chair, Dr. Adrian Blow, for his support, patience and encouragement during the difficult times – to Dr. David Imig for continuous guidance throughout data collection, analysis and interpretation – to Dr. Francisco Villarruel for support, constant guidance and expertise following Dr. Luster’s passing – to Dr. Kevin Berger for helping me to maintain my professional vision and encouraging me to continue during the tough times – and to Dr. Laura Symonds for providing support and encouragement and leading me to the resources I needed for my research. I would also like to thank Dr. Karen Wampler and the faculty and staff of HDFS for continual support and encouragement throughout my research. Additionally, I am grateful to Jason Huang (CSTAT) for his generosity and diligence in assisting me with data analysis. Special acknowledgements to Dr. Jean Davis Schlater, Dr. Verna Lee Hildebrand, the family of Dr. Beatrice Paolucci and the Graduate College at Michigan State University for supporting my research through Dissertation Completion Fellowships. Each project represents collective efforts by individuals with a common vision. I am grateful to each of you for sharing this vision with me. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 Family Systems ............................................................................................. 2 Closed Paradigm ................................................................................. 4 Random Paradigm .............................................................................. 5 Open Paradigm ................................................................................... 7 Synchronous Paradigm ....................................................................... 8 Assumptions ....................................................................................... 9 Family Systems in Transition: The Role of Emotions .................................. 10 Decision-Making and Emotions ......................................................... 10 Identification of the Problem ........................................................................ 12 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 13 Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 14 Research Hypotheses ..................................................................................... 15 Primary Hypothesis ........................................................................... 15 Secondary Hypotheses ...................................................................... 15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................... 18 Family Process Theory ................................................................................. 19 Subsystems ........................................................................................ 19 Access and Target Dimensions ......................................................... 20 Access Dimensions ............................................................... 20 Target Dimensions ................................................................ 21 Player Parts ....................................................................................... 23 Dialectical Logic ........................................................................................... 25 Distance Regulation Model............................................................................ 27 Human Emotions ........................................................................................... 30 Emotions in Research ................................................................................... 32 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................... 34 Overview ....................................................................................................... 34 Procedure ...................................................................................................... 35 Design ........................................................................................................... 35 Participants .................................................................................................... 37 Pilot Study: Phase I and Phase II ...................................................... 37 Working Study: Phase III and Phase IV ........................................... 38 vii Phase III ................................................................................ 38 Phase IV ...............................................................................