INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UM1 films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sectionssm all overlaps.with Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearingin this copy for an additional charge. UM Contact I directly to order.
A Bell & Howell information Company 300North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor.Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600 COLLEGE STUDENTS' COGNITIONS ABOUT THEIR FAMILIES:
PERCEPTIONS, IDEALS AND EXPECTATIONS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of the Ohio State University
By
Gregory B. Smith, B.S., M.A.
*****
The Ohio State University
1996
Dissertation Committee: Approved by
Steven Beck
Jean Clement JoLJeJ Adviser Elizabeth Menaghan Department of Psychology
Andrew Schwebel
David Smith UNI Number: 9620071
UMI Microform 9620071 Copyright 1996, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
To my adviser, Dr. Andrew Schwebel, I express my deepest gratitude for your tireless help, advice, and encouragement through all phases of this dissertation. I also thank Dr. Charles Merrifield of Kansas Newman College for his assistance with the statistical analyses.
ii VITA
October 3, 1965 ...... Born, Chattanooga, Tennessee
1987 ...... B.S., Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
1990 ...... M.A. , The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
1994-Present ...... Assistant Professor of Psychology, Director of Counseling Services, Kansas Newman College, Wichita, Kansas
PUBLICATIONS
Cacioppo, J.T., Uchino, B.L., Crites, S.L., Snydersmith, M.A., Smith, G . , Berntson, G.G. & Lang, P.J. (1992). The relationship between facial expressiveness and sympathetic activation in emotion: a critical review, with emphasis on modeling underlying mechanisms and individual differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 62, 110-128.
Mclver, S.D., Schwebel, A.I., Smith, G.B., Dunn, R.L. & Zwissler, M.M. (1994) . Views of hospitalized severe mentally disabled (SMD) patients. New Research in Mental Health. Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of Mental Health.
iii Smith, G.B. (1990). The effects of self-focused attention on the induction of affect in depressed college students: facilitation or inhibition? Unpublished master's thesis.
Smith, G.B. & Rosenberger, P.H. (1990, May). The effects of self-focused attention on the induction of affect in depressed college students: facilitation or inhibition? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Smith, G.B. & Schwebel, A.I. (1995). Using a cognitive behavioral family model in conjunction with systems and behavioral family therapy models. American Journal of Family Therapy. 23, 203-212.
Smith, G.B., Schwebel, A.I., Dunn, R.L., & Mclver, S.D. (1993). The role of psychologists in the treatment, management, and prevention of chronic mental illness. American Psychologist. 48, 966-971.
FIELD OF STUDY
Major Field: Psychology
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii
VITA ...... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...... viii
CHAPTER PAGE
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Three Approaches to Marital and Family Theory 2 The behavioral approach ...... 3 The systems approach ...... 6 The cognitive approach ...... 9 The Cognitive Behavioral Family (CBF) Approach 12 Describing the family ...... 16 Explaining behavior in families .... 21 Prescribing the behavior of family m e m b e r s ...... 23 Evaluating satisfaction with family life 25 Coping with conflict and dissatisfaction 27 The Role of Cognitive-Behavioral Processes in Family Life C h a n g e s ...... 31 Predictable changes in family life. . . 31 Parental loss, divorce and remarriage . 33 Description of the Present Study ...... 38 Investigating the effects of family type 38 Investigation cognitions in the family schema ...... 4 0 Experimental Hypotheses...... 43 The assessment of cognitions ...... 44 The effects of early experiences of different family types on cognitions about family ...... 44
v II. METHODS 47
Participants ...... 47 M a t e r i a l s ...... 48 Demographic Questionnaire ...... 4 9 Self-Report of Family Functioning . . . 49 Family Assessment Device ...... 53 Dyadic Adjustment Scale ...... 56 Intimacy Scale Questionnaire ...... 59 P r o c e d u r e ...... 59
III. R E S U L T S ...... 64
Individual Scale Results ...... 65 Self-Report of Family Functioning . . . 65 Family Assessment Device ...... 68 Dyadic Adjustment Scale ...... 70 Relationship Intimacy Scale Questionnaire 72 Summary of Results According to Hypotheses . 72
IV. DISCUSSION ...... 76
Description of Family Functioning: The Effects of Early Experience of Family Types on Cognition in the Family Schema ...... 77 Ideals and Expectations in the Family Schema: Optimism and Pessimism ...... 85 Latent Cognitions and Maladaptive Coping . . 88 Implications for Intervention ...... 91 A psychoeducational model ...... 91 The limits of adaptability...... 94 The role of cognitive complexity in cognitive-behavioral family intervention ...... 95 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 96
LIST OF REFERENCES ...... 102
vi APPENDICES ...... 115
A. Instructions for administration in experimental c o n d i t i o n s ...... 115
B. Demographic Questionnaire ...... 116
C. Self-Report of Family Functioning ...... 120
D. Family Assessment Device ...... 125
E. Dyadic Adjustment Scale ...... 12 9
F. Relationship Intimacy Scale Questionnaire .... 135
vii LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Frequencies of Race by Family T y p e ...... 138
2. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA's) of scale scores by gender, family type, and c o g n i t i o n ...... 13 9
3. Analyses of variance for CSRFF scores by family type and cognition t y p e ...... 140
4. Mean CSRFF subscale scores for family type and cognition t y p e ...... 14 5
5. Analyses of variance for FAD scores by family type and cognition t y p e ...... 148
6. Mean FAD scores for family type and cognition t y p e ...... 151
7. Analyses of variance for DAS scores by family type and cognition t y p e ...... 153
8. Mean DAS scores for family type and cognition t y p e ...... 155
9. Analysis of variance for ISQ scores by family type and cognition t y p e ...... 156
viii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The field of psychology seeks to understand, explain, and treat abnormal behavior in individual human beings.
Historically, clinical psychologists and others studying abnormal behavior have always, in one way or another, acknowledged the influence of the family on individual functioning. However, over the past 50 years, three major theoretical approaches have been developed that have been applied specifically to understanding and treating couples and families themselves, rather than focusing only on individual clients. These approaches include behavior theory, systems theory, and, more recently, cognitive- behavior theory.
This paper will briefly review each of these approaches and explain how they apply to families, with particular attention given to the Cognitive Behavioral Family Therapy
(CBF) model {Schwebel, 1994). The CBF model is unique in
1 2
its power to integrate contributions from all three models
of family functioning (Smith & Schwebel, 1995).
After discussing how the CBF model can be applied to
the understanding of intact, single-parent, and
stepfamilies, the paper describes an investigation of
college students' cognitions about families, based on the'
CBF model. Finally, implications of the results for future
research and therapy will be discussed.
Three Approaches to Family Therapy
As mentioned above, this paper reviews three major approaches to family therapy: behavior theory, systems theory, and cognitive-behavior theory. While behavior theory focuses on how individual family members behave and mutually shape each others' behavior, systems theory focuses on the family itself as its level of analysis. The third approach, the cognitive-behavioral approach, is able to utilize a behavioral analysis of interactions between
individuals while also incorporating insights from a systems perspective.
The Behavioral Approach. Behavioral theories of marriage and family are characterized by an emphasis on the study of overt, observable behavior. Rather than studying
intrapsychic determinants of behavior, behavior theory
emphasizes the role of the external environment in
controlling behavior.
According to a behavioral analysis, behavior is acquired and maintained by means of the reinforcement contingencies in the external environment (e.g., Skinner,
1953). Behavior that is reinforced will increase in frequency, while behavior that is followed by aversive consequences (punishment), or that is not followed by any reinforcement (extinction), will decrease in frequency or cease altogether.
In marital relationships, satisfaction is a function of the amount of reinforcement that each person receives in the relationship. In general, distressed couples report more displeasing (punishing) behaviors from partners and fewer pleasing (reinforcing) behaviors (e.g., Birchler, Weiss &
Vincent, 1975; Jacobson Follette, & McDonald, 1982;
Jacobson, Waldron & Moore, 1980; Vincent, Weiss & Birchler,
1975; Wills, Weiss & Patterson, 1974). Thus, according to behavior therapy, satisfaction in relationships is directly related to the frequency of positive behaviors and inversely
related to the frequency of negative behaviors by one's
partner.
Communication is one particular behavior in
relationships that has very powerful rewarding and punishing
effects. In unhappy relationships, communication is
characterized by an exchange of negative interactions (e.g.,
Gottman, 1979; Noller & Guthrie, 1989; Whisman & Jacobson,
1990). Conversely, training in communication skills has been shown to increase marital satisfaction (Behrens,
Halford, & Sanders, 1989; Jacobson, Schmaling, & Holtzworth-
Munroe, 1987; Sher, Baucom & Larus, 1990) .
According to social exchange theory (Homans, 1961;
Rusbault, 1980; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959) satisfaction is related not only to the absolute level of reinforcement in a relationship, but more specifically to the ratio of exchange of reinforcement between couples. The social exchange model is a general theory of social satisfaction in relationships that has been applied specifically to marital functioning
(e.g., Behrens, Halford, & Sanders, 1989; Gottman, Notarius,
Markman, Bank, Yoppi & Rubin, 1976; Jacobson & Margolin, 1979; Noller & Guthrie, 1989; Notarius & Markman, 1993) .
Schwebel (Schwebel & Fine, 1992; Schwebel et a l ., 1989)
expressed the concept of social exchange as cost-benefit
analyses of family involvement that are performed by family
members at low levels of conscious awareness.
According to this understanding, satisfaction in
relationships is a function of the ratio of reinforcements
received from the relationship to the perceived costs of the
relationship (e.g., Jacobson & Margolin, 1979; Liberman,
Wheeler, DeVisser, Kuehnel & Kuehnel, 198 0; Stuart, 198 0) .
As long as rewards (positive outcomes) outweigh costs
(behavioral inputs or negative outcomes), satisfaction with
the relationship is high. However, persons who do not feel
that they are being sufficiently rewarded for their inputs will experience dissatisfaction and may soon withdraw those
inputs.
The detrimental effect of negative interactions in relationships is compounded by the fact that families tend to operate according to a principle of reciprocity
(Patterson, 1982). In other words, there is a clear tendency for family members to respond to negative interactions with negative behaviors of their own, which
only serve to escalate conflict in families (Baden & Howe,
1992; Cordova, Jacobson, Gottman, & Rushe, 1993; Patterson &
Reid, 1970; Patterson, Weiss & Hops, 1976). This has the
effect of keeping families locked in a cycle of punishing
interactions and increasing marital discord.
Behavior therapy uses the basic principles of learning
and reinforcement to teach couples to begin substituting
rewarding interactions for punishing ones. By teaching good
communications and problem-solving skills, behavior
therapists help couples increase the ratio of positive to negative exchanges and thus increase their overall satisfaction in the relationship (Behrens, Halford, &
Sanders, 1989; Behrens, Sanders & Halford, 1990; Jacobson &
Margolin, 1979; Liberman et a l ., 1980; O'Leary & Beach,
1990; Sher, Baucom, & Larus, 1990; Stuart, 1980) .
The Systems Approach. In systems theory, a system is regarded as an "organized whole" that is more than the sum of its individual elements. Rather than focusing on the individual elements of a system, systems theory looks at the behavior of the system itself as its basic unit of analysis. 7
In the application of systems theory to family therapy, this means that systems therapists are more concerned with describing the interaction patterns of the family as a whole rather than the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individual family members (Steinglass, 1978).
According to systems theory, a system functions to preserve its identity by maintaining a stable homeostatic balance. This is accomplished through feedback mechanisms, whereby deviations from homeostasis are sensed and actions are taken to correct the deviation. For example, in an individual human being, when blood sugar falls too low for efficient functioning, hunger drives the person to eat and restore blood sugar to an adequate level.
This basic concept has been applied to families as well
(e.g., Jackson, 1954, 1965; Watzlawick, Beavin & Jackson,
1967). According to a systems view, families develop a set of norms that guide behavior and function to maintain a stable "status quo" in the family (Jackson, 1965).
Individuals who deviate from those norms are met by actions
(i.e., communications) from other family members to stop the deviant behavior and restore the typical interaction patterns of the family.
Both behavioral and systems approaches to family
therapy focus on current family situations that maintain
dysfunctional behavior, rather than seeking explanations for
current behavior in past experiences. In particular, both
systems theory and behavior theory have emphasized looking at behavioral interactions among family members. Both approaches also emphasize communication. In behavior theory, communication is seen as a potentially powerful reinforcing or punishing influence. In systems theory, all behavior is regarded as communicating information that provides feedback to family members and helps to maintain the status quo of the family.
Thus, behavioral and systems theories, though differing in their theoretical locus of study, nevertheless have many areas of similarity. In fact, Smith and Schwebel (1995) suggest that systems theory can be integrated with behavioral theory through a cognitive-behavioral approach.
For example, the concept of organization is important in systems theory, as we have seen. However, one must recognize that a concept such as "organismic organization and regulation" is merely a metaphor when applied to family functioning, albeit a useful metaphor. A family may
function similarly to an organism, but that does not mean that it actually is an organism. Therefore, in order to fully understand family functioning, it is important to move beyond metaphorical descriptions to an examination of the actual processes that are involved in the behavioral regulation of families.
The cognitive-behavioral approach allows us to incorporate insights from both the behavioral and systems approaches. In particular, the CBF approach uses the concept of schema to account for the organization found in families in a less metaphorical, more empirically grounded manner. The CBF also uses behavioral and systemic analyses of interactions to describe how a stable organization is maintained in family life.
The Cognitive Approach. The cognitive perspective is a comparatively recent approach to understanding marriages and families (e.g., Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Epstein,
Schlesinger, & Dryden, 1988; Schwebel & Fine, 1994). 10
According to the cognitive approach, it is the cognitions that individuals hold (e.g., expectations, beliefs, assumptions, attributions) that primarily determine their behavioral and emotional responses (Beck, 1976; Ellis,
1962). These cognitive factors are conceptualized as information processing characteristics or processes that determine how an individual perceives and responds to his or her social environment (Ingram, 1984). Many behavioral therapy approaches incorporate cognitive techniques in addition to behavioral interventions in order to increase treatment efficacy (e.g., Baucom & Epstein, 1991; Baucom,
Epstein, & Rankin, 1993; Baucom, Sayers, Sc Sher, 1990;
Behrens, Sanders, & Halford, 1990; Halford, Sanders &
Behrens, 1993; Truax & Jacobson, 1989).
One of the early cognitive models of personality was the Personal Construct Theory of George Kelly. According to
Kelly, human beings function much like "naive scientists"
(Kelly, 1955). In other words, people's behaviors are largely motivated by a desire to predict and control their worlds. Because of this motivation, human beings do not merely passively respond to their impressions and 11
experiences of the world, but instead actively form
individualized cognitive representations of the world around
them. These ways of construing the world Kelly called personal constructs. Personal constructs function in much
the same manner as scientific hypotheses, which are
retained, discarded, or revised on the basic of further experience.
Applying this basic approach to a marital relationship, we can recognize that partners in a marriage have constructs about the marriage and the roles they expect from each other. In a maladjusted marriage, marital couples may maintain rigid, dysfunctional constructs about marriage
(Neimeyer, 1985). Because these beliefs are often resistant to change, couples may "disregard, elaborate or distort experience to maintain these static beliefs" (Waring, 1990, p.4 01). Thus, personal constructs are used by individuals in ways that consciously or unconsciously influence how information is processed in marital relationships.
According to personal construct theory, personal constructs develop largely from early experiences. In particular, constructs about marriage and family derive to a large extent from observations of one's parents' marriage
and one's own family of origin (Waring, 1990) . Thus, an
individual's behavior in a marriage is not only a response
to the actual behavior of the spouse, but also a function of
the constructs one has derived from past experience
(Segraves, 1982) . Constructs perhaps effective in understanding one's parents' marriage may at times be applied ineffectively in order to understand one's current marriage, in what has been called a "marital transference neurosis" (Sager, 1976).
Marital therapy, from this viewpoint, may involve encouraging spouses to identify and self-disclose the personal constructs that they hold about the marriage
(Waring, 1990). Once spouses' "personal theories" about marriage have been brought to light, they may be evaluated, and more realistic or growth-enhancing interpretations substituted when appropriate. 13
The Cognitive Behavioral Family (CBF) Approach
The cognitive behavioral family (CBF) approach is one example of the cognitive perspective applied to families
(Schwebel, 1992; Schwebel & Fine, 1992, 1994; Smith &
Schwebel, 1995). Like other cognitive approaches, this approach examines cognitive processes and the content of individual cognitions, as well as behavioral interactions among family members. However, one potentially important contribution of the CBF approach is its recognition of the organization of people's cognitions about family. While other cognitive approaches emphasize isolated aspects of information processing, such as irrational beliefs or attributions, the CBF approach suggests that these aspects of information processing do not occur in isolation, but in the context of an overall cognitive organization called the family schema (Schwebel & Fine, 1992, 1994) .
Schwebel described family schemas as the complete set of cognitions that a person holds about their family and their participation in family life. Family schemas derive to a significant degree from one's own family of origin.
Through observation and interaction with other family 14 members, each individual "develops a picture of what family life is and should be" (Schwebel & Fine, 1992). These family schemas are to a greater or lesser extent shared by all members of a family.
The family schema has both a descriptive and a prescriptive function (Reno, Cialdini & Kallgren, 1993) .
Schemas provide a stable descriptive picture of family life as it appears to be, and based on these schemas, individuals generate causal explanations for events that occur in family life. Thus, family schemas influence the interpretation and evaluation of family members' behavior.
Schemas also provide prescriptive guidelines for how family life ideally should be. The family schema provides clear expectations for one's own and others' behavior in the family, and specifies sanctions for any violations of those expectations. Based on these expectations, individuals may take action to correct their own or others' behavior that does not live up to the prescribed ideal. These functions will be discussed in more detail below.
In summary, family schemas are stable, organized cognitive structures about the family that are derived from experience, especially early experiences in one's family of origin. These cognitive structures influence how behavior is perceived and evaluated within the family. When behavior occurs that is prohibited by the family schema, other family members may take action to enforce the family's expectations. Thus, by integrating cognitive and behavioral theory, the CBF approach is able to account for the homeostatic self-regulation of families from a systems point of view. However, it must also be clear that the family schema is not absolutely fixed, but is moderately flexible and continues to evolve as people accumulate new experiences, gain new information, and try out new behaviors.
The family schema, as hypothesized in the CBF approach, performs several functions in processing information about families. These functions include describing the family, explaining the behavior of family members, prescribing the behavior of family members, evaluating satisfaction with family life, and coping with conflict and dissatisfaction.
Each of these functions will be described in more detail below. 16
Describing the Family. As discussed above, schemas
function to provide a stable, coherent description or
picture of the world. In family life, the family schema
contains the relatively stable beliefs that individuals hold
about their family.
As families grow and develop through time, the beliefs
that are part of their family schemas may be altered on the
basis of new information and experiences. This process,
which Piaget called "accommodation", may most simply be
described as learning. Kelly optimistically thought that
human beings were naturally and continually engaged in this process of learning. In his model, the person was referred
to as a "naive scientist", who tested and revised his or her
cognitive structures in the light of experience.
However, schemas also place constraints on the ease of one's ability to learn from new experiences. The stability of one's world view is enhanced by schematic biases in
information processing. Although schemas may often be revised on the basis of information that does not fit the schema, there is nevertheless a conservative aspect to schematic processing. 17
Schemas influence information processing in ways that
are consistent with the original schema (see Hastie, 1981;
Wyer & Srull, 1994; Taylor & Crocker, 1981). For example,
rather than seeking disconfirmation as scientists do, people
often attend to and seek out information that confirms their
expectations (Leyens & Fiske, 1994; Hamilton, Stroessner &
Driscoll, 1994; Sanbonmatsu, Akimoto & Biggs, 1993; Watson &
Johnson-Laird, 1972). Information that is incongruent with
the schema may be overlooked, ignored, or forgotten (Hastie,
1981; Leyens & Fiske, 1994; Hamilton, Stroessner & Driscoll,
1994) . Ambiguous information is likely to be interpreted whenever possible in a manner that is consistent with the
schema (Hamilton, Stroessner & Driscoll, 1994) .
In summary, schemas function in a variety of contexts
to guide perception, structure experience, provide a basis
for interpretation and inference, and influence overt behavior, all in a manner that is consistent with the
individual's schema (e.g., Devine, Hamilton & Ostrom, 1994;
Hastie, 1981; Markus & Zajonc, 1985; Taylor & Crocker,
1981). Thus, Kelly's "naive scientist" view, which views human beings as actively confirming and disconfirming their 18 personal constructs in the light of new experiences (Kelly,
1955), needs to be altered to incorporate the more conservative aspects of schematic information processing.
In relationships, schematic biases may in part account for disagreements between partners. Several studies demonstrate a lack of agreement between spouses regarding events in a relationship, and also between spouses and outside observers (e.g., Floyd & Markman, 1983; Jacobson &
Moore, 1981; Margolin, Hattem, John & Yost, 1985). This suggests that marital couples are not necessarily reliable reporters of their own marital situation and may be open to bias in their perceptions, particularly in situations where emotional arousal is high (Baucom & Epstein, 1990).
The beliefs that family members hold may not always be correct or adaptive. One important component of cognition in marriage and family includes mistaken or irrational beliefs or standards. Beck (1976; Beck & Emery, 1985; Beck et a l ., 1979) emphasize the role of mistaken cognitions in producing negative affect in affective and anxiety disorders. In marital relationships, misinterpretations and biased perceptions are major contributors to marital 19 distress (Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Beck, 1988; Epstein, 1982;
Larson, 1992). Dysfunctional relationship beliefs have been
shown to be specific to marital distress, and not just an artifact of depression (Townsley, Beach, Fincham, & O'Leary,
1991).
Another important aspect of cognition in families refers to the expectancies family members develop about the consequences of their own behavior. Based on learning and experience stored in the family schema, individuals develop cognitive expectancies about what outcomes are probable in a family and how other family members are likely to behave.
In other words, behavior in families is controlled not only by its objective consequences, as behavior theory suggests, but a person's anticipation of the consequences of behavior
(Bandura, 1977; 1986) .
Bandura (1977) differentiated between two types of expectancies: outcome and efficacy expectancies. Outcome expectancies refer to the expectation that a particular act will be followed by particular consequences. For example, when parents' behavior is consistent and predictable, a 20
child develops clear expectancies about how parents will
respond to particular behaviors.
Efficacy expectancies, on the other hand, refer to the
expectation that one will be able to carry out the indicated
action. For example, a person may believe that changing
their behavior might please their partner. However, that
person might believe themselves to be unable to change their
behavior, regardless of their own wishes or the wishes of
their partner. In such a case, the partner may lack a
sufficient sense of self-efficacy to carry out desired
changes in behavior. Consistent with this analysis, Doherty
(1981a, 1981b) has found that marital distress is in fact
correlated with lower efficacy expectancies in marital couples. Additionally, spouses with low relationship efficacy tended to make more distress-maintaining attributions than spouses with high efficacy (Vanzetti,
Notarius, & Nesmith, 1992). Thus, low efficacy expectancies
can contribute to a sense of learned helplessness and hopelessness in the marriage, and may lead to increased marital distress and dissatisfaction. Explaining Behavior in Families. In addition to
describing what is happening in their worlds, human beings
attempt to make sense of what is happening by formulating
causal inferences about events in their lives. In other words, human beings are concerned not only with what happens
in their lives, but also with trying to understand why
things happen. Causal inferences about the behavior of other people are known as attributions.
Attribution is one of the most widely studied aspects of cognition in marital relationships (e.g., Bradbury &
Fincham, 1988, 1990; Fincham & Bradbury, 1987). In marital relationships, attributions are one partner's inferences about the causes of the other person's behavior.
Several studies show that distressed spouses rate the causes of a partner's negative behavior as more global and stable, and positive events as more specific and unstable, when compared to nondistressed couples (Bradbury & Fincham,
1990; Doherty, 1981a; Epstein, 1982; Fincham and Bradbury,
1993; Fincham & O'Leary, 1983; Holtzworth-Munroe & Jacobson,
1985; Sacco, Dumont, & Dow, 1993). The link between attributions and marital distress is found even when the 22
correlation between negative attributions and depression is
accounted for (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990; Fincham & Bradbury,
1993; Townsley, Beach, Fincham, & O'Leary, 1991).
Furthermore, negative attributions are associated with
increased negative behaviors and decreased problem solving behaviors (Bradbury & Fincham, 1992).
Fincham (1985, 1993) distinguished between two types of attributions: causal and responsibility attributions.
Causal attributions refer to attributions about the cause of an event. However, Fincham recognized that a person may cause an event, but may not be responsible for the outcome, in the sense of "She really didn't mean to say that." Thus,
Fincham identified a different type of attribution, responsibility attributions.
This latter type of attribution refers to attributions about the partner's motivation for the behavior and liability for sanctions. Fincham and Bradbury (1987, 1992) found that, in general, both types of motivation were equally associated with marital distress and discord.
However, responsibility attributions were more strongly 23
•related to self-report and display of anger, and voicing of
complaints.
Causal attributions, like other information processing
characteristics, are also subject to bias in a systematic way. For example, distressed spouses are more likely to make dispositional attributions for their spouse's negative behavior, attributing such behavior to inherent personality
traits (Sacco, Dumont, & Dow, 1993). On the other hand, positive behavior is attributed to external or situation
causes. Thus distressed spouses tend to make attributions in such a way to blame negative behaviors on dispositional, unchangeable factors, while minimizing the effect of positive spouse behaviors (Karmey, Bradbury, Fincham, &
Sullivan, 1994) .
Prescribing the Behavior of Family Members. In addition to their descriptive and explanatory functions, schemas also function prescriptively, to provide conceptual frameworks to organize actions and guide behaviors
(Hamilton, Stroessner & Driscoll, 1994; Reno, Cialdini &
Kallgren, 1993). In terms of family functioning, the family schema provides norms and rules that prescribe behavior in 24
families. Family members generally regulate their behavior
according to the rules and roles that are dictated by these
family schemas.
Schwebel and Fine (1992) expressed this idea as the
concept of family constitutions. -The family constitution is
a part of the family schema that includes the spoken and unspoken rules that govern interactions between family members. This is similar to Sager's (1976) idea of the
"marital contract" in marriage, the unspoken expectations
that each partner brings to the marriage. Just as violations of the "marital contract" lead to marital distress (Sager, 1976), violations of the family constitution lead to distress in the family. Thus, the prescriptive aspect of the family schema also serves to maintain stability in the family.
However, the stability provided by the prescriptions of the family schema may also at times have a cost. The prescriptions of the family schema may not always be realistic or adaptive for family members. Research has shown that unrealistic standards for a relationship are associated with marital distress (e.g., Epstein & Eidelson, 25
1981; Eidelson & Epstein, 1982; Fincham & Bradbury, 1987;
Moller & Van Zyl, 1991; Shapiro & Kroeger, 1991) . In
addition to having unrealistic standards and expectations,
couples may also simply have conflicting expectations,
different ideas about rules and "shoulds" regarding the
relationship. Inability to negotiate these difference may
contribute to marital distress (Beck, 1988).
Evaluating Satisfaction with Family Life. How well
individuals conform to the prescriptions of the family
schema will influence the satisfaction of individual family members. Schwebel suggested that individual family members evaluate their satisfaction with family relationships by performing cost-benefit analyses of family involvement at low levels of conscious awareness, to determine whether they are getting what they should be in the relationship at an acceptable cost (Schwebel & Fine, 1992; Schwebel et a l .,
1989). As long as the cost-benefit ratio is acceptable, satisfaction with the relationship will remain high.
In relationships, it is not merely the reward level itself that determines satisfaction, but the reward level in relation to one's expectations. The family schema is the 26 source of one's expectations about rewards and costs in the family. When family members fail to conform to the prescriptions of the family schema, this may reduce the satisfaction of other family members. Within the individual observing the "transgression", it creates a discrepancy between that individual's expectations for the other person's behavior and the actual behavior that is observed.
When there is a discrepancy between one's perceptions of the actual situation in one's family and one's expectations for the family, satisfaction is likely to decrease. The discrepancy between the prescriptions of the family schema and the actual state of affairs is hypothesized to produce negative affect (i.e., dissatisfaction, anger, etc.). This negative affect or dissonance motivates individuals to take action to reduce the perceived discrepancy (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1990;
Elliot & Devine, 1994; Festinger, 1957; 1964). Similarly according to the CBF approach, when the cost-benefit ratio is unfavorable, given a particular set of expectations, a person acts to correct this state of affairs and restore a 27 more favorable cost-benefit ratio (Schwebel et al., 1989;
Schwebel & Fine, 1994).
As long as there is consensus among family members about expected standards of behavior, conflict in the family will be minimized. However, when family members differ in their individual versions of the family schema
(expectations, standards, etc.), conflict is likely to result. Thus, another important aspect of the family schema consists of problem-solving and behavior control strategies that are employed to regulate behavior that deviates from family norms.
Coping with Conflict and Dissatisfaction. As stated above, when there is a discrepancy between the standards of one's family schema and the actual family situation, this produces negative affect that motivates the person to respond in ways to reduce that negative affect and return to more satisfying ways of interacting. We may identify three primary ways to respond to a deviance between actual perceptions of one's family and the expectancies or ideals of one's schema. One way is to modify one's schema to adjust to the reality of the family. Called "cognitive 28 restructuring" by Lazarus and Folkman (1984), this strategy is similar to Piaget's idea of "accommodation" (Flavell,
1977), whereby one alters one's schemas to adjust to a new experience. However, as we have seen above, there are some constraints on the ease with which individuals may modify their schemas to adjust to new information.
A second means of dealing with conflict between schemas and reality is through problem-focused strategies such as behavior control and problem-solving. These strategies work to change external reality in order to make it conform more closely to the prescriptions of the family schema. For example, behavior control strategies may include overt reward and punishment, or they may involve more sophisticated processes of negotiation and problem-solving.
A lack of problem solving and conflict resolution skills has been associated with less satisfaction in marital and family relationships (Holzworth-Munroe & Jacobson, 1991).
Conversely, training couples in communication, conflict resolution, and problem-solving skills has been shown to enhance marital satisfaction (Gottman, Notarius, Gonso &
Markman, 1976; Jacobson, 1978, 1979). 29
However, when family members lack good problem-solving
skills, they may develop a third method of dealing with
conflict, the family defense mechanism (Schwebel et al.,
1989/ Schwebel, 1993). Family defense mechanisms help
family members deal with conflict and negative affect by
diverting the attention of family members from the source of
conflict. This allows family members to maintain stability
and current levels of satisfaction in their relationships,
while avoiding the costs that confronting and resolving the
conflict would incur.
One example (from Schwebel, 1993) of a family defense mechanism would be a couple who, finding themselves in
conflict, begin to spend more and more time apart (e.g., working at the office). Because they are not together as much, there are fewer opportunities for conflicts to arise, and when the couple do find themselves together, they are more likely to have satisfying interactions. This is an example of avoiding conflict through an escape family defense mechanism (Schwebel, 1993). Though it does not resolve the underlying conflict, it makes more satisfying family relationships possible. 30
In summary, as the previous discussion makes clear, there are strong tendencies toward stability in the family, as a result of the family schema. Similar to systems theory, the CBF approach emphasizes the maintenance of a stable homeostatic state in the family. As stated above, the family schema provides the basis for maintaining stability in families.
This stability is accomplished through two interrelated processes. Cognitively, the family schema increases stability by biasing perceptions and interpretations in order to maintain a consistent view of the family.
Behaviorally, the family schema both prescribes one's own behavior in the family and also specifies sanctions for other family members' behavior that deviates from the prescriptions of the family schema. According to the family schema approach, the systemic processes of feedback and control or self-regulation are accomplished through such behavioral processes as communication, reinforcement and punishment.
Every family must find a balance between stability and change. A family must have some stability in order to make 31
the lives of family members predictable and comfortable.
However, families are continually confronted with the
challenge to adapt to change, as external circumstances
change and as family members grow and develop. Although
stability is important, too much stability inhibits change
and growth, and leads to an unhealthy rigidity in the •
family. The ability of families to adapt to external and
internal changes facilitates healthy adjustment. Using the
construct of the family schema allows us to conceptualize
this tension between stability and change in family
transitions.
The Role of Cognitive Behavioral Processes in Family Life
Changes
Although the family schema refers the cognitions that
individual family members hold about the family, the family schema also has a consensual aspect insofar as it is shared to a greater or lesser extent by all members of a particular
family. The importance of this consensual aspect, which
facilitates stability in the family, is very evident as
family members undergo changes in family structure that necessitate a revision of their family schemas. 32
Predictable Changes in Family Life. The first such
transition occurs whenever two individuals, each with their own expectations for the relationship, come together and attempt to develop a mutually agreeable set of expectations and roles. As the relationship develops, couples must continue to negotiate newly identified conflicting expectations, acquired from their own families of origin, in order to arrive at mutually satisfactory solutions (e.g., conflicts over financial management decisions, child-rearing practices, etc.).
In typical family development, families go through predictable stages that are characterized by periods of relative stability and separated by periods of relative change. For example, McGoldrick and Carter (1982; Carter &
McGoldrick, 1989) identify six stages of "normal" family development: unattached young adults, the newly married, the family with young children, the family with adolescents, launching children and moving on, and the family in later life.
The transition into each of these stages produces a crisis in adaptability for the family. Nevertheless, 33
because these are predictable and expected stages of
development in the life of the family, most people's family
schemas will include some information about how to deal with
these changes. In other words, because most traditional
couples who marry expect to move through predictable certain
stages such as having children, launching children from the
home, retirement, etc., these stages are to some extent
already anticipated in the family schemas of most couples.
Parental Loss. Divorce and Remarriage. Many
transitions that occur throughout the family life cycle may
initiate periods of newly identified differences, thus producing instability and conflict before the family adjusts
to the changed family situation and establishes a new homeostatic balance by arriving at a consensual version of the family schema. The stages identified by theorists such as McGoldrick and Carter discussed above describe predictable stages of family development.
However, two transitions in particular that necessitate a major reevaluation of the family schema are the transitions involved in becoming a single parent family 34
{through divorce or death1) and in remarriage and becoming a
stepfamily. These two transitions are particularly
traumatic from the family schema viewpoint because they are
unpredictable and unanticipated. Thus, the typical family
schema has no provision for accommodating to such profound
and disruptive change in the family developmental cycle.
The transition to becoming a single parent family
through death or divorce is certainly a stressful one for
all family members, and perhaps especially for children.
Research indicates that parental divorce leads to short-term developmental disruptions and emotional distress in children
(Gately & Schwebel, 1991, 1992; Kurdek, 1987; Schwebel, Fine
& Moreland, 1988; Wallerstein, 1984). However, the long term effects of separation and divorce on children are quite variable (Gately & Schwebel, 1991, 1992). Many factors mediate the long-term outcome of divorce, including age, parental conflict, and the social environment (Coleman &
Ganong, 1994). For example, the long-term outcome of divorce for children may in fact be positive when the post-
1 Throughout this paper, the term "single-parent family" will be limited to families that have lost one parent through death or divorce. This paper does not address single-parent families in which children were born out of wedlock. 35
divorce situation involves reduced conflict compared to the
family situation prior to the divorce.
Remarriage and the formation of a stepfamily is
similarly stressful for all family members involved (Coleman
& Ganong, 1994; Fine & Schwebel, 1992). In the transition
that occurs during remarriage, Fine and Schwebel (1992)
suggest that conflict may emerge from three primary sources.
The first of these is unrealistic expectations regarding the new family (e.g., believing that a stepfamily should be just like an intact family, which is seen as the norm). For example, Kurdek 5c Fine (1991) found that mothers tend to be more optimistic and to have less unrealistic beliefs about stepfamilies than stepfathers did. This pattern was associated with greater marital satisfaction for mothers than for stepfathers, who were more pessimistic and had greater unrealistic beliefs.
The second source of conflict includes attributions of blame that escalate conflict and interfere with problem solving (e.g., our problems are because of the fact that we are a stepfamily). The third source of conflict arises from conflicting cognitions between family members (e.g., 36
differing perceptions of a stepparent's role in discipline
between partners, or between parents and children). Similar
to stepfamilies, single parent families have also been
required to go through a similar period of reevaluating
family norms, and many of the same sources of conflict may be relevant.
According to the CBF perspective, one primary determinant of stress during these family changes is the extent to which family members view divorce and remarriage as negative or positive events. Stepparent relationships are generally perceived by family members (as well as by the
larger society) as more negative and less supportive than relationships in intact families (Keshet, 1990; Sauer &
Fine, 1985; Schwebel, Fine & Renner, 1991). This negative evaluation of the events of divorce and remarriage, which is influenced by individual, family, and societal views, may produce a self-fulfilling prophecy that interferes with the long-term adjustment of family members to divorce and remarriage (Fine & Schwebel, 1987; Gately & Schwebel, 1991).
In addition to negative perceptions and self-fulfilling prophecy, adjustment in remarriage may be even more 37
difficult because of a lack of clear and consistent societal
norms for stepparent roles (Cherlin, 1978; Keshet, 1990;
Schwebel, Fine & Renner, 1991). We may hypothesize that a
similar lack of norms may apply to single parent families as well. This lack of generally available and agreed-upon norms for single parent and stepfamilies may make the process of reevaluating and renegotiating family schemas more salient.
In summary, the transition to single-parent and
remarried families requires a great adjustment on the part of all family members. One important aspect of this adjustment, according to the CBF model, is for family members to somehow adjust their earlier family schemas for
intact families in order to accommodate the new changes in the family structure.
Furthermore, the CBF model suggests that these transitions may produce conflict between family members and
specifies how this conflict may occur. Conflict may result
from unrealistic or inappropriate expectations on the one hand, or conflicting cognitions between family members on the other hand. This process may be made more difficult by a 38
lack of clearly specified norms for single-parent and
stepfamilies in society. The family schema model provides a
coherent framework for anticipating and explaining many of
the difficulties faced by families undergoing transitions
such as spousal death, divorce, or remarriage.
Description of the Present Study
The present research was designed to examine certain
aspects of the CBF model described above. In particular, we
examined the effects of three different types of family experiences on cognitions in the family schema. Three different types of cognitions described by the family schema approach were identified as being especially relevant to the current investigation.
Investigating the Effects of Family Type. Three types of family background were examined as potentially having a great influence on the development of family schemas.
First, subjects from intact families were included in the study. While subjects from intact families have experienced several of the expected changes in typical family development, these changes are in general less disruptive than those experienced by subjects from single parent or 39
step families. Furthermore, society provides more stable
norms for intact families, compared to a lack of clearly
specified norms for single parent and stepfamilies.
Subjects representing the other two family types of
interest in this study were composed of subjects from single parent families and stepfamilies. As discussed earlier,
subjects from both of these family types have experienced a quite unpredicted and disruptive challenge to a family
schema based on an intact family.
However, while stepfamilies share with single parent families this disruptive effects of the loss of one parent, they differ from single parent families because families making the transition to stepfamilies must also go through a period of renegotiating family schemas in the remodeled families. This process of renegotiation may be quite difficult. Furthermore, as was also noted above, previous research has suggested that stepfamilies may have more ambiguity about family roles (Cherlin, 1978; Fine &
Schwebel, 1992; Keshet, 1990; Schwebel, Fine, & Renner,
1991), perhaps as a result of a lack of clearly defined cultural norms for stepfamilies. 40
Investigating Cognitions in the Family Schema. Because
individuals in each group shared unique experiences as a result of their family type, some commonalities in their responses were expected among members of the same groups, while some differences may expected between members of different groups. The present research assessed the effects of family type on three aspects of cognition in the family schema: perceptions {which relate to the descriptive aspect of the family schema), ideals (which relate to the prescriptive aspect of the family schema), and expectations about their own families in the future.
First, given the differing experiences of subjects from different types of family of origin, it seems reasonable to assume that there may be some differences in how subjects from different family types perceived their families of origin. More specifically, it may be that children from intact families may differ significantly in their perceptions of their families when compared to children from single parent and stepfamilies. Thus, subjects were administered a set of questionnaires that assessed their 41 perceptions of commonly identified areas important to the assessment of family functioning.
Second, in order to assess the prescriptive aspects of family functioning, subjects were asked about their cognitions for ideal families. Subjects were administered the same set of questionnaires used to assess their perceptions of their family of origin, but this time with a different set of instructions. To assess cognitions about ideal families, subjects were asked to fill out the questionnaires as they felt a person living in an ideal family would respond.
We might generally expect a person's ideal standards for a family to be significantly different from (and generally more positive than) their perceptions of their actual family. However, to the extent that the loss of a parent disrupts the course of typical family development described by the family schema, we might expect subjects from single parent and step families to perceive their current families as less ideal than subjects from intact families. Related to this question, research indicates that stepparents have greater discrepancies between ideal and 42
current family perceptions (Brady & Ambler, 1982; Woodruff,
1982). Thus, we might predict that subjects from single parent and step families may show greater discrepancies between their cognitions about ideal families and their perceptions of their actual families of origin.
However, a contrasting prediction could also be made for the pattern of responses to questions about cognitions for ideal families. To the extent that conceptions of an ideal family are derived from societal norms based on intact families that are generally available to all members of a society, these conceptions of an ideal family may be consistent across all participants. Thus no significant differences may be expected between ideal conceptions of families for children from the different family types.
Third, subjects were also asked about their expectations for their own families in the future. When participants are asked about their expectations for their own families in the future, we again may expect that the different life experiences that result from the different family types may produce differences in expectations for the future. For example, children from divorced families have 43
been found to be less optimistic about the success of their
own future marriages than children from intact families,
although these children did not differ on their basic
assumptions about marriage or measures of depression
(Franklin, Janoff-Bulman, & Roberts, 1990).
• When participants are asked about their expectations
for their own families in the future, it is uncertain
whether they will base their expectations on cognitions
about their actual family from the past (a view that we might label "realistic" or "pessimistic"), or whether they might expect their own families to more closely approximate
their ideals (an "optimistic" view). Therefore, participants' expectancies for their own families in the
future were compared with their perceptions of their actual
families of origin, in order to see whether their expectations more closely matched their perceptions of their actual families of origin or their conceptions of an ideal
family.
Experimental Hypotheses
In summary, the previous discussion suggests several hypotheses about the effects of the experience of different 44
family types on the development of college students'
cognitions about families. In particular, participants'
cognitions about their perceptions of their actual families
of origin, their conceptions of ideal families, and their
expectations for their own families in the future were
assessed. The hypotheses tested by the present research
include the following:
The assessment of cognitions. Regarding the effects of cognition type, for subjects from all three types of family backgrounds, it is hypothesized that:
1) Participants' ratings of ideal families will differ significantly from, and be significantly more positive than, their ratings of their own actual families in the past.
2) Ratings for participants' expectations about their own families in the future will in general be more similar to their ratings of ideal families than to their ratings of their actual families in the past.
The effects of early experiences of different family types on cognitions about family. The above findings relative to type of cognition are expected to be qualified by the family type from which participants come. Regarding 45
the effects of family type, it is hypothesized that family
type will have specific effects depending on the type of
cognition examined. These effects are hypothesized to be
the following:
3) On measures of actual family functioning, students
from stepfamilies and single parent families may rate their actual family situation more negatively than participants
from intact families. As suggested in the previous discussion, this may be a result of individual family members making unfavorable comparisons with social norms representing intact nuclear families as an ideal model of family functioning.
4) On measures of ideal family functioning, participants from single parent families and participants from stepfamilies may show more idealistic ratings for ideal families when compared to ratings from participants from intact families. This may result from an attempt to compensate for more negative perceptions of their actual families.
5) Similarly to the previous hypothesis, on measures of expectations for their own families in the future, participants from single parent families and participants from stepfamilies may show more idealistic expectations when compared to ratings from participants from intact families.
As in the previous hypothesis, this may result from an attempt to compensate for more negative perceptions of their actual families. CHAPTER II
METHOD
Participants
Participants consisted of 148 introductory psychology
students from the Ohio State University who received partial
class credit for participating in this experiment.
Participants were recruited by asking the voluntary participation of students who, at the time of their graduation from high school, were categorized in one of the three following family types: (a) a continuously intact nuclear family (N = 49, 33%), (b) a stepfamily (N = 39,
26%), or (c) a single-parent family (N = 59, 40%), in which one parent had been lost through death or divorce.
Participants were selected by random sign-up procedures. They ranged in age from 18 to 42 years, with most students (91%) being between 18 and 25 years of age.
In this sample, 61.5% of participants were 18 or 19 years
47 old. Seventy-seven participants (52%) were male, and seventy-one (48%) were female. Racially, 117 participants
(79%) were White, 12 participants (8%) were Black, 1 participant (1%) was Hispanic, 9 participants (6%) were
Asian-American, and 7 participants (5%) described themselves as "Other". A chi-square analysis of race by family type was nonsignificant (chi-square = 10.47, df = 8, p = .24).
Table 1 provides a breakdown of the frequencies of race by family type.
Materials
A questionnaire was administered to obtain basic demographic information about the participants.
Four separate measures were administered to assess a broad range of characteristics of family functioning. These four measures of family functioning were used in a way that differed somewhat from the designers' original intentions.
That is, the measures were administered not only to assess participants' cognitions about their actual families at the time of graduation from high school, but were readministered with different instructions to assess participants' cognitions about ideal families and about their expectations 49 for their own families in the future. Copies of the instructions for each of these administrations is provided in Appendix A.
The measures used included the following:
Demographic Questionnaire. A descriptive information sheet asking basic demographic information about age, gender, race, and family status. Results of the demographic questionnaire are presented in the description of the sample above. The Demographic Questionnaire is attached as
Appendix B.
SeIf- Report_of Family.Functioning (SRFF: Bloom. 1985) .
The SRFF is an integrative 75-item self-report instrument of family functioning that was developed by taking items from four commonly used self-report measures of family functioning: the Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos &
Moos, 1981), the Family-Concept Q Sort (van der Veen, 1965), the Family Adaptation and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES;
Olson, Bell, & Portner, 1978) , and the Family Assessment
Measure (FAM; Skinner, Steinhauer, & Santa-Barbara, 1983).
Items are Likert-type scales rated from 1 (very untrue) to 4
(very true). The SRFF is attached as Appendix C. 50
Through factor analysis, fifteen 5-item scales
describing dimensions of family functioning were developed
and replicated on samples of college students and married
parents. The 15 dimensions identified include the
following: Six dimensions measure aspects of relationship,
including: cohesion, the extent to which family members feel
that they belong in their family; expressiveness. the
tendency to express thoughts and feelings openly; family
idealization, the tendency to describe the family in ideal
terms; and family sociability, the extent to which family
members seek gratification through interaction with each
other; conflict. the degree to which conflictual
interactions are typical; and disengagement. the tendency
for family members to fail to interact or be interdependent.
Three scales measure certain aspects of "family values": intellectual-cultural orientation, the tendency of the family to value and enjoy intellectual and cultural pursuits; active-recreational orientation, the tendency of the family to engage in active recreational activities; and religious emphasis, the tendency of the family to endorse a strong religious focus. 51
Three scales assess how the family system maintains
itself, including: external locus of control, the tendency
to view the family as determined by fate or outside forces;
organization, the degree of structure within the family; and
enmeshment. the extent to which family interdependence takes
precedence over individual actions and decisions. Finally,
three scales assess important aspects of family style:
democratic family style, the extent to which family
decisions are made with the full participation of all members; laissez-faire family style, the tendency to fail to make or enforce family rules; and authoritarian family
style. the tendency for parents to exercise power to make and enforce rules.
The reliability of the SRFF has been reported to be acceptable (Bloom, 1985; 1994). Bloom (1994) assessed internal consistency of the instrument and found Cronbach alphas ranging from .59 to .86, with a mean of .69.
Since its construction, the SRFF has been widely used to assess family functioning and to provide concurrent validity for other measures (Bloom, 1994). During the development of the SRFF, Bloom (1985) found that children 52 from intact families described their families "as significantly more cohesive and expressive; less conflicted; higher in intellectual-cultural, active-recreational, and religious orientation; more sociable; less external in their locus of control; more idealized; less disengaged; higher in democratic family style; and lower in laissez-faire family style", when compared to children from divorced families who described their families the year before the divorce.
Ellwood and Stolberg (1991) used five factors of the
SRFF to assess adjustment to divorce, and found that positive postdivorce adjustment was positively related to high cohesion and democratic family style, and negatively related to conflict and laissez-faire family style.
Constantine (1987, 1988) used the SRFF dimensions of authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire family styles to assess three basic family paradigms in his model. Mills and Hansen (1991) found that psychoeducational and supportive family therapy led to increases in cohesion, expressiveness and family sociability, and lowered scores on conflict and external locus of control. In addition, families who were higher in democratic family style tended 53
to show more reported change than families who were higher
in authoritarian or laissez-faire family styles.
Family Assessment Device (FAD; Epstein. Baldwin, and
Bishop. 1983). The FAD is a 53-item self-report inventory
based on the McMaster Model of Family Functioning, which was
developed to distinguish healthy and unhealthy families on
the basis of structural and communication properties in six
dimensions of family functioning. The FAD is attached as
Appendix D.
These six dimensions include: problem' solving, the
ability of family members to resolve family problems;
communication, the exchange of information among family members; roles, the definition of established patterns of
behavior and responsibilities for tasks in the family;
affective responsiveness, the extent to which family members
experience and express appropriate affect; affective
involvement. the extent to which family members show
interest in others' concerns; and behavior control. the way
families maintain standards of behavior for members. In the
FAD, a seventh scale was created to assess general
functioning, the general overall health and functioning of 54
the family. The seven-dimensional structure of the scale
has been supported through factor analysis {Kabacoff,
Miller, Bishop, & Epstein, 1990) .
The FAD was developed from a pool of items that
discriminated clinical and'nonclinical participants,
including college students. Participants rate how well each
item describes their family on a scale from 1 (strongly
agree) to 4 (strongly disagree).
Cronbach alpha reliability estimates of internal consistency have been reported to be .74 for Problem
Solving, .75 for Communication, .71 for Roles, .83 for
Affective Responsiveness, .78 for Affective Involvement, .72 for Behavior Control, and .92 for the General Functioning subscale (Byles, Byrne, Boyle, & Offord, 1988) . The scale intercorrelations range from .4 to .6. However, this intercorrelation is largely due to the effects of the
General Functioning scale; when this scale is removed, intercorrelations are closer to zero (.01 - .23; Byles et al., 1988).
Test-retest correlations over a one-week period have been reported as .66 for Problem Solving, .72 for 55
Communication, .75 for Roles, .76 for Affective
Responsiveness, .67 for Affective Involvement, .73 for
Behavioral Control, and .71 for General Functioning (Miller,
Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985).
The FAD has been widely used in studies of family functioning. For example, Brown, Eichenberg, Portes, &
Christensen (1991) used the FAD to examine the postdivorce adjustment of children. Studies have found that the FAD correlates with other measures of family functioning such as the Family Environment Scale, the Family Adaptability and
Cohesion Index , and the Structural Family Interaction
Interaction Scale - Revised (e.g., Epstein, Baldwin, &
Bishop, 1983; Halvorsen, 1991; Miller, Kabacoff, Epstein, &
Bishop, 1994; Perosa & Perosa, 1988). In addition, the FAD has good discriminant ability to differentiate between non clinic and clinic families (Epstein, Baldwin, & Bishop,
1983; Kabacoff, Miller, Bishop, Epstein, & Keitner, 1990;
Miller et al., 1985) .
Although the FAD is able to differentiate between clinic and non-clinic families, adolescents in both groups have been shown to rate their families as less healthy than their parents' ratings (Sawyer, Sarris, Baghurst, & Cross,
1988). Akister and Stevenson-Hinde (1991) used the FAD to
assess disagreement among family members, and suggested that
families with significant disagreement are candidates for
therapeutic intervention. The differing self-reports of
individual family members suggests the importance of
assessing cognitions in addition to more "objective"
measures of family functioning.
Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS: Spanier. 1976). The DAS
is a very widely used scale assessing satisfaction in
intimate relationships (Glenn, 1990). The DAS consists of
32 items that were designed to assess satisfaction in dyadic
relationships. Questions assess the frequency of agreement, quarrels, shared activities, and expression of affection.
Responses are obtained using 5 point Likert scale ratings for some items and dichotomous (yes-no) ratings for other
items. The DAS is attached as Appendix E.
The DAS was initially developed by pooling about 300
items from previously developed marital adjustment scales.
From these scales, items were first selected that had content validity, and then empirically selected by item analysis, retaining those items that discriminated
distressed from nondistressed married, cohabiting, and
divorced couples. Thirty-two items were eventually
selected. Factor analysis revealed four factors important
in relationship adjustment: (1) dyadic consensus, the
extent to which partners tend to be in agreement; (2) dyadic
satisfaction, a low frequency of quarrels and negative
interactions; (3) dyadic cohesion, the extent to which
partners engage in shared activities; and (4) affectional
expression, the extent to which partners freely express
emotions and sexual intimacy (Spanier, 1976; Spanier &
Thompson, 1982) .
Cronbach's alpha estimates of the reliability of the
four scales were found to be .73 (affectional expression),
.86 (dyadic cohesion), .94 (dyadic satisfaction), .90
(dyadic consensus), and .96 for the overall DAS scale
(Cohen, 1985) . Kurdek (1992) largely replicated these results with heterosexual newlyweds and homosexual couples,
finding Cronbach alphas ranging from .62 to .91. Carey,
Spector, Lantinga & Krauss (1993) found test-retest reliabilities over a two-week period to be .75 for Affective 58
Expression, .77 for Dyadic Cohesion, .85 for Dyadic
Consensus, .81 for Satisfaction, and .87 for the overall
scale.
The DAS has been widely used as a measure of marital
satisfaction. For example, the DAS is often used as a
criterion for comparing other methods for assessing marital
functioning, such a marital interviews (e.g., Haynes,
Jensen, Wise, & Sherman, 1981) and self-report instruments
(e.g., Heyman, Sayers, & Bellack, 1994), and the DAS
generally shows good convergent validity with other measures
of marital satisfaction. For example, the DAS has been
found to have a correlation with the Locke Marital
Adjustment Test of .86 in married couples, and .88 in divorced couples (Cohen, 1985). Green and Sporakowski
(1983) found that marital quality, as measured by the DAS, was a significant predictor of marital stability, particularly for women. In addition, several studies have
indicated that marital satisfaction, as measured by the DAS,
is inversely related to unrealistic beliefs about relationships (Moller & Van Zyl, 1991; Shapiro & Kroeger,
1991) . 59
The DAS and three of its subscales were able to
discriminate between couples that were intact or separated
after one, two, or three years. Only the Dyadic Cohesion
subscale was not a significant predictor of outcome
(Spanier, 1976).
Intimacy Scale Questionnaire (ISO: Moss 1990). The ISQ
is a 32 item self-report instrument assessing intimacy in romantic relationships. The questions are scored on a 5 point Likert type scale representing agreement or disagreement. The ISQ was used to study intimacy in married couples at different stages of their life. Results demonstrated a decrease in intimacy following the birth of the first child, and supported the validity of the scale
(Moss, 1990). The RISQ is attached as Appendix F.
Procedure
Participants were tested in groups of about 30. Before beginning the study, they were informed that the study examined their cognitions about families. They were then asked to complete a battery of self-report inventories that
"ask a variety of questions about your attitudes about families". First, participants were asked to fill out the SRFF,
FAD, DAS, and ISQ with instructions to "answer the following questionnaires with regard to the family you were living in when you graduated from high school. Participants were also asked to fill out the same set of four questionnaires, with a different set of instructions asking them to "answer the following questionnaires in regards to how things would be in an ideal family". Finally, participants filled out the same set of four questionnaires a third time, this time with a third set of instructions asking them to "answer the following questionnaires in regards to how you realistically expect your own family in the future to be".
Thus, for every participant in the study, the same four questionnaires (SRFF, FAD, DAS, ISQ) were each administered three times, but under three different sets of instructions:
(a) describing their perceptions of their actual families of origin as they actually were in the past, (b) describing their cognitions about ideal family functioning, and (c) describing their expectations for their own families in the future. During the study, each participant completed all four measures in all three different forms of 61
administration, providing twelve sets of responses for each
subject.
The different forms of administration were completed in
different orders. For example, one group of participants might answer all the inventories first describing their own
families, then answer another set of the inventories this
time describing an ideal family, and finally answering the
same inventories describing their expectations of their own
families in the future. The order of presentation of the different instructions was randomized for each experimental condition.
The demographic questionnaire was answered by all participants between the second and third forms of administration. The timing of the demographic forms was intended to provide a short break from the repetitive administration of the other questionnaires.
It should be noted that in this study, the four instruments were used in a manner distinct from that originally intended by their creators. All four instruments were originally developed in order to assess various aspects 62
of family functioning thought to be important in describing
families and evaluating satisfaction.
However, in the present study, new instructions were written in order to assess different aspects of participants' cognitions about family functioning, rather than attempting to provide any objective assessment of
family functioning itself. The goal in the present study was to derive some information about participants' cognitions about their families, independently of what their families were actually like. For this reason, the external validity of these measures was not of primary importance for the current study.
Instead, these four measures were used to provide some descriptive information about how participants perceived the characteristics of their own families of origin, what characteristics they conceived ideal families to possess, and what characteristics they expected their own families in the future to have. Thus, these four questionnaires were not used to objectively assess family functioning (as their authors originally intended), but to assess participants' cognitions about families in three different conditions, and 63 additionally, to compare the cognitions of participants from intact, single parent, and step families. CHAPTER III
RESULTS
First, three 2 (gender: male, female) X 3 (family type
at high school graduation: intact, single parent,
stepfamily) between X 3 (cognition: actual family, ideal
family, future family) within mixed multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA's) were performed using participants' scores on the SRFF, FAD, and DAS scales as dependent variables. An alpha level of .05 was used for these and all subsequent statistical tests.
Analyses showed a significant two-way interaction effect between family type and type of cognition for FAD scores, Wilke's Lambda (26,89) = .68, p = .05, and for DAS scores, Wilke's Lambda (16,194) = .74, p = .02. In addition, analyses showed a significant effect of cognition type for SRFF, FAD, and DAS scales, Lambdas = .04, .01, and
.01, respectively, ps <.01 for all. Analyses also revealed
64 65 a significant effect of family type for DAS scores, Lambda
(8,202) = .85, p = .04. The effects of gender were not statistically significant, and so were dropped from all further analyses. These results are summarized in Table 2.
Individual Scale Results
In order to more fully investigate the significant effects revealed by the initial MANOVA's, several 3 (family type: intact, single parent, stepfamily) X 3 (cognition: actual, ideal, future) mixed analyses of variance (ANOVA's) were performed, using participants' scores on each subscale as a dependent variable. The results of these analyses for individual scales and subscales are reported below.
Self-Report of Family Functioning (SRFF). Thirteen 3
(family type: intact, single parent, stepfamily) X 3
(cognition: actual, ideal, future) mixed analyses of variance were performed, using participants' scores on each of the subscales of the SRFF as separate dependent variables. These results are summarized in Table 3.
In general, the interaction effect between cognition and family type was not significant. The only exceptions 66 were for the external locus of control, and family ideal subscales. There was a significant tendency for participants from intact families to rate their actual families as lower on external locus of control (M = 9.66,
= 2.79) than subjects from single parent (M = 11.36, =
3.37) and stepparent families (M = 11.77, = 3.40).
Participants from intact families also rated their actual families as higher (i.e., more idealized) on the family ideal subscale (M = 13.21, SD = 4.00) than participants from single parent (M = 10.50, £D = 3.84) or step families (M =
10.78, £Q = 4.24). Participants did not differ significantly by family type for ratings of ideal or future families.
For every subscale, there was a significant main effect for cognition type. In each case, ideal families were rated significantly more positively than participants' actual families were rated. These means are presented in Table 4.
Participants' expectations of their own families in the future were also significantly more positive than self- reported descriptions of their actual families. Although 67
there was a consistent trend for participants to rate future
families slightly more negatively than ideal families,
ratings of future families did not differ significantly from
ratings of ideal families.
The main effects of family type were generally
insignificant, with the exception of the cohesion and
intellectual-cultural orientation subscales. Ratings made
by participants from step families were significantly lower
in cohesion and intellectual-cultural orientation (M =
15.89) than participants from intact families (M = 17.30).
Ratings from participants from single parent families (M =
16.50) were in between those from step families and intact
families, but did not differ significantly from either.
For intellectual-cultural orientation, the same pattern was found. Ratings from participants from step families were significantly lower Ratings from participants from intact families (M = 13.81) were in between those of participants from step and single 68 parent families, but did not differ significantly from either. Family Assessment Device (FAD). Seven 3 (family type: intact, single parent, stepfamily) X 3 (cognition: actual, ideal, future) mixed analyses of variance were performed, using scores on each subscale of the FAD as separate dependent variables. These results are summarized in Table 5 . The interaction effect between cognition and family type was significant for the behavior control and general functioning subscales. Planned comparisons revealed that there was a significant tendency for participants from intact families to rate their actual families higher on the behavioral control subscale (M = 29.16, SD = 3.51) than participants from single parent (M = 26.85, = 4.57) or step families (M = 26.92, SB = 4.77). However, ratings of ideal or future families did not differ significantly by family type. For General Functioning scores, planned comparisons revealed that participants from intact families rated their 69 actual families significantly higher in general functioning (M = 36.98) than subjects from step families (M = 31.51). Ratings for subjects from single parent families were between those of intact and step families (M = 33.56), but did not differ significantly from either. For every subscale, there was a significant main effect for cognition type. In each case, ideal families were rated significantly more positively than participants' actual families. In addition, participants' expectations of their own families in the future were significantly more positive than ratings of their actual families. Although there was a consistent trend for participants to rate future families slightly lower than ideal families, ratings of future families did not, differ significantly from ratings of ideal families, with the exception of the General Functioning subscale. For the General Functioning subscale, ratings for actual (M = 34.02), ideal (M = 70.99), and future (M = 37.14) families differed significantly from one another, with ratings for future families again falling between ratings for actual and ideal families. 70 These means are presented in Table 6. Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS). Four 3 (family type: intact, single parent, stepfamily) X 3 (cognition: actual, ideal, future) mixed analyses of variance were performed, using scores on each of the four subscales of the DAS as separate dependent variables. These results are summarized in Table 7. When interpreting DAS scores, it is important to keep the meaning of DAS scores in mind. Because the DAS was constructed to identify marital dysfunction, high scores generally indicate negative functioning (i.e., dysfunction), while low scores indicate positive functioning. The interaction effect between cognition and family type was significant for the dyadic consensus and dyadic satisfaction subscales. There was a significant tendency for participants from intact families to rate their actual families lower (i.e., more positively) on the dyadic consensus subscale (M = 17.67, £1) = 11.44) than participants from single parent (M = 25.52, = 13.28) or step families 71 (M = 22.81, = 12.36). Ratings of ideal and actual families did not differ by participants' family type. Participants from intact families also rated dyadic satisfaction in their actual families lower (i.e., more satisfied) (M = 27.70, SC - 3.83) than participants from single parent (M = 25.31, SC = 3.97) or stepparent families (M = 25.61, SC = 3.95). Again, participants did not differ significantly by family type for ratings of ideal or future families. For every subscale, there was a significant main effect for cognition type. In each case, ideal families were rated significantly more positively than participants' actual families. In addition, participants' expectations of their own families in the future were significantly more positive than ratings of their actual families. Although there was a consistent trend for participants to rate future families slightly lower than ideal families, ratings of future families did not differ significantly from ratings of ideal families. These means are presented in Table 8. 72 Relationship Intimacy Scale Questionnaire (RISQ). One 3 (family type: intact, single parent, stepfamily) X 3 (cognition: actual, ideal, future) mixed analysis of variance was performed, using participants' scores on the ISQ as the dependent variable. These results are summarized in Table 9. The interaction effect between cognition and family type was not significant. However, there was a significant main effect for cognition type. Ideal families were rated significantly more positively (M = 99.28) than participants' actual families (M = 97.12), regardless of family type of participant. In addition, all participants' expectations of their own families in the future were significantly more positive (M = 100.05) than ratings of their actual families, again, regardless of family type. However, ratings of future families did not differ significantly from ratings of ideal families. Summary of Results According to Hypotheses In summary, significant findings from the present research included the following: Hypothesis 1 was that participants' ratings of ideal families would differ significantly from, and be significantly more positive than, participants' ratings of their own actual families in the past. This hypothesis was tested by examining the main effect of cognition type. In support of hypothesis 1, participants' ratings of ideal families were significantly and uniformly more positive than their ratings of their own actual families. Hypothesis 2 stated that ratings for participants' expectations about their own families in the future will in general be more similar to their ratings of ideal families than to their ratings of their actual families in the past. This hypothesis was also tested by examining the main effect of cognition type. Like hypothesis 1, this hypothesis was also supported. Students' ratings of their expectation for their own families in the future were significantly more positive than their ratings of their actual families. However, their expectations for their own families in the future were not significantly different from their ideal ratings. This 74 suggests a certain optimism in the expectations of college students about their own families in the future. Hypothesis 3 was that students who were from single parent and step families at the time of graduating from high school would rate their actual family situation more negatively than participants from intact families, as a result of unfavorable comparisons with social norms for intact nuclear families. This effect was tested by examining the interaction effect between family type and cognition type. This hypothesis was partially supported. Students from intact families generally perceived their actual families as being more ideal, having a greater external locus of control, having clearer rules and behavioral expectations, and displaying more consensus between parents. These findings are also consistent with the suggestion that single parent and step families may lack clear behavioral norms and expectations when compared to intact families. However, on most scales, the effect of family type was generally 75 insignificant in regard to students' perceptions of actual families. Hypotheses 4 and 5 stated that participants from single parent families and participants from stepfamilies may show higher ratings for ideal families and more idealistic expectations for their own families in the future, when compared to participants from intact families. These hypotheses were tested by examining the interaction effect between family type and cognition type. However, these hypotheses were not supported. There were no differences in ratings for ideal families or expectancies for future families between participants from the different family types. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The discussion will focus on an analysis and discussion of the statistical results described above and their implications. First, we will examine what the results of the study tell us about people's cognitions about family in general. Next, we will discuss the issue of latent cognition and what implications this might have for the family schema model. Third, we will discuss the effects of early experience of different family types on the development of individual's cognitions about family. Fourth, we will discuss some implications of the CBF model and the present research for intervention with family members. Finally, we will conclude by discussing suggestions for future research. 76 77 The Effects of Early Experiences of Different Family Types on Cognitions in the Family Schema When examining whether the structure of one's family of origin might influence the cognitions held in the family schema, one hypothesis might be that cognitions about ideal families and expectations about the future might be influenced by what one has experienced in one's family of origin. In other words, a student with very negative perceptions of their family of origin might have correspondingly lower standards for ideal families and lower expectations of their own families in the future, compared to students with more positive perceptions of their actual families. However, the findings of this study suggest that students from intact, single parent families, and stepfamilies do not differ significantly in their ratings of their ideal families or expectations of their own families in the future, but instead have quite similar cognitions in these areas. This suggests that these family-related cognitions are only slightly influenced by unique learnings from one's 78 family of origin, as subjects from different family types showed agreement on cognitions about ideal families and expectations for the future. This finding is not surprising if, in fact, most of the cognitions held by individual family members reflect the cognitions held by society as a whole. Thus, the results of the present study suggest that the early experience of changes in family structure may have little impact on the development of one's cognitions about ideal families and expectations for one's future family. However, family type does produce some differences in students' ratings of their actual families of origin (at the time of graduation from high school), with students from intact families rating their families as significantly more ideal, having more behavioral control, and being higher in general functioning than participants from single parent and step families. Additionally, participants from intact families rated their actual families as being higher in dyadic consensus and dyadic satisfaction. Conversely, students from single parent and stepfamilies rated their families as poorer in general functioning and farther from ideal functioning than students from intact families. This finding is consistent with the previous discussion, which suggested that individual family members may have an explicit or implicit conception of an ideal family that is largely derived from generally held beliefs in society. More specifically, students may share society's general perception of intact families as the norm or ideal. Thus, in comparison, single parent and step families may be automatically perceived by the family members living in them as farther from the societal ideal of the intact family. In members of single parent and step families, this discrepancy between socially-derived cognitions about ideal families and the actual state of affairs seems likely to produce a state of dissonance and to reduce positive affect {Brady & Ambler, 1982; Wodruff, 1982). The lower perception of family consensus in single parent and step family participants is also consistent with the family schema model, which suggests that single parent and step families lack clearly specified societal norms, relying instead on norms from society that are oriented towards intact families (Schwebel, Fine, & Renner, 1991) . Thus, families that make the transition to single parent and 80 step families must contend with greater difficulties in establishing consensus among family members than members of intact families. The finding that participants from single parent and step families rate their families as being higher in external locus of control is not surprising. Losing a family member through death or divorce is likely to be perceived as a largely uncontrollable event, particularly by children in the family (Gately & Schwebel, 1991, 1992). Family members who have lost a parent through death or divorce, as single parent and step family members have, may be more likely to perceive life in the family as greatly influenced by external factors, rather than having a sense of internal locus of control. Participants from single parent and step families rated their families as significantly lower in behavior control, perhaps reflecting the same lack of clearly specified behavioral norms discussed above. The family schema specifies norms and sanctions for appropriate behavior within the family. However, as suggested above, society lacks clear norms for single parent and step families, and 81 without these clear norms, behavioral control within families becomes a much more difficult task. Finally, students' perceptions of dyadic consensus and dyadic satisfaction among their parents was lower for single parent and step families than in intact families. This may again reflect the difficulties involved in establishing satisfactory relationships in single parent and step families. The lack of dyadic consensus may reflect the lack of clear consensual norms for single parent and stepfamilies, as discussed above, and the lack of satisfaction may reflect dissonance resulting from a failure to achieve socially prescribed norms that present intact families as the model to which all other families are compared. Thus, in general, participants from single parent and step families perceived their families more negatively than participants from intact families. These negative perceptions of single parent and stepfamilies by participants in this study may be due to at least three factors. On one hand, these negative perceptions may represent stereotyped perceptions rather than reflecting the 82 actual family situation. However, these negative perceptions may be accurate descriptions of the family situation. Thirdly, the results could be due in part to socially desirable responding. First, let us consider the suggestion that negative judgments of single parent and step families may represent a negatively biased or distorted perception. The stereotyped perception discussed earlier of the nuclear family as ideal may lead to a perception of single parent and step families as being somehow lacking by comparison. In other words, subjects from intact families who rate their families as closer to ideal may simply be reflecting general cultural stereotypes held by the participants. Even students from single parent and step families may share with society a stereotypically more negative view of these forms of families than of intact families. It has been suggested that much research into the effects of divorce and remarriage has operated from a "deficit comparison model", by assuming that intact families are the norms for healthy functioning (Gately & Schwebel, 1991, 1992) . The present research is consistent with a view 83 that members of these families may themselves subscribe to a similar "deficit comparison process", even when family member evaluate their own families. However, it is also possible that negative perceptions of single parent and step families as being less ideal than intact families may reflect actual differences in family functioning, due to the increased stresses involved in losing a parent and in single parenting or remodeling families into stepfamilies. This hypothesis might be called the "stress model" of family functioning. Because of these additional stresses, family members from single parent and step families may have more difficulty negotiating conflicting family schemas and establishing satisfying patterns of interaction than family members from intact families. In addition, self-fulfilling prophecy produced by the generally negative expectations discussed above may also play a role (Fine & Schwebel, 1987; Gately & Schwebel, 1991). According to the CBF model, family members regulate their behavior according to the norms of the family schema (Schwebel & Fine, 1992). Negative expectations of family 84 functioning may actually lead to poorer functioning among family members by lowering standards of family functioning. Negative expectations may also contribute to an acceptance of dissatisfaction and conflict as more "normal" than would be expected or tolerated in intact families, and foster a sense of helplessness and less persistence in problem solving. The present research cannot address the issue of whether these negative perceptions reflect negative stereotypes or reflect real differences, or some combination of these two views, because this research only assesses student's cognitions about there families, without any objective reference to or evaluation of their actual family situation. Further research may explore the relative contribution of each of these two factors. A third possibility is that the response patterns of the participants may represent a tendency to acquiesce or to respond in a socially desirable manner, rather than presenting their honest cognitions about families. In this case, the data may represent social stereotypes about families, but may fail to represent accurately the 85 cognitions that people actually hold about their own families. Future research needs to include measures of socially desirable responding and to determine the influence of social desirability on the patterns of results obtained. Ideals and Expectations in the Family Schema: Optimism and Pessimism The present study suggests, not surprisingly, that cognitions regarding ideal families differ significantly from cognitions about actual families. More specifically, participants' ratings of ideal families were significantly more positive than their ratings of their actual families in the past. Furthermore, in regard to their expectations for their own families in the future, all students appear to be significantly optimistic, regardless of the family type from which they came. Participants' expectations for their own families in the future, although somewhat lower than ideal ratings, did not differ significantly from their ratings of an ideal family. This suggests a somewhat idealistic expectation that students' own families in the future will approximate their standards for an ideal family. 86 The present research was not designed to address the interesting question of how realistic these expectations are. Instead, as previously mentioned, the present research was designed only to assess students' cognitions about families, without reference to the objective validity of those cognitions. Nevertheless, this finding that students' have optimistic expectations for their own families in the future has interesting implications for constructing a model for how family members cope with the stresses of family life. Epstein & Meier (1989) pointed out that, in many cases, optimism may offer a coping disadvantage. People who have unrealistic expectations may be unprepared to cope with a reality that does not meet their expectations. Furthermore, some research indicates that optimism may be correlated with neuroticism and trait anxiety (Robins, Spence & Clark, 1991; Smith, Pope, Rhodewalt & Poulton, 1989; for a dissenting opinion, see Scheier, Carver & Bridges, 1994) . Thus, people with unrealistically positive expectations for family functioning (for example, believing that "couples who love each other will always agree") may experience disappointment 87 and have difficulty coping with the difficulties that inevitably arise in the course of normal family life. The effects of idealistic and optimistic expectations, however, are not uniformly negative. A general attitude of optimism has been linked with both physical and psychological well-being (Scheier & Carver, 1985, 1987, 1992; Taylor, 1989; Taylor & Brown, 1988). Carver and Scheier (1990) presented a model of self-regulation that emphasized the role of positive and negative affect in guiding behavior. While pessimism, helplessness, and hopelessness have been associated with depressed affect (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978; Abramson et al., 1988; Metalsky & Alloy, 1989) and avoidant coping (Scheier & Carver, 1987), optimism and positive efficacy and outcome expectations may encourage active coping and problem-solving (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Bandura, 1977, 1986; Scheier & Carver, 1992, 1993; Taylor, 1983; Taylor, Kameny, Aspinwall & Schneider, 1992). In relationships, we expect that optimistic expectations may be associated with greater attempts at problem solving and coping with conflict. An optimistic 88 expectation of a successful resolution of conflict may encourage partners to persevere at attempts to find solutions to problems. Conversely, pessimistic attitudes and expectations of failure may be associated with attitudes of helplessness, depressed affect, and dissatisfaction in family relationships. Thus, the optimism displayed by these college students may in many cases facilitate their making positive adjustments in their future family lives. In talking about the effects of family schema on coping, one further point needs to be considered. Because the participants completed self-report questionnaires, thereby assessing cognitions that are accessible to conscious awareness, this research methodology may have been unable to identify more pessimistic attitudes that may be latent in the participants and not assessed by this particular research methodology. Latent Cognitions and Maladaptive Coping The family schema model presented so far has emphasized the organization of cognitions about family within a single structure called the family schema. In the discussion to this point, it has been tacitly assumed that the contents of 89 the family schema are largely accessible to conscious awareness. By asking participants to fill out self report questionnaires, this present research was designed to assess these consciously accessible cognitions. However, it might be hypothesized that in addition to consciously accessible and consistent cognitions about family life, the family schema may also include conflicting cognitions about the family, not all of which are immediately accessible to conscious awareness. In other words, although participants in the present research displayed an optimistic attitude about their own family life in the future, these participants may also have negative schemas for family life that were not tapped by questionnaires of this study. These negative schemas may lay dormant until activated by stressful situations. In support of this view, Miranda (1992) suggested that dysfunctional thinking, which has been related to depression, is activated by stressful life events. These findings are consistent with the view of Ingram (1984), who suggested that schemas may be latent until activated by particular relevant events. Similarly, Dixon, Heppner, 90 Burnett & Lips (1993) presented an interactive model of depression, suggesting that cognitions of hopelessness are related to depression only under conditions of high stress. This suggests that maladaptive cognitions in the family schema and dysfunctional information processing may have more of an impact under conditions of stress in the family. During transitional periods, including loss and remarriage, family members may be more vulnerable to any dysfunctional effects of their family schemas. Or, negative schemas about family life may lie dormant until activated by conditions of stress or negative affect. For example, in a study of marital satisfaction by Karney, Bradbury, Fincham and Sullivan (1994), partners who were high in negative affectivity made more dysfunctional attributions about their partner's behavior than partners who were low in negative affectivity. The idea of latent schemas suggests that not all aspects of the family schema may be accessible to consciousness. Different methodologies may be required to assess cognitions that may be operating unconsciously or lying dormant until activated by negative life events. 91 However, assessment of these latent cognitions, if they do exist, would be an important element of any family assessment or intervention program. Implications for Intervention The current findings and the CBF model have several implications for intervention. This discussion will highlight three: the value of a psychoeducational model for family intervention; the limits of cognitive adaptation in CBF interventions; and the effects of cognitive complexity in designing an intervention program. A Psychoeducational Model. The CBF model is a psychoeducational model, assuming that clients may benefit from being taught a particular way of understanding families and from learning specific behavioral skills to improve family functioning (Schwebel & Fine, 1992). When family members are unaware of the cognitions in the family schema that guide their behaviors, they can be helped to become aware of them through feedback from a skilled counselor or therapist. Furthermore, rather than pathologizing individuals who are having difficulties in family living, the CBF model presents a rational, coherent, non-blaming 92 approach to understanding family functioning and increasing satisfaction (Schwebel & Fine, 1992). This model suggests that families undergoing transitions into single parent or step families may benefit from an explanation of the family schema model. By identifying and evaluating their own cognitions about the structure of the new family, family members may learn to substitute more appropriate cognitions when necessary. Education about problem solving skills (e.g., negotiating the family constitution, maximizing cost-benefit analyses) may help families more successfully resolve conflicting cognitions and expectations about changes in the family (e.g., Schwebel, Schwebel, Schwebel & Schwebel, 1989). Furthermore, by explaining the nature of the conflicts that can arise from unrealistic or inappropriate expectations and conflicting cognitions, family members can be helped to understand, anticipate and resolve conflicts that may arise. Family educators and therapists may help family members recognize some of the sources of conflict. One potential advantage of the CBF approach lies in its relatively non-stigmatizing conceptualization of the process that single parent and stepfamily family members must go through in revising schemas based on an intact family and developing a more appropriate and mutually acceptable family schema. The CBF approach avoids any reference to the intact family as a norm for healthy functioning, and instead focuses on the process of forming and revising family schemas in order to achieve healthy family functioning. This process is based on the same assumptions regardless of the family type involved. Furthermore, given the optimistic nature of students' expectations about their own families in the future, it may be helpful to couples beginning new families to identify and evaluate their expectations about family life and to introduce realism where necessary. Furthermore, psychoeducational and marriage enrichment programs may be developed to train family members in such basic family schema concepts as the family constitution, cost-benefit analyses of family life, the use of positive control, and communication and problem-solving skills. Such training may help couples more successfully realize their ideals in a realistic manner (e.g., Schwebel et al., 1989). 94 The limits of adaptability. In any consideration of psychoeducational or therapeutic intervention with families, it is important to consider the limits of adaptability to new information imposed by the family schema. For example, in his discussion of schematic information processing, Piaget (Flavell, 1977) suggested that there is an accommodation threshold that determines how easily existing schemas may accommodate new information. Experiences that are not very discrepant from existing schemas are assimilated by the schemas, i.e., interpreted in terms of prior cognitive categories. Experiences that are moderately discrepant from the schema will produce accommodation, that is, modifying the schema so that one's cognitions match experience more closely. However, experiences that are widely discrepant from existing schemas will not produce accommodation, but instead are likely to produce lack of comprehension or a defensive reaction in order to avoid giving up previously held schemas. A similar finding has been demonstrated in social psychological studies of attitude change, where it is recognized that positions that are only moderately 95 discrepant from one's initial attitudes produce more attitude change than greatly discrepant positions (Anderson, 1971; Peterson & Koulack, 1969). Thus, one implication of the CBF approach is that therapists should attempt to present new information in a manner that is not too greatly discrepant from the schemas and cognitions already held by family members, as such information is more likely to produce cognitive change than information that is greatly inconsistent with current beliefs. The role of cognitive complexity in cognitive- behavioral family intervention. In addition to the accommodation threshold for new information, another factor that may be important to consider when designing intervention approaches is the complexity of the cognitions that family members hold. Some evidence suggests that persons with low-complexity schemas may respond to discrepant feedback with greater changes in mood and self esteem (Linville, 1985; Stein, 1994). Relatively simple schemas may be less able to accommodate new information, and thus be much more rigid and resistant to change. On the other hand, hi-complexity schemas seem to be more stable, but also more flexible (Stein, 1994) . A stable but flexible family schema may facilitate, for example, a healthy parenting style that may be described as democratic or authoritative, characterized by clear and consistent yet flexible rules (Baumrind, 1971). Thus, one goal of a CBF intervention may be to help families move from simplistic, low-complexity conceptualizations of family life towards more complex conceptualizations that are more likely to accommodate differing viewpoints and varying behaviors. Suggestions for Further Research Several questions remain unanswered by the present research. First is the question of the accuracy of the cognitions that participants reported for their actual families. As mentioned previously, the present research attempted to evaluate the cognitions that college students hold about families without reference to the accuracy of those cognitions. Although students from single parent and step families in general rated their actual families more negatively than students from intact families, further research is needed to determine whether family functioning 97 is actually poorer in these families when compared to intact families. Similarly, the present research was unable to evaluate whether participants' optimistic expectations of their future families were realistic or not. Although students' expectations of their own families in the future did not differ significantly from ideal ratings, a longitudinal research design would be required to assess how realistic those expectations were. In addition, the adaptive or maladaptive effects of these optimistic expectations could be evaluated. Second, according to the family schema approach, the process of reestablishing a family equilibrium after losing a parent or recombining as a stepfamily is a developmental process that takes place over an extended period of time. The present research does not take into account at what point in this developmental process students from single parent and step families may be. However, this is an important consideration in interpreting the meaning of negative evaluations of single parent and step families. Thus, the generally negative perceptions of family 98 functioning by single parent and step family students may be replaced by more positive cognitions over time, depending on where these families are in this developmental process. The present study represents an initial attempt to investigate some predictions based on the CBF model. Subjects were asked to classify themselves based on their family status at the time of high school graduation. Future research may make more fine discriminations about family status, taking into account such factors as the number of years the present family status had been maintained. More powerfully, future research might adopt a longitudinal perspective in order to examine the developmental adjustment of the family schema over time in single parent and step families. In addition, the present research combined families who had lost a parent through death or through divorce into the same category. These two groups were felt to be comparable for the purposes of this initial study. However, future research may separate these and other family configurations in order to make more fine discriminations about the relationship between family type and cognition type. Finally, an important question concerns the possibility of latent cognitions that were not assessed in the present study, but that could potentially exist and lead to maladaptive coping when activated. By assessing students' cognitions about family in these straightforward self-report instruments, we assume that students were reporting on cognitions that are relatively accessible to conscious awareness. However, if there exist cognitions of which participants were not consciously aware, or if there are cognitions which may lay dormant until activated by stressful situations, then the methodology used in the present study would be unable to detect such cognitions. If these cognitions were maladaptive cognitions that come into play under situations of stress, this would have important implications for assessment and intervention in the CBF model. If, as we have suggested, there do exist maladaptive cognitions that may remain dormant until activated in stressful situations, future research might use two strategies to try to assess these cognitions. One strategy might be to have students vividly imagine or remember a 100 stressful situation, and then report on the cognitions that are activated through that exercise. A second strategy might be a longitudinal strategy that would assess participants' cognitions in vivo during stressful and nonstressful times of their lives, and examine any resulting differences in cognitions or behaviors reported under these different circumstances. A final consideration is the effect of gender on cognitions about families. The present research did not obtain significant effects for gender. This is somewhat surprising, given the large number of studies suggesting gender differences in how children respond to parental loss, divorce, and remarriage (see Carter & McGoldrick, 1989, for reviews of much of this literature). This may be due in part to the relatively small sample size of the present study, which may not have provided sufficient power to detect complex three-way interactions involving gender. However, the study was powerful enough to detect significant effects of cognition and interactions between family type and cognition type. Thus, any effects of gender in the present study were apparently not as powerful as the effects of cognition and family type that were detected. Future research may formulate and investigate more specific hypotheses about the role of gender in family schemas. References Abramson, L.Y., Seligman, M.E.P. & Teasdale, J. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 87. 49- 74. Akister, J., Meekings, E. & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1993). The spouse subsystem in the family context: Couple interaction categories. Journal of Family Therapy. 15. 1 - 2 1 . Akister, J. & Stevenson-Hinde, J. (1991). Identifying families at risk: Exploring the potential of the McMaster Family Assessment Device. Journal of Family Therapy. 13. 411-421. Aspinwall, L.G. & Taylor, S.E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63. 989-1003. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986) . Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. Baucom, D.H. & Epstein, N. (1990). Cognitive-behavioral marital therapy. NY: Brunner/Mazel. Beck, A.T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. NY: International Universities Press. 102 103 Beck, A.T. (1988). Love Is Never Enough. NY: Harper & Row. Beck, A . T . & Emery, G. (1985). Anxiety disorders and phobias:__ A cognitive perspective. NY: Basic Books. Beck, A.T., Rush, A.J., Shaw, B.F. & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive theory of depression. NY: Guilford Press. Birchler, G.R., Weiss, R.L. & Vincent, J.P. (1975). Multimethod analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and nondistressed stranger dyads. Journal_of Personality and Social Psychology. 21, 349-360. Bloom, B.L. (1985). A factor analysis of self-report measures of family functioning. Family Process. 24. 225-239. Bloom, B.L. (1994). Self-report measures of family functioning: extensions of a factorial analysis. Family Process. 33. 203-216. Bradbury, T.N. & Fincham, F.D. (1990) . Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin. 107. 3-33. Brady, C.A. & Ambler, J. (1982). Use of group educational techniques with remarried couples. In L. Messinger & J. Hansen (Eds.), Therapy with remarriage families. Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems Corp. Brown, J.H., Eichenberger, S.A. & Portes, P.R. (1991). Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 17. 81-95. Carey, M.P., Spector, I.P., Lantinga, L.J. & Krauss, D.J. (1993). Reliability of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale. Psychological Assessment. 5 . 238-240. Carver, C.S. & Scheier, M.F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review. 97. 19-35. 104 Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of Sociology. 84. 634- 650. Devine, P.G., Hamilton, D.L. & Ostrom, T.M. (1994). Social cognition; Impace on social psychology. San Diego: Academic Press. Dixon, VI.A., Heppner, P.P., Burnett, J.W. & Lips, B.J. (1993) . Hopelessness and stress: Evidence for an interactive model of depression. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 17. 39-52. Doherty, W.J. (1981a). Cognitive processes in intimate conflict: I. Extending attribution theory. American Journal of Family Therapy. 9 . 5-13. Doherty, W.J. (1981b). Cognitive processes in intimate conflict: II. Efficacy and learned helplessness. American Journal of Family Therapy. 9 . 35-44. Eidelson, R.J. & Epstein, N. (1982). Cognition and relationship maladjustment: Development of a measure of dysfunctional relationship beliefs. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 50, 715-720. Epstein, N. (1982). Cognitive therapy with couples. American Journal of Family Therapy. 10. 5-16. Epstein, N. & Eidelson, R.J. (1981). Unrealistic beliefs of clinical couples: Their relationship to expectations, goals and satisfaction. American Journal of Family Therapy. 9 . 13-22. Epstein, N . , Schlesinger, S.E. & Dryden, W. (1988). (Eds.) Cognitive-behavioral therapy with families. NY: Brunner/Mazel. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. 105 Festinger, L. (1964) . Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Evanston, IL: Stanford University Press. Fincham, F.D. (1985) . Attribution processes in distressed and nondistressed couples: 2. Responsibility for marital problems. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 94. 183-190. Fincham, F.D. & Bradbury, T.N. (1987). The impact of attributions in marriage: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 53. 510- 517. Fincham, F.D. & Bradbury, T.N. (1990). The psychology of marriage; Basic issues and applications. NY: Guilford. Fincham, F.D. & Bradbury, T.N. (1993). Marital satisfaction, depression, and attributions: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Fincham, F.D. & O'Leary, K.D. (1983). Causal inferences for spouse behavior in maritally distressed and nondistressed couples. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1 , 42-57. Fine, M.A. &. Schwebel, A.I. (1987). An ermergent explanation of differing racial reactions to single parenthood. Journal of Divorce. 11. 1-15. Fine, M.A. & Schwebel, A.I. (1992). Stepparent stress: A cognitive perspective. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage. 17. 1-15. Fiske, S.T. & Linville, P.W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 6 . 543-557. Fiske, S.T. Sc Taylor, S.E. (1991) . Social cognition. 106 Flavell, J.H. (1977). The developmental psychology of Jean Piaget. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Rostrand. Gately, D.W. & Schwebel, A.I. (1991). The challenge model of children's adjustment to parental divorce: Explaining favorable postdivorce outcomes in children. Journal of Family Psychology. 5 . 60-81. Gottman, J.M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. NY: Academic Press. Gottman, J.M., Notarius, C., Gonso, J. & Markman, H.J. (1976). A couple's guide.to communication. Champaign, IL: Research Press. Gottman, J., Notarius, C., Markman, H., Bank, S., Yoppi, B. Sc Rubin, M.E. (1976) . Behavior exchange theory and marital decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2A, 14-23. Hamilton, D.L., Stroessner, S.J. & Driscoll, D.M. (1994). Social cognition and the study of stereotyping. In P.G. Devine, D.L. Hamilton, & T.M. Ostrom (Eds.), Social-Cognition; Impact on Social Psychology (pp. 291-321). San Diego: Academic Press. Hastie, R. (1981). Schematic principles in human memory. In T.E. Higgins, C. Herman, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Social_cognition; the Ontario symposium on personality and social psychology (vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Holtzworth-Munroe, A. & Jacobson, N.S. (1985). Causal attributions of married couples: When do they search for causes? What do they conclude when they do? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 48. 1398- 1412 . Holzworth-Munroe, A. & Jacobson, N.S. (1991) . Behavioral marital therapy. In A.S. Gurman & D.P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (pp. 96-133). NY: Brunner/Mazel. 107 Homans, G.C. (1961). Social behavior; its elementary forms. NY: Harcourt Brace. Jackson, D.D. (1954). Suicide. Scientific American, 191, 88-96 . Jackson, D.D. (1965). Family rules: marital prid pro quo. Archives of General Psychiatry. 121, 88-96. Jacobson, N.S. (1978). Contingency contracting with couples: redundancy and caution. Behavior Therapy. 2, 679. Jacobson, N.S. (1979). Increasing positive behavior in severely distressed marital relationships: the effects of problem solving training. Behavior Therapy. 10f 311-326. Jacobson, N.S. & Margolin, G. (1979). Marital therapy: strategies based on social learning and behavior exchange principles. NY: Brunner/Mazel. Jacobson, N.S., Follette, W.C. & McDonald, D.W. (1982) . Reactivity to positive and negative behavior in distressed and nondistressed marital couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 54. 518-522. Jacobson, N.S., Waldron, H. & Moore, D. (1980). Toward a behavioral profile of marital distress. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 4 8 . 696-703. Kabacoff, R.I., Miller, I.W., Bishop, D.S. & Epstein, N.B. (1990) . A psychometric study of the McMaster Family Assessment Device in psychiatric, medical, and nonclinical samples. Journal of Family Psychology. 3 . 431-439. 108 Karney, B.R., Bradbury, T.N., Fincham, F.D. & Sullivan, K.T. (1994). The role of negative affectivity in the association between attributions and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, .66, 413-424. Kelly, G.A. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. NY: Norton. Keshet, J.K. (1990). Cognitive remodeling of the family: how remarried people view stepfamilies. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. ££, 196-203. Kurdek, L.A. (1987). Dimensionality of the dyadic adjustment scale: Evidence from heterosexual and homosexual couples. Journal of Family Psychology. 6. 22-35. Kurdek, L.A. & Fine, M.A. (1991) . Cognitive correlates of satisfaction for mothers and stepfathers in stepfather families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 53. 565-572. Larson, (1992). "You're my one & only": premarital counseling for unrealistic beliefs about mate selection. ArnericarL_Journal of Family Therapy. 2 0 . 242-253 . Leyens, J.P. & Fiske, S.T. (1994). Impression formation: From recitals to encoding, A Symphonie Fantastique. In P.G. Devine, D.L. Hamilton, & T.M. Ostrom (Eds.), Social Cognition:__ Impact on Social Psychology (pp. 39- 75). San Diego: Academic Press. Liberman, R.P., Wheeler, E.G., DeVisser, L.A.J.M., Kuehnel, J. & Kuehnel, T. (1980). Handbook of marital therapy. NY: Plenum. 109 Margolin, G., Hattem, D., John, R.S. & Yost, K. (1985). Perceptual agreement between spouses and outside observers when coding themselves and a stranger dyad. Behavioral Assessment. 7 . 235-247. Markus, H. & Zajonc, R.B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 137- 230). NY: Random House. Metalsky, G.I. & Alloy, L.B. (1989). Hopelessness depression: a theory-based subtype of depression. Psychological Review. 96. 358-372. Miranda, J. (1992). Dysfunctional thinking is activated by stressful life events. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 1£, 473-483. Moller, A.T. & Van Zyl, P.D. (1991). Relationship beliefs, interpersonal perception, and marital adjustment. Journal of Clinical Psychology. 4 7 . 28-33. Moss, B. (1991). The Relationship Intimacy Questionnaire. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Notarius, C.I. & Markman, H.J. (1993). We can work it out: How to solve conflicts, save your marriage, and strengthen your love for each other. NY: Perigee. Patterson, G.R. (1982) . Interventions for boys with conduct problems: Multiple settings, treatments, and criteria. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 4 . 471- 481. Patterson, G.R. & Reid, J.B. (1970). Reciprocity and coercion: two facets of social systems. In C. Neuringer & J.L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior Modification in Clinical Psychology (pp. 133-177). NY: Appleton- Century Crofts. 110 Patterson, G.R., Weiss, R.L. & Hops, H. (1976). Training of marital skills: some problems and concepts. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of Behavior Modification and Behavior Therapy (pp. 242-254). Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. NY: Basic Books. Reno, R.P., Cialdini, R.B. & Kallgren, C.A. (1993). The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 64. 104-112. Robins, C.J. (1988). Attributions and depression: Why is the literature so inconsistent? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54. 880-89. Rusbult, C.E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 16., 172-186. Sager, C. (1976). Marriage contracts and couples therapy. NY: Brunner/Mazel. Sanbonmatsu, D.M., Akimoto, S.A. & Biggs, E. (1993). Overestimating causality: Attributional effects of confirmatory processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 65. 892-903. Sauer, L.E. & Fine, M.A. (1985). Parent-child relationships in stepfather families. In P. Bronstein & C.P. Cowan (Eds.), Remarriage and stepparenting: Current research and theory (pp. 273-299). NY: Guilford. Sawyer, M.G., Sarris, A., Baghurst, P.A., & Cross, D.G. (1988). Family Assessment Device: Reports from mothers, fathers, and adolescents in community and clinic families. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 14. 287-296. Ill Scheier, M.F. & Carver, C.S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: Assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychology. 4 , 219-247. Scheier, M.F. & Carver, C.S. (1992). Effects of optimism on psychological and physiological well-being: A theoretical overview and empirical update. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 16. 201-228. Scheier, M.F. & Carver, C.S. (1993). On the power of positive thinking: The benefits of being optimistic. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2 . 26-30. Scheier, M.F., Carver, C.S. & Bridges, M.W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 67. 1063-1078. Schwebel, A.I. (1992). The family constitution. Topics in Family Psychology and Counseling. 1, 27-38. Schwebel, A.I. (1993). Family defense mechanisms: The concept and its utility to family scientists, practicioners, and educators. The Family Journal: Counseling_and Therapy for Couples and Families. 1. 31- 41. Schwebel, A.I., & Fine, M.A. (1992). Cognitive-behavioral family therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy. 2, 73-91. Schwebel, A.I., & Fine, M.A. (1994). Understanding and helping the family: a cognitive-behavioral model. Hilsldale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schwebel, A.I., Fine, M.A. & Moreland, J.R. (1988). Clinical work with divorced and widowed fathers: The adjusting family model. In P. Bronstein and C.P. Cowan (Eds.), Fatherhood today. Men's Changing role in the family. NY: Wiley. 112 Schwebel, A.I., Fine, M.A. & Renner, M.A. (1991). A study of perceptions of the stepparent role. Journal of Family Issues. 12. 43-57. Schwebel, A., Schwebel, b., Schwebel, C., Schwebel, M. & Schwebel, R. (1989). A guide to a happier familiy: overcoming_-the_ anger., frustration, and boredom that destroy family life. Los Angeles: Tarcher. Shapiro, J. & Kroeger, L. (1991). Is life just a romantic novel? The relationship between attitudes about intimate relationships and the popular media. American Journal of Family Therapy. 19. 226-236. Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. NY: MacMillan. Smith, T.W., Pope, M.K., Rhodewalt, F. & Poulton, J.L. (1989). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 640-648. Smith, G.B. & Schwebel, A.I. (1995). Using a cognitive behavioral family model in conjunction with systems and behavioral family therapy models. American Journal of Family Therapy. 2 3 . 203-212. Spanier, G.B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of a marriage and similar dyads. Journal. of_.Marriage and the Family. 15- 28 . Stein, K.F. (1994). Complexity of self-schema and relationship to disconfirming feedback. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 18. 161-178. Steinglass, P. (1978). The conceptualization of marriage from a systems theory perspective. In T. Paolino & B. McCrady (Eds.), Marriage and Marital Therapy. NY: Brunner/Mazel. Stuart, R.B. (1980). Helping couples change: a social learning approach to_marital..hherapy. NY: Guilford. 113 Taylor, S.E. (1983). Adjustment to threatening events: A theory of cognitive adaptation. American Psychologist. 1161-1173. Taylor, S.E. (1989). Positive Illusions: Creative self- deceptions and the healthy mind. NY: Basic Books. Taylor, S.E. Sc Brown, J. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social-psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin. 103. 193-210. Taylor, S.E. Sc Crocker, J. (1981) . Schematic bases of social information processing. In T.E. Higgins, C. Herman, Sc M.P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: the Ontario symposium, on personality and social psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Taylor, S.E., Kemeny, M.E. & Aspinwall, L.G. (1992). Optimism, coping, psychological distress, and high-risk sexual behavior among men at risk for acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 63. 460-473. Thibaut, J. & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The social psychology of groups . NY: Wiley. Vincent, J.P., Weiss, R.L. & Birchler, G.R. (1975). A behavioral analysis of problem solving in distressed and nondistressed married and stranger dyads. Behavior .Therapy., 475-487. von Bertalanffy, L. (1968) . General systems theory. NY: George Braziller. Wallerstein, J. (1984). Children of divorce: Preliminary report of a ten-year follow-up of young children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 54. 444-458. Watson, P.C. & Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1972). Psychology of reasoning. London: B.T. Batsford. 114 Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. & Jackson, D.D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. NY: Norton. Wills, T.A., Weiss, R.L. & Patterson, G.R. (1974). A behavioral analysis of the determinants of marital satisfaction. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,-42, 802-sii. Woodruff, L.S.K. (1982). Traditionalism in family ideology: effects on adjustment and satisfaction comparing biological and stepfather families. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Alabama). Dissertation Abstracts International. 12, 1695A. Wyer, R.S. & Srull, T.K. (1994). (Eds,). Handbook of Social Cognition. Hillsdale, N J : Erlbaum. Appendix A Instructions for Administration in Experimental Conditions 1. INSTRUCTIONS FOR YELLOW PACKET (PERCEPTIONS OF ACTUAL FAMILY): The following questionnaires ask a variety of questions about your attitudes about your actual family. Please answer the following questionnaires with regard to the family you were living in when you graduated from high school. 2. INSTRUCTIONS FOR GREEN PACKET (COGNITIONS ABOUT IDEAL FAMILY): The following questionnaires ask a variety of questions about your attitudes about family. Please answer the following questionnaires in regards to how things would be in an ideal family. 3. INSTRUCTIONS FOR BLUE PACKET (EXPECTATIONS FOR FUTURE FAMILY): The following questionnaires ask a variety of questions about your attitudes about family. Please answer the following questionnaires in regards to how you realistically expect your own family in the future to be. 115 Appendix B Demographic Questionnaire Please provide the following information by filling in the appropriate circle for each question on the answer sheet. Remember that all answers will be totally confidential. 41. Race: 1 = White 2 = African-American3 = Hispanic 4 = Asian-American 5 = Other 42. What is your current dating status? 1 = Not dating much at this time 2 = Dating several people, no one consistently 3 = Dating one person casually 4 = Dating one person exclusively (no discussion of marriage) 5 = Dating one person exclusively (marriage has been discussed) 43. What is your current relationship status? (If you are not currently in a relationship, answer "not cohabiting, not engaged"): 1 = not cohabiting, not engaged 2 = cohabiting, not engaged 3 = cohabiting, engaged 4 = engaged, not cohabiting 5 = married 45. How many important dating relationships have you had since starting high school? (Fill in appropriate number, from 1 to 4, or 5= five or more) 116 117 NOTE: Now we're going to ask a little about the family that you grew up in. 46. Please describe the family you were living in when you graduated from high school: 1 = parents stayed together (at least until you graduated from high school) 2 = parents divorced, custodial parent did not remarry (at least until you graduated from high school) 3 = parents divorced, custodial parent remarried (before you graduated from high school) 4 = one parent deceased, other parent did not remarry (at least until you graduated from high school) 5 = one parent deceased, other parent remarried (before you graduated from high school) 47. If you lost one parent (through death or divorce) before you graduated from high school, how many years before your high school graduation did that occur? 1 = 0 to 2 years before graduation 2 = 3 to 5 years before graduation 3 = 6 to 10 years before graduation 4 = 11 to 15 years before graduation 5 = more than 15 years before graduation 48. Families vary in the level of love shown in the household. Thinking about the family you lived in when you graduated from high school, please indicate the level of love shown in your household, ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (maximum amount possible). 49. Families vary in how well they resolve conflict. Thinking about the family you lived in when you graduated from high school, how well did your family resolve their conflict, ranging from 1 (family was very ineffective in resolving conflict) to 5 (family was very effective in resolving conflict). 118 50. Families vary in the amount of joy and laughter that they share together. Thinking about the family you lived in when you graduated from high school, please indicate the amount of joy and laughter that your family shared together, ranging from 1 (none) to 5 (maximum amount possible). 51. Families vary in how they use alcohol. Thinking about the family you lived in when you graduated from high school, please indicate the extent of alcohol use by your parent(s) while you were living at home, ranging from 1 (no alcohol use by parents) to 5 (one or both parents could have been classified as alcoholic(s)). 52. Families vary in how they use mood-altering prescription drugs and street drugs. Thinking about the family you lived in when you graduated from high school, please indicate the extent of drug use by your parent(s) while you were living at home, ranging from 1 (no drugs ever used by parents) to 5 (one or both parents could have been classified as drug dependent). 53. Thinking about the family you lived in when you graduated from high school, in your opinion, did you feel there was excessive violence in your family? (1 = yes, 2 = no) NOTE: If the parent you lived with remarried after losing the other parent (through death or divorce) before you graduated from high school, please answer the following questions. If not, please go to the next packet. 54. If the parent you lived with remarried after losing the other parent (through death or divorce) before you graduated from high school, how many years before your high school graduation did that occur? 1 = 0 to 2 years before graduation 2 = 3 to 5 years before graduation 3 = 6 to 10 years before graduation 4 = 11 to 15 years before graduation 5 = more than 15 years before graduation 119 55. If the parent you lived with remarried before you graduated from high school, did your stepparent bring children of their own into the new family? (1 = yes; 2 = no) 56. If the parent you lived with remarried, were there children as a result of the new marriage? (1 = yes, 2 = no) 57. If the parent you lived with remarried, what was your birth order position in your new family? (1 = only child, 2 = firstborn, 3 = lastborn, 4 = middle child of three children, 5 = other) Appendix C Self-Report of Family Functioning NOTE: Thinking about how the family that you lived in when you graduated from high school, please answer each of the following questions by filling in the circle bearing the number of one of these four choices: 1 = Very untrue for my family 2 = Fairly untrue for my family 3 = Fairly true for my family 4 = Very true for my family 1. Family members really helped and supported one another. 2. There was a feeling of togetherness in our family. 3. Our family didn't do things together. 4. We really go along well with each other. 5. Family members seemed to avoid contact with each other when at home. 6. Family members felt free to say what was on their minds. 7. Our family did not discuss its problems. 8. Family members discussed problems and usually felt good about the solutions. 9. In our family it was important for everyone to express their opinion. 120 10. We didn't tell each other about our personal problems. 11. We fought a lot in our family. 12. Family members sometimes got so angry they threw things. 13. Family members hardly ever lost their tempers. 14. Family members sometimes hit each other. 15. Family members rarely criticized each other. 16. We rarely went to lectures, plays, or concerts. 17. We rarely had intellectual discussions. 18. Watching TV was more important than reading in our family. 19. Family members really liked music, art, and literature. 20. We were very interested in cultural activities. 21. We often went to movies, sports events, camping, etc. 22. Everyone in our family had a hobby or two. 23. Family members were not very involved in recreational activities outside work or school. 24. Family members sometimes attended courses or took lessons for some hobby or interest. 25. Friends rarely came over for dinner or to visit. 26. Family members attended church, synagogue, or Sunday School fairly often. 27. We didn't say prayers in our family. 122 28. We often talked about the religious meaning of Christmas, Passover, or other holidays. 29. We didn't believe in heaven or hell. 30. The Bible was a very important book in our home. 31. It was often hard to find things when you needed them in our household. 32. Being on time was very important in our family. 33. Family members made sure their rooms were neat. 34. Dishes were usually done immediately after eating. 35. We were generally pretty sloppy around the house. 36. We were full of life and good spirits. 37. Our family enjoyed being around other people. 38. Socializing with other people often made my family uncomfortable. 39. As a family, we had a large number of friends. 40. Our family like having parties. 41. We encouraged each other to develop in his or her own 51. individual way. 42. We were satisfied with the way in which we lived. 43. Our decisions were not our own, but were forced on us by things beyond our control. 44. Our family had more than its share of bad luck. 123 45. My family felt that they had very little influence over the things that happened to them. 46. I didn't think any family could have lived together with greater harmony than my family. 47. I didn't think anyone could possibly be happier than my family and I when we were together. 48. My family had all the qualities I've always wanted in a family. 49. Our family was as well adjusted as any family in this world could have been. 50. My family could have been happier than it was. 51. It was difficult to keep track of what other family members were doing. 52. In our family we knew where all family members were at all times. 53. Family members did not check with each other when making decisions. 54. Family members were extremely independent. 55. Family members were expected to have the approval of others before making decisions. 56. Family members made the rules together. 57. Family members felt they had no say in solving problems. 58. Each family member had at least some say in major family decisions. 59. Parents and children in our family discussed together the method of punishment. 124 60. In our family, parents did not check with the children before making important decisions. 61. Members of our family could get away with almost anything. 62. Family members were not punished or reprimanded when they did something wrong. 63. It was unclear what would happen when rules were broken in our family. 64. It was hard to know what the rules were in our family because they always changed. Appendix D Family Assessment Device NOTE: Thinking about how the family that you lived in when you graduated from high school, please answer each of the following questions by filling in the circle bearing the number of one of these four choices: 1 = Strongly Disagree 2 = Disagree 3 = Agree 4 = Strongly Agree 65. We usually act on our decisions regarding problems. 66. When someone is upset the others know why. 67. When you ask someone to do something, you have to check that they did it. 68. We are reluctant to show our affection for each other. 69. If someone is in trouble, the others become too involved. 70. We feel accepted for what we are. 71. We don't know what to do when an emergency comes up. 72. Planning family activities is difficult because we misunderstand each other. 73. After our family tries to solve a problem, we usually discuss whether it worked or not. 125 74. You can't tell how a person is feeling from what they are saying. 75. We make sure members meet their family responsibilities. 76. Making decisions is a problem for our family. 77. Some of us just don't respond emotionally. 78. You only get the interest of others when something is important to them. 79. You can easily get away with breaking the rules. 80. In times of crisis we can turn to each other for support. 81. We resolve most emotional upsets that come up. 82. We are able to make decisions about how to solve problems. 83. People come right out and say things instead of hinting them. 84. Family tasks don't get spread around enough. 85. We do not show our love for each other. 86. We are too self-centered. 87. We know what to do in an emergency. 88. We don't get along well together. 89. We cannot talk to each other about the sadness we feel. 90. We confront problems involving feelings. 91. We are frank with each other. 92. We have trouble meeting our bills. 127 93. Tenderness takes second place to other things in our family. 94. We confide in each other. 95. We get involved with each other only when something interests us. 96. We have no clear expectations about toilet habits. 97. Individuals are accepted for what they are. 98. We try to think of different ways to solve problems. 99. We don't talk to each other when we are angry. 100. There's little time to explore personal interests. 101. We express tenderness. 102. We show interest in each other only when we can get something out of is personally. 103. We have rules about hitting people. 104. When we don't like what someone has done, we tell them. 105. We discuss who is to do household jobs. 106. We cry openly. 107. Our family shows interest in each other only when they can get something out of it. 108. We don't hold to any rules or standards. 109. We avoid discussing our fears and concerns. 110. If people are asked to do something, they need reminding. 128 111. Even though we mean well, we intrude too much into each other's lives. 112. If the rules are broken, we don't know what to expect. 113. We can express feelings to each other. 114. We are generally dissatisfied with the family duties assigned to us. 115. Anything goes in our family. 116. There are lots of bad feelings in the family. 117. There are rules about dangerous situations. Appendix E Dyadic Adjustment Scale FOR THIS QUESTIONNAIRE ONLY, please answer the following questions in the space provided, NOT on the bubble sheet. First, please write your four-digit I.D. number in the following space: If your parents lived together during the entire time that you were growing up, check the following space: Biological Parents If you checked "Biological Parents" above, please answer the following questionnaire by giving YOUR IMPRESSION of what your parents' relationship was like when you graduated from high school. If your parents did NOT live together during the entire period that you were growing up, think about the ONE RELATIONSHIP your custodial parent had when you graduated from high school that influenced you the most. Indicate whether the relationship your parent had was with your: Noncustodial Parent Deceased Parent Step-parent Parent's Dating partner 129 130 If you checked one of the above spaces, please answer the following questionnaire by giving YOUR IMPRESSION of what the relationship you indicated was like when you graduated from high school. If the parent you lived with had NO SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP that you recall, please check the following space. No significant relationship. If you checked "No Significant Relationship", answer the questions by indicating how you IMAGINE your parent would have related to a significant other. A******************** NOTE: You should have checked one line on this page. If you have done so, please proceed to answer the following questions according to the instructions. 131 Instructions: Most people have disagreements in their relationships. For each item on the following list, please indicate the approximate extent of agreement or disagreement in the relationship you are describing. Circle the number that best approximates your answer. 0 = Always agree 1 = Almost always agree 2 = Occasionally disagree 3 = Frequently disagree 4 = Almost always disagree 5 = Always disagree 1. Handling couple finances 0 2. Matters of recreation 0 3. Religious matters 0 4. Demonstrations of affection 0 5. Friends 0 6. Sex relations 0 7. Conventionality (correct or proper behavior) 0 8. Philosophy of life 0 9. Ways of dealing with parents or in-laws 0 10. Aims, goals, and things believed important 0 11. Amount of time spent together 0 12. Making major decisions 0 132 13. Household tasks 0 1 2 3 4 5 14. Leisure-time interests and activities 0 1 2 3 4 5 15. Career decisions 0 1 2 3 4 5 For the next set of questions, use the following scale: 0 = All the time 1 = Most of the time 2 = More often than not 3 = Occasionally 4 = Rarely 5 = Never 16. How often did they discuss or consider separation, or terminating the relationship? 0 1 2 3 4 5 17. How often did one partner leave the house after a fight? 0 1 2 3 4 5 18. In general, how often did you think that things between them were going well? 0 12 3 4 5 19. Did they confide in each other? 0 12 3 4 5 20. Did they ever regret their relationship together? 0 12 3 4 5 21. How often did they quarrel? 0 1 2 3 4 5 22. How often did they "get on each other's nerves? 0 1 2 3 4 5 133 23. Did they kiss each other? 0 = Every day 1 = Almost every day2 = Occasionally 3 = Rarely4 = Never 24. Did they engage in outside interests together? 0 = All of theml = Most of them 2 = Some of them 3 = Very few of them 4 = None of them How often would you say the following occurred between them? 0 = Never 1 = Less than once a month 2 = Once or twice a month 3 = Once or twice a week 4 = Once a day 5 = More often 25. Had a stimulating exchange of ideas 0 1 2 3 4 5 26. Laughed together 0 1 2 3 4 5 27. Calmly discussed something 0 1 2 3 4 5 28. Worked together on a project 0 12 3 4 5 These are some things about which couples agree and sometimes disagree. Indicate if either item below caused differences of opinions or were problems in their relationship. 0 = Yes 1 = No 29. Being too tired for sex 0 1 3 0. Not showing love 0 1 134 31. The dots on the following line represent different degrees of happiness in their relationship. Please fill in the circle on the answer sheet that bears the number of the point that best describes the degree of happiness, all things considered, of their relationship. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ******* Extremely Fairly A little Very Extremely unhappy unhappy unhappy Happy happy happy Perfect 32. Which of the following statements best described their feelings about the future of their relationship: 0 They wanted desperately for the relationship to succeed and would have gone to almost any lengths to see that it did. 1 They wanted very much for the relationship to succeed and did all they could to see that it did. 2 They wanted very much for the relationship to succeed and did their fair share to see that it did. 3 They felt it would be nice if their relationship succeeded, and they couldn't do much more than they were doing to help it succeed. 4 They felt it would be nice if their relationship succeeded, but they refused to do any more than they were doing to keep the relationship going. 5 They felt their relationship could never succeed, and there was no more that they could do to keep the relationship going. Appendix F Relationship Intimacy Scale Questionnaire NOTE: For the following scale, please fill in the appropriate bubbles on your answer sheet. DO NOT write on this page. The following questions assess intimacy in parental relationships. Please describe the same relationship that you specified in the previous questionnaire. Furthermore, for the following questions, please take the perspective of one of your parents. Indicate whose viewpoint you will be taking in question #118. 118. These questions are answered from the viewpoint of: 1 = mother 2 = father 3 = stepmother 4 = stepfather 5 = other More specifically, for each question, darken the bubble (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5) on the answer sheet that best represents how you think your parent feels about their relationship. Use this scale to guide your answers: 1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree AgreeAgree 119. My partner often knows what I mean even when I have difficulty expressing myself. 120. I find my partner very physically attractive. 135 136 121. I enjoy being physically affectionate with my partner. 122. I would rather be with my partner than anyone else. 123. My partner and I rarely share loving moments. 124. I would be willing to make large sacrifices to make our relationship work. 125. My partner and I rarely agree on what the most important things in life are. 126. My partner often hurts my feelings without realizing it. 127. I usually can tell what my partner is feeling. 128. My partner and I rarely engage in sex. 129. I can never tell what my partner is thinking. 13 0. My partner and I often confide in each other. 131. My partner is aware of how much I care for him/her. 132. It would be easy for me to separate from my partner permanently. 133. My partner and I hug or kiss each other at least once a day. 134. Other people understand my partner better than I do. 135. My partner often does things that make me feel happy. 136. I do not like the thought of spending the rest of my life with my partner. 137. I never know what to buy my partner on special occasions. 137 138. Sometimes I get the feeling that my partner wants to end our relationship. 139. My present relationship is one of the most important things in my life. 140. The physical distance my partner stays from me is often greater than what I would prefer. 141. My partner and I often have meaningful conversations. 142. My partner and I rarely hold hands when we are together. 143. My partner cares deeply about me. 144. My partner is not very emotionally expressive. 145. I often wish I was with someone else. 146. I wish my partner was more physically affectionate than he/she is. 147. My partner's emotional reactions often surprise me. 148. My partner and I are strongly committed to one another. 149. My partner knows what to do to sexually satisfy me. 150. My partner understands my peculiarities. 138 Table 1. Frequencies of Race by Family Type. Race Family Type White Black Hispanic Asian Other Intact 42 3 0 0 4 Single Parent 45 7 1 5 1 Stepfamily 30 2 0 4 2 Total 117 12 1 9 7 139 Table 2. Multivariate Analyses of Variance (MANOVA's) of Scale Scores by Gender. Family Type, and Cognition. SRFF Scores Source df1 df2 Wilke's Lambda Gender (G) 13 102 .85 Family (F) 26 204 .77 Cognition (C) 26 89 .04** G X F 26 204 .77 G X C 26 89 .73 F X C 52 178 .55 G X F X C 52 178 . 54 FAD Scores Source df1 Wilke's Lambda Gender (G) 7 109 . 93 Family (F) 14 218 .88 Cognition (C) 14 202 . 01** G X F 14 218 .93 G X C 14 102 .86 F X C 28 210 .68 (p = .050) G X F X C 28 204 . 82 DAS Scores Source dfl df 2 Wilke's Lambda Gender (G) 4 101 .94 Family (F) 8 202 .85* Cognition (C) 8 97 . 01** G X F 8 202 .89 G X C 8 97 .90 F X C 16 194 .74* G X F X C 16 194 .86 * p < .05 ** p < .01 140 Table 3. Analyses of Variance for SRFF Scores by Family Type and Cognition.. Type. Cohesion Effect df F Family (F) 2 5.95** Between-group Error 138 (11.48) Cognition (C) 2 56.98** F X C 4 .75 Within-group Error 276 (7.85) Expre s s ivene s s Effect df F Family Type 2 2 .64 Between-group Error 139 (13.82) Cognition 2 74.62** F X C 4 .55 Within-group Error 278 (7.89) Conflict Effect df F Family Type 2 1.34 Between-group Error 137 (14.60) Cognition 2 50.22** F X C 4 .16 Within-group Error 274 (6.94) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. * p < .05 **p<.001 141 Table 3 (continued). Analyses of Variance for SRFF Scores by Family Type and Cognition Type. Intellectual/cultural Orientation Effect d£ F Family Type 2 3 .66* Between-group Error 140 (13.39) Cognition 2 58.61** F X C 4 .49 Within-group Error 280 (6.96) Active Effect d£ F Family Type 2 2.61 Between-group Error 139 (11.94) Cognition 2 50.90** F X C 4 .86 Within-group Error 278 (5.66) Religion Effect d£ F Family Type 2 2.55 Between-group Error 139 (29.92) Cognition 2 22.66** F X C 4 .60 Within-group Error 278 (6.40) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. * p < .05 **p< .001 142 Table 3 (continued). Analyses of Variance for SRFF Scores by Family Type and Cognition -Typg. Organization Effect F Family Type 2 .33 Between-Group Error 137 (14.55) Cognition 2 32 . 86** F X C 4 1.27 Within-group Error 274 (5.84) Family Social Effect F Family Type 2 1.04 Between-group Error 137 (13.49) Cognition 2 43.55** F X C 4 2.27 Within-group Error 274 (7.11) External Locus of Control Effect d£ F Family Type 2 3 .14* Between-group Error 139 (11.10) Cognition 2 62 .81** F X C 4 2 .87* Within-group Error 278 (5.58) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. *P< .05 ** p < .001 Table 3 (continued). Analyses of Variance for SRFF Scores by Family Type and Cognition Type. Ideal Effect d£ F Family Type 2 2.18 Between-group Error 138 (16.75) Cognition 2 66.36** F X C 4 3.80** Within-group Error 276 (10.58) Disengagement Effect d£ F Family Type 2 .39 Between-group Error 140 (11.21) Cognition 2 35.67** F X C 4 .79 Within-group Error 280 (4.63) Democratic Effect d£ F Family Type 2 2.01 Between-group Error 139 (13.92) Cognition 2 54 .36** F X C 4 1.80 Within-group Error 278 (6.67) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. * p < .05 **p< .001 144 Table 3 (continued). Analyses of Variance for SRFF Scores bv Family Type and Cognition Type. Laissez-Faire Effect d£ F Family Type 2 1.41 Between-group Error 141 (10.91) Cognition 2 14.80** F X C 4 2.02 Within-group Error 282 (4.79) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. * p < .05 ** p < .001 145 Table 4. Mean SRFF Subscale Scores for Family Type and Cognition Type. Family Type SRFF Scale Intact Single Step Cohesion M 17.30 16.50 15.89 SD 3.78 3 .44 4 .12 Expressiveness M 16 .10 15.59 15.03 s d 3 .22 .372 4 .26 Conflict 9.92 10.57 10.57 sn 3 .74 3 .16 3 .90 Intellectual 13 .81 14.50 13 .33 sn 2 .52 3 .50 3 .64 Active M 16 .41 15.77 15.46 SD 3 .15 3 .28 2.96 Religion M 15 .39 14 .01 14.88 sn 4 .18 4.06 3 .64 Organization M 18 . 07 14.73 15 . 01 sn 3 . 07 3.18 3.40 Family/Social M 16 .84 16 .29 16.30 sn 3.48 3 .80 3 .62 External Locus 8 .58 9.11 9.62 SD 2 .78 3.36 3 .40 Ideal 14 .61 13.68 13.83 SD 4.01 3.83 4 .24 146 Table 4 (continued). Mean SRFF Subscale Scores for Family Type and Cognition Disengagement M 12 .02 12 .24 11. 89 sd 2 .71 2.90 3 .46 Democratic H 15.26 15.32 14 .47 SD 3.15 3 .61 3 .69 Laissez-Faire M 6.90 6.77 7.42 SD 2.20 2.91 3.08 Cognition Type SRFF Scale Actual Ideal Future Cohesion M 14 .53 17.95 17.23 SD 3 .82 2 .51 2.64 Expressiveness M 13 .21 16.96 16.55 SD 3 .75 2.88 2 .74 Conflict 12 .20 9.30 9.56 SD 3 .56 2.93 2.67 Intellectual M 11.92 14.64 14.99 SD 3 .23 3.05 2.82 Active M 14 .22 16. 76 16.66 SD 3 .20 2 . 70 2 .44 Religion M 13 . 61 15.58 15.09 SD 4 .03 3 .64 3 .72 147 Table 4 (continued). Mean SRFF Subscale Scores for Family Type and Cognition d i s organization M 13 .57 15.67 15.57 SD 3 .23 2.89 2.71 Family/Social M 14 . 66 17.49 17.27 sn 3 . 70 2 . 79 2.56 External Locus to 10 .94 8.20 8 .18 sn 3 .29 2 .62 2 .28 Ideal M 11.45 15.63 15 . 04 sn 4.17 3.51 3 . 05 Disengagement to 13.30 11.30 11.56 sn 2.99 2.34 2 .43 Democratic to 13 .16 16.12 15.77 sn 3 .54 3 . 02 2 .45 Laissez-Faire M 7 . 85 6.56 6.68 SD 2 . 76 2.46 2 . 65 Table 5. Analyses of Variance for FAD Scores by Family Type and Cognition Type.. Problem Solving Effect d£ F Family Type 2 2.02 Between-Groups Error 135 (11.12) Cognition 2 62.59** F X C 4 1.49 Within-Groups Error 170 (4.83) Communicat ion Effect d£ F Family Type 2 .23 Between-Groups Error 136 (6.90) Cognition 2 26.66** F X C 4 1.16 Within-Groups Error 272 (4.10) Roles Effect F Family Type 2 1.07 Between-Groups Error 136 (20.55) Cognition 2 73.17** F X C 4 1.51 Within-Groups Error 272 (9.92) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. *p<.05 ** p < .01 14 9 Table 5 (continued). Analyses of Variance for FAD Scores by Family Type and Cognition Type. Affective Responsiveness Effect df F Family Type 2 1. 66 Between-Groups Error 137 (18.38) Cognition 2 67.68** F X C 4 1.24 Within-Groups Error 274 (9.51) Affective Involvement Effect df F Family Type 2 1.45 Between-Groups Error 134 (9.88) Cognition 2 58.68** F X C 4 1.42 Within-Groups Error 268 (4.07) Behavior Control Effect df F Family Type 2 .63 Between-Groups Error 131 (32.98) Cognition 2 48.40** F X C 4 3 .60** Within-Groups Error 262 (7.11) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. * p < .05 **p<.01 150 Table 5 (continued). Analyses of Variance for FAD Scores by Family Type and Cognition Type.- General Functioning Effect df. F Family Type 2 4 . 03* Between-Groups Error 133 (50.48) Cognition 2 62.85** F X C 4 2 .89* Within-Groups Error 266 (25 .77) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. * p < .05 ** p < .01 151 Table 6. Mean FAD Scores for Family Type and Cognition Type. Family Type FAD Scale Intact Single Step Problem Solving M 15.78 15 .59 14 .94 SD 3 .04 3.02 3.16 Commun i c a t i on U 17.33 17.20 17.10 SD 2.53 2 .57 2.87 Roles M 24.03 23.87 23 .23 SD 3 . 72 4.40 4.11 Aff. Responsiveness H 18.11 17.93 17.16 SD 3 .92 4.74 4.14 Aff. Involvement M 20.50 19.98 19.90 SD 1.84 2.49 2.74 Behavior Control M 30.17 29.46 29 .50 SD 3 .56 4 .50 4 ,67 Gen Functioning M 38 .70 37.32 36.13 SD 7.22 7.90 8.11 152 Table 6 (continued). Mean FAD Scores for Family ..Type _amL Cognition. Type. Family Type FAD Scale Actual Ideal Future Problem Solving M 13 .70 16 .30 16 .31 SD 3.10 2.41 2.36 Commun i c a t i on E 16.18 17.85 17.61 SD 2.64 2.12 1. 89 Roles M 21.05 25.28 24 . 79 SD 4 .12 3 .22 3.64 Aff. Responsiveness M 19.22 19.09 18.89 SD 4 .36 2 .94 3 .16 Aff. Involvement M 18 .57 20.84 20.96 SD 2 .40 2.41 2 .56 Behavior Control E 27.83 30 .79 30.50 SD 4.35 3.68 3.89 Gen Functioning M 34.02 40.99 37.14 SD 7.99 5.23 3 .82 153 Table 7. Analyses of Variance for DAS Scores by Family Type and Cognition Type. Dyadic Consensus Effect df F Family Type 2 4 .52* Between Groups Error 125 (150.76) Cognition 4 227.97** Interaction 4 2.87* Within Groups Error 248 (71.54) Dyadic Satisfaction Effect df F Family Type 2 1.72 Between Groups Error 120 (16.15) Cognition 2 4.10** Interaction 4 2.64* Within Groups Error 240 (7.45) Dyadic Cohesion Effect df F Family Type 2 2.71 Between Groups Error 134 (17.14) Cognition 2 65.46** Interaction 4 1.41 Within Groups Error 268 (8.00) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. * p < .05 ** p < .01 154 Table 7 (continued). Analyses of Variance for DAS Scores by Family Type and Cognition Type. Affectional Expression Effect df F Family Type 2 1.26 Between Groups Error 123 (5.52) Cognition 2 32 .50** Interaction 4 .74 Within Groups Error 246 (2.85) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. *p<,05 ** p < .01 155 Table 8. Mean DAS Scores for Family.Type.and .Cognition Type. Family Type DAS Scale Intact Single Step Dyadic Consensus M 14 .89 19.13 18.36 sn 11.64 13 .10 12 . 78 Dyadic Satisfaction M 27.07 26 .33 26.13 sn 3 .88 3.91 3 .85 Dyadic Cohesion E 16.21 15.25 15.14 sn 4.02 3.94 3.98 Affect. Expression M 3.02 3.31 3 .52 SD 1.70 2.21 2.50 Cognition Type DAS Scale Actual Ideal Future Dyadic Consensus M 22 .13 14 .88 15 .38 sn 13 .00 8.57 8 .00 Dyadic Satisfaction M 26.02 27.04 26.48 SD 3.99 2.85 2.77 Dyadic Cohesion M 13 .24 16.77 16.59 SD 4.06 2.94 2.92 Affect. Expression n 4.29 2.64 2.93 SD 2.17 1.78 1. 82 156 Table 9. Analysis of Variance for ISO Scores by Family Type and Cognition Type- Source df P Gender (G) 1 . 02 Family (F) 2 .48 G X F 2 .65 Within Group Error 110 (74.69) Cognition (C) 2 7 .73* G X C 2 1.02 F X C 4 .46 G X F X C 4 .66 Between Groups Error 220 (33.63) Note. Values enclosed in parentheses represent mean squared errors. * p < .05 ** p < .01