Running Head: PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 1
Family Socialization, Ideology, and Family Communication Patterns as Predictors of
Attitudes about Guns and Gun Ownership
Christofer D. Rasmussen
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Master of Arts Degree
Division of Communication
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
May 13, 2020
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE, HAVE APPROVED THIS THESIS
FAMILY SOCIALIZATION, IDEOLOGY, AND FAMILY COMMUNICATION PATTERNS AS PREDICTORS OF ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS AND GUN OWNERSHIP
BY
CHRISTOFER D. RASMUSSEN
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Masters of Arts
Division of Communication
University of Wisconsin- Stevens Point
2020
THESIS APPROVED:
______
Date Dr. Rhonda Sprague (Chair)
______
Date Dr. Tamas Bodor
______Steve Hill
Date Dr. Steve Hill PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 2
Introduction All too frequently, a story in the news features another school shooting, mass killing, or death at the hands of someone with a gun. With this reporting comes an explosion of rhetoric and heated discussion surrounding the relevance of the 2nd Amendment, gun control policy, and the role of firearms in American culture. Where do these beliefs and ideologies originate? What can be done to better understand why people feel so strongly on either side of the issue? Some would argue these tenets are born within the family: “humanity’s most enduring and most fundamental social institution” (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014, p. 1). Families are where children become socialized and, on a macro level, “how families function affects how societies at large function as well” (2014, p. 1). Therefore, we will look to the role of family communication when attempting to gauge how and when perceptions of guns and gun culture enter the lives of individuals. As a result, with a basic understanding of the history of gun culture in the United
States, the role of socialization as it occurs in the family will be considered as another key component of how individual ideologies about guns are created.
Family communication patterns theory (FCPT) has evolved over the past thirty years as a tool to help communication scholars evaluate interpersonal family relationships (Ritchie &
Fitzpatrick, 1990). The application of this theory has enabled researchers to understand how conformity/obedience and proneness to open conversation impact family dynamics, decision- making, and transference of ideologies (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a). In the past, this theory has been applied within the realm of communication apprehension (Elwood & Schrader, 1998), adult children’s conflict with romantic partners (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b), parent- adolescent understanding (Sillars, Koerner, & Fitzpatrick, 2005), and family processes such as rituals (Baxter & Clark, 1996), to name a few. The present study, using the framework of FCPT, hopes to use it to explain the development of individual ideologies surrounding gun-rights/gun-
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 3 control and the congruence of inherited generational gun culture within the family. Application of this theory aims to address the derivation of individual firearms ideologies with the goal of understanding how family communication dynamics affects the transference and propagation of gun culture.
The origins of gun culture and ideologies about guns and gun ownership, are at the heart of this study. Focusing on the role of family socialization and family communication theory, this study will look for relationships among these variables and gun ownership. The goal of this research is to uncover the connectivity between family communication patterns, family socialization, individual perceptions about gun culture, and gun ownership to see if there is any predictive power available that would suggest benefit via replication of this research. We will be looking to explore inherent social, familial, or cultural indicators of an individual’s propensity to feel favorably or unfavorably about firearms.
This study is unique in that most social research focuses on the relationship between guns and crime from either a public health perspective (e.g., Hemenway, 2004) or criminological viewpoint (e.g., Harcourt, 2006). Not only will this study exemplify and solidify the role of the family as a constituent of ideology among both gun and non-gun owners, but also provide a groundwork for future studies linking family communication, socialization, and gun culture in the United States.
Literature Review
Introduction
This study’s primary focus is the generational transmission of ideology surrounding gun culture in the United States. Because the family, through socialization, serves as a primary
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 4 source of information for ideological issues, Family Communication Patterns Theory offers one explanatory framework. This review will first examine the literatures surrounding the history of gun culture in America, then discuss historical family socialization techniques, and finally apply the evolution of Family Communication Patterns Theory as it relates to this study.
Gun culture in the United States is steeped in history surrounding our independence as a nation, our freedom as individuals, and the violence that accompanied this evolution (Williams
& McGrath III, 1976). Researchers underscore the instrumental, self-interest, and cultural conflict explanations of gun ownership that are derivative of this dialogue, which are perpetuated by membership in social groups, most notably the family (Kleck, Gertz, & Bratton, 2009).
Instrumental explanations surrounding gun control involve the perception of guns and gun violence as either the root of the problem (“America needs fewer guns.”) or, conversely, the solution (“Americans need more guns.”). Self-interest explanations address the likelihood of the individual to experience gain or loss as a result of gun policy, while culture conflict explanations are “reflective of deeper cultural conflicts, and differing ideas about what guns symbolize”
(Kleck, Gertz, & Bratton, 2009, p. 497). Understanding and applying these explanations, coupled with a brief history of the evolution of gun culture in the United States, will help provide the necessary background for undertaking this study.
Gun Culture in the United States
The role of firearms in the United States is one of complex, changing, and contentious
(Yamane, 2017). One figure estimates that there are nearly 393 million guns in the United
States, a count that includes shotguns, handguns, and rifles (Ingraham, 2018). This equates to more than one firearm per person in the United States alone. However, despite many facts and
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 5 figures surrounding gun ownership, gun statistics, and firearm literature, there are few sociological perspectives published about gun culture itself (Yamane, 2017, p. 1). In fact, most of the research and literature looks at guns as they relate to violence and crime either from the perspective of public health (Hemenway, 2004) or criminology (Harcourt, 2006).
Guns were highly influential in the early colonial period and served a functional role within society. As Cramer states, “Gun ownership appears to have been the norm for freemen, and not terribly unusual for free women and at least male children, through the Colonial,
Revolutionary, and early Republic periods” (Cramer, 2006, p. 236). During this time, guns were utilitarian, used for hunting and protection both in the populated East and the frontier of the West
(Haag, 2016). One scholar, using probate records during 1765-1850, was able to show that following the Revolutionary War, most citizens had given up interest in firearms, with a scant
14% of death inventories including guns, only 53% of which were operational (Bellesiles in
Utter & True, 2000). At the time, firearms also lacked much of their contemporary symbolism, a process facilitated by changing history and morphing perceptions of firearm functions.
Following the Civil War, several simultaneous occurrences helped perpetuate American gun culture as we know it today. The first was the mechanical or mass production of guns, which made them far more accessible and affordable than ever before. Coupled with this production was the creation of a niche for these guns as commodities, a market that developed in tandem with gun culture growth (Haag, 2016). In addition, gun manufacturers such as Samuel
Colt and Eliphalet Remington began mass producing firearms to be sold throughout the country, with much of their success resulting from the help of the federal government. According to
Bellesiles, the US government aided Colt and Remington by, “providing capital, patent protection, technological expertise, and the largest market for guns” (Bellesiles, 1996, p. 440).
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 6
Around the same time, the NRA was formed in 1872 by Union veterans as an effort to advance the marksmanship of American soldiers (Utter & True, 2000). As Utter and True
(2000) state, “The very need for such an organization (i.e., the NRA) testifies to the lack of a widespread gun culture in the United States prior to the Civil War” (p. 71).
Simultaneously, the popularity of hunting as both a sport and livelihood continued to grow in the latter part of the 19th century. According to Hofstadter, “What began as a necessity of agriculture and the frontier took hold as a sport and as an ingredient in the American imagination” (Hofstadter, 1970, p. 5). Shooting competitions became commonplace and sporting clubs emerged in large cities such as Milwaukee and San Francisco. These fraternal shooting clubs, also known as Schutzenbunde, were abound in communities with large German populations, giving gun enthusiasts a place to gather and practice their marksmanship. In addition, the newly formed NRA held annual shooting competitions, a tradition that continues to this day. Suffice it to say, both organizations played significant roles in the promotion of
America’s burgeoning gun culture (Gilmore, 1999).
The 20th century saw hunting grow as an integral part of American gun culture, particularly in the South. Many people who lived in the city spent their leisure time hunting as an escape to the quieter setting of the countryside. This tradition of hunting was passed down from generation to generation, with young men or boys receiving a “real” rifle and heading out into the wilderness to hunt game. This activity served as a rite of passage, marking his transition to manhood, and reinforced the burgeoning gun culture ideology in America (Littlefield &
Ozanne, 2011).
From a recreational perspective and as it pertains to the conversation about the role of guns in society, gun culture can be viewed from two different perspectives. The first relates to
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 7 guns as a tool for leisure. Wright (1995) states, “Most guns in America are owned for socially innocuous sport and recreation purposes, where gun ownership is apparently a topic more appropriate to the sociology of leisure than to the criminology or epidemiology of violence” (pp.
64-65). A dramatic uptick in the collection of guns and firearms as a hobby in the early 20th century reinforced the recreational aspect of gun culture. In the new world, the utilitarian function of guns had virtually vanished (Haag, 2016). Gun collectors saw (and continue to see) themselves much like stamp collectors, with a duty to preserve history and a keen interest in keeping that history alive for the future (Stenross, 1994). As incomes and leisure time increased in the 20th century, credit improved, as did the time available to spend hunting, target shooting, and/or collecting guns (Yamane, 2017).
Another view emphasizes the use of guns to solve problems. The role of entertainment and media in the perpetuation of this view in America cannot be ignored. What began as a stereotype of the gun-toting Wild West - as played out in Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West show- evolved into a genre of television and film. Actors such as John Wayne and Clint Eastwood became famous for their portrayal of roughneck western protagonist roles, which were “models for the western hero who epitomized the characteristics of strength, independence, and a willingness to use violence if necessary” (Utter & True, 2000, p. 72). Television shows such as
Bonanza and Gunsmoke painted a gun-centric view of the American West, where problems were solved with a pistol and arguments resolved in a duel.
In reality, more crimes involving firearms were committed by the gangsters of the 1930s.
This would eventually lead to the passing of legislation (such as the 1934 National Firearms Act and the 1938 Federal Firearms Act) to limit gun ownership and possession. According to Utter
& True (2000), “With such policy proposals, the NRA, initially an organization that cooperated
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 8 with the national government to improve marksmanship among Americans, began its long history of opposition to gun control legislation” (p. 72). As the role of the NRA in gun culture history has changed, so have the perceptions of its role. What was once an organization known to work in tandem with the government has become one of insistence on individual freedoms and limited governmental regulations.
More recently, focus has turned from the recreational role of firearms to that of self- protection. In a 1999 ABC News/Washington Post poll, 26% of gun owners cited protection as the number one reason for owning a gun. By 2015, a National Firearms Survey found 63% of gun owners saying that “protection against people” was their primary reason for owning a firearm (Azrael, Hepburn, Hemenway, & Miller, 2016). As a part of these self-protection tendencies that have become the trend in recent years, it is important to note the individualistic versus collectivist values of American society that appear to be at the heart of the gun debate.
Those who support gun control favor a more collectivist position, while those opposed adhere to the individualistic stance of “self-reliance” and “self-determination” (Celinska, 2007). The transition away from recreation to protection is a result of the individualistic nature of American society today and gives valuable insight into the feelings on both sides of the gun control debate.
The rise in mass shootings since 2000 has also increased the public conversation about guns, their availability, and the role they play in American society. Events at Columbine, Sandy
Hook, Marjorie Stoneman Douglas, the Pulse Nightclub, and Las Vegas not only produced swift loss of life, but also a simultaneous advancement of the perception of firearms as necessary for protection. Much of the debate revolves around the availability of guns, quality and quantity of background checks, the types of weapons used, and the mental state of those who commit these killings (Metzl & MacLeish, 2015). The public wants to place blame, to look and find a solution
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 9
to this issue, but it appears to be more complicated than simply banning guns, implementing red-
flag laws, or forcing more rigorous background checks. The debate seems to boil down to
whether the presence of more guns prevents or facilitates crimes. Gun-rights activists argue the more guns you have in the hands of responsible people, the safer society will be, while gun control supporters suggest that we look to other countries with stricter gun laws as models to create a safer environment.
Media play a vital role in framing the debate, as outlets often use their public platforms as an avenue for higher ratings and greater profits (DeFoster & Swalve, 2018). The conversation about the evolution of gun culture in the United States would not be complete without mention of mass shootings and the media that cover these events. They provide yet another angle from which to view the ever-changing role of guns in our society today.
The evolution of gun ownership and gun culture in America is one invariably steeped in history and tradition, with even more to be uncovered as we delve deeper into potential sources of firearm ideology. These ideologies stem from social interaction and are fostered over time through exposure to discourse about guns and the presence (or lack thereof) of guns within the home. Understanding the development of these concepts in tandem with familial socialization practices about firearms will help provide the framework necessary for this study. Although
“relatively little has been published about the symbolic nature of guns and the ritualistic aspect of gun ownership in academic literature” (Taylor, 2009, p. 3), drawing from existing works allows for a better framework for future understanding. The current study is concerned with individual perceptions about the current role of guns in society (protection vs. recreation) and individual feelings about our relationship with guns (frightening vs. comforting) between gun owners and non-gun owners. This concern leads to the first research question:
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 10
RQ1: Do gun owners and non-gun owners have different perceptions about the role of guns in society?
Socialization: Guns in the Family
At the intersection of gun culture and socialization lies the family, a place where sense of self emerges, personality takes shape, and values and other cultural elements are transmitted. As has been illustrated, the family has a strong influence upon individuals’ socialization, with family communication at the heart of that process. Littlefield and Ozanne (2011, pp. 356-357) eloquently show the connection when they state,
“Examination of the hunting culture would be incomplete without acknowledging its location within the broader gun culture of the USA. The widespread existence and ease of purchase of firearms makes it easy for young boys to be initiated into hunting. Additionally, positive portrayals in the media that glamorize guns further reinforce these practices. However, the meanings of the gun culture in rural USA are embedded in a history of self-sufficiency and focus on individual rights (i.e., the right to “bear arms” is discussed in the second amendment of the Constitution) and, as we have found, are also embedded within a family socialization process that reinforces these values. In addition, the US gun culture is not a singular monolith despite the widespread stereotypical portrayals of guns and gun owners in popular media. Given the demographic and historical characteristics of the USA, particularly the significant differences between urban and rural residents, many overlapping gun cultures likely exist including those focused on hunting, sport shooting, self-defense and personal protection, and criminal and gang activity, each with its own set of values and socialization processes.”
At an early age, people look to those around them for reinforcement about the way they see the world. At the heart of this socialization is the family unit, primarily parental figures who attempt to keep their children safe, fed, and informed about what is beneficial for their wellbeing as humans. Although the family unit in the United States varies from those in countries elsewhere in the world, the basic principles of food, shelter, and protection remain the same.
From a communication perspective, most people’s patterns and tendencies are adapted and modeled directly after their parents (Noller, 1995). It has been shown that even as children age
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 11 into adulthood, their communication preferences are influenced by the family (Ledbetter, 2009).
There are multiple facets that explain the circumstantial effect parents have on the socialization of their children. Kuczynski and Grusec explain this phenomenon well.
“Parents are most influential in the socialization of children for a number of reasons: socialization, which has evolved as an adaptive evolutionary strategy, is a biosocial system set up to favor the parent’s primary influence on the child; society designates parents (or parent surrogates) as primarily responsible for socialization; parents have greater time and opportunity to develop relationships with children, with these relationships essential for successful socialization; and parents also have greater opportunity to monitor their children’s actions, another centrally important aspect of successful socialization” (1997, p. 143).
Thus, parents’ ability to monitor actions and the sheer time spent with children allows for the acquisition of behaviors and beliefs.
From a historical parenting perspective, Western thinking highlights three primary views of parents and their relationship to children. The first is the Puritan and philosophical view of
Hobbes from the 17th century, who approached children as inherently sinful and in need of religious salvation. It was then the role of parents to use fear and punishment as a form of socialization. The second, opposite school of thought arose from Rousseau in the 18th century, who viewed children as inherently good creatures, whose behavior could only be reinforced with natural life lessons, those crafted and taught at home and in school. The third, from John Locke in the late 17th century, is a compromise of the two and viewed children as a blank canvas whose socialization comes only from the impact of experience (Grusec, 2002). Although somewhat antiquated, it is important to understand how origins of parenting have evolved as we look to contemporary theories on family socialization. These historical frameworks enable us to see how the perception of family socialization in parent/child relationships evolved becoming ever more complicated as new theories in psychology, sociology, and communication emerged.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 12
More recently, the work of Freud used identification to explain how children inherit their parents’ attitudes and standards. According to Freud’s theory of conscience development, children identify with their parents and naturally take on their ideologies over time. As Grusec states, “By identifying with or becoming like their parents they develop into functioning members of society. In this way the elders or old hands transmit their ways of behaving to the novices or newcomers” (Grusec, 2002, p. 145). Interestingly, literature also exists showing a symbiotic relationship between parent and child, with each influencing the other. This is to say that not only does the parent primarily socialize the child, but the child simultaneously helps to socialize the parent (Bell, 1968; Sears, 1951).
Social psychology and child development are equally important to note in the work of
Albert Bandura in 1977. Bandura, applying his concept of Social Learning Theory, suggested that socialization occurs through the processes of role playing, imitation or modeling, reinforcement, social comparison, and labeling as a result of the behavior seen in others, primarily those we are around the most, our families (Bandura & Walters, 1977). These processes are how we formulate our identities and our ideologies. According to Tsushima and
Gecas (2001), “Families have the major responsibility of socializing children. It is within the family that the child’s initial sense of self emerges, that personality takes shape, that values and other cultural elements are transmitted, and that role-taking abilities develop through the initial learning of language, social roles, and participation in family rituals and activities” (p. 268).
In addition, the work of social scientist George Lakoff in the 1980s and ‘90s attempted to explain the fundamental differences between liberal and conservative families with two distinct classifications of family dynamics. These categories, labeled the “Strict Father model” and the
“Nurturant Parent model,” approach parent and child interaction differently and offer possible
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 13
explanations for an individual’s socially acquired value systems. The “Strict Father model,” as
Lakoff explains, is a traditional nuclear family where,
“Life is seen as fundamentally difficult and the world as fundamentally dangerous. Evil is conceptualized as a force in the world, and it is the father's job to support his family and protect it from evils- both external and internal. External evils include enemies, hardships, and temptations. Internal evils come in the form of uncontrolled desires and are as threatening as external ones. The father embodies the values needed to make one's way in the world and to support a family: He is morally strong, self-disciplined, frugal, temperate, and restrained. He sets an example by holding himself to high standards. He insists on his moral authority, commands obedience, and when he does not get it, metes out retribution as fairly and justly as he knows how. It is his job to protect and support his family, and he believes that safety comes out of strength. In addition to support and protection, the father's primary duty is to tell his children what is right and wrong, punish them when they do wrong, and bring them up to be self- disciplined and self-reliant. Through self-denial, the children can build strength against internal evils. In this way, he teaches his children to be self-disciplined, industrious, polite, trustworthy, and respectful of authority (Lakoff, 1995 p.191).
This explanation offers insight into the conservative mentality and fits the model for many families in the United States. From a gun ownership perspective, the protective duty of the father outlined in this reasoning falls in line with the desire for many conservatives to own guns, to protect themselves and their families from the evil forces wanting to cause them harm.
On the other end of Lakoff’s spectrum are the liberal families who he describes using the
“Nurturant Parent Model.” These families view child-rearing and socialization through the lens of love and compassion. According to Lakoff, “The primal experience behind this model is one of being cared for and cared about, having one's desires for loving interactions met, living as happily as possible, and deriving meaning from one's community and from caring for and about others” (p. 197). In terms of protection, these families also want to shelter their children from the evils of society but via a much different means. Rather than a show of strength as emphasized in the “Strict Father Model,” these families employ caring, empathy, and nurturance to ward off dangers and shield young people from harm. These two perspectives may help to explain the root causes of individual feelings about guns and add to the discussion surrounding
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 14 the impact of family socialization on individual ideology. Although far more complicated than these brief model descriptions, and with many families falling somewhere between the extremes of these polar opposites, Lakoff’s analysis of the family and its role in determining liberal versus conservative viewpoints provides another social science perspective that must be considered
(Lakoff, 1995).
Firearms and perceptions of firearms are just one aspect of development affected by transmission of values, learning of language, and participation in family rituals and activities.
Through the use of a preferred family communication style, these ideologies take hold.
According to Maccoby, “Children ‘internalize’ their parents and ‘introject’ their values, forming a superego or conscience that is an internal representation of the parents” (Maccoby, 1992, p.
1007). Also important to note when examining socialization is the quality of the relationship between parent and child. As mentioned above, the ability of the child to identify with the parent will play a large factor in the ability of the child to internalize that parents’ values. This is to say, the stronger the bond between parent and child, the more likely the child is to have similar ideologies to the parent (Whitbeck & Gecas, 1988).
Family rituals and activities, coupled with the role of multi-generational interpersonal relationships, have been shown to have a direct relationship on the role of guns in the family.
Grandparents often play an equally important role in socialization, helping to perpetuate family ideologies through ritualistic activities such as hunting. According to Kemp (2007),
“Relationships, including those between grandparents and grandchildren, are negotiated and hence (re)produced within families through interactions between individuals over time” (Kemp, p. 857). Even though the family may change, and relational circumstances may vary, many of the rituals are upheld and socialization continues to occur at the familial level. Kemp goes on to say,
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 15
“The family, although assuming new forms, continues to be a key institution and an important site and agent of socialization across the life course” (p. 859). At the heart of these relationships, and constitutive of them, is family communication, a vital component in understanding the connection between gun culture and how it is learned.
The concepts of tradition and ritual are the core of our understanding about family socialization as it relates to firearms. But what about morality? If morality is subject to family socialization as the research suggests, then the desire to uphold that morality would also be a byproduct of family social interaction. According to Christian Smith, one of the “fundamental motivations for human action is to enact and sustain the moral order” (Smith, 2003, p. 11).
Moral order is desirable, almost universally, because it gives us meaning as an explanation for the role of goodness and of self (Froese, 2016). This would help explain why many individuals turn to guns to take “action” in the name of upholding the moral order. As Turner and Stets
(2005) explain, “When the self is not confirmed in a situation, individuals often employ defensive strategies and invoke defense mechanisms that distort their experience and expression of emotion” (p. 24). Simply stated, guns contribute to an individual’s moral identity, particularly in times of distress such as economic hardships or troubling life events. In particular, many white men use guns to position themselves as embedded in a context of socioeconomic decline stressing their roles as protector within the family (Carlson, 2015). According to Mencken and
Froese (2019), “This emotional and moral connection explains variation within the population of gun owners. (Our) Data shows that the symbol of the gun as morally and existentially empowering is what activates pro-gun policy and anti-government sentiment” (p. 24). Gun- related rituals, attachment, moral positioning, and protective ability are all ideologies and traits that are a result of social circumstances that are shared through socialization. The degree to
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 16
which individuals are socialized into (or away from) gun culture is the focus of the second
research question:
RQ2: Are family socialization experiences about guns different between gun owners and non-gun owners?
Family Communication Patterns
Following a review of works surrounding gun culture in the United States and how young
people acquire their values and ideologies, it is necessary to now introduce a third factor to the
discussion. Keeping in mind what is known about gun culture and socialization, the literature
about Family Communication Patterns Theory can be added to the discussion to understand how
families facilitate the transmission of these ideals. By doing this, the study can then look for a
relationship between how people feel about guns, the role of socialization, their ascribed
category of family communication style, and gun ownership.
To understand Family Communication Patterns Theory (FCPT) today, we first need to discuss its origins. Beginning in the early 1970’s with Jack McLeod and Steven Chafee at the
University of Wisconsin, the ways in which families processed and shared external information about mass media messages was studied using Newcomb’s cognitive theory of co-orientation
(Koerner & Schrodt, 2014). Co-orientation as defined is the psychological idea that describes two or more people focusing their cognitive attention on the same object in their physical or social environment to create attitudes or beliefs about that object. In their most recent review of
FCPT, Koerner and Schrodt (2014) state, “According to McLeod and Chafee, these stable and predictable ways of communicating are based on how families create and share social reality and represent an observable manifestation of these cognitive processes” (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014).
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 17
Chafee and McLeod also concluded that family members can achieve consensus in two ways. The first way is labeled concept-orientation and involves the sharing of beliefs about an object in the environment as a result of its perceived attributes. These beliefs are arrived upon via discussion about the object’s characteristics, properties, and outcomes. The second way agreement is reached is labeled socio-orientation. In this process, family members allow one member to define the object for them as a means for arriving at agreement about an attitude object. As Koerner and Schrodt state, “With these concepts and more general assumptions in mind, interpersonal and family communication scholars undertook a series of revisions to both the conceptualization and operationalization of family communication patterns that led to the present-day articulation of FCPT” (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014, p. 4).
Until the early 1990’s, the Family Communication Patterns (FCP) instrument was largely used in media-effects research. Then, in 1990, Fitzpatrick and Ritchie, with their background in family communication, revised the device, changing the language and how the concept was understood. Concept orientation was changed to conversation orientation and socio-orientation was re-conceptualized as conformity orientation (Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990). Conversation orientation is the degree to which openness and unimpeded conversation is encouraged among all family members on a wide range of topics. On the other axis is conformity orientation, which refers to the degree to which family communication places an emphasis on congruence of attitudes, beliefs and values (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002b).
At the intersection of these two dimensions, conversation and conformity orientation, four distinct family communication patterns emerge. The first, with a focus on both high conversation and conformity orientation, are called consensual families. These families prefer an open dialogue, with the parents preferring to make the final decision in all family related
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 18 topics. Next, with a high conversation orientation and low conformity, are the pluralistic families. In these instances, the family is an open forum, with the parents not feeling the need to always agree with the decisions made by the children. This has been shown to foster independent children with confidence about making their own decisions. Third, low on conversation and high on conformity, are the protective families. These families feel the need to make all decisions for the children and do not see the need to explain their decisions to the children. Lastly, with both low conversation and conformity orientation, are the laissez-faire families. These families rarely connect, lead separate individual lives, and the children are often left without proper decision-making skills (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a).
Each of these classifications has its own proclivities and underpinnings, the likes of which help explain the function they serve within the family. The inherent value in these four categories lies in their predictive power. In the past, this instrument has been used to study communication apprehension (Elwood & Schrader, 1998), family rituals (Baxter & Clark, 1996), and parent-adolescent understanding (Sillars, Koerner, & Fitzpatrick, 2005). In the Elwood &
Schrader study, conversation orientation was shown as a significant and negative predictor of communication apprehension in both interpersonal and group contexts. Baxter and Clark (1996) were able to apply FCPT using family commitment to rituals to show a positive correlation for both conversation and conformity orientation. Sillars, Koerner, and Fitzpatrick (2005) applied the instrument to show a positive relationship between parental understanding of their children and high conversation orientation. All three studies lend promise to this research’s ability to usefully apply the principles of FCPT to predict attitudes and behaviors related to guns.
The ability to apply this instrument to feelings about guns will round out this exploration.
In doing this, the hope is to add to the understanding of the role family communication plays in
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 19
developing individual ideologies surrounding current firearm culture and perceptions in the
United States. This leads to the third research question:
RQ3: Do gun owners and non-gun owners show differences in family communication patterns?
Finally, because relationships between the independent variables are expected, a fourth
research question will test their combined ability to predict individual dispensation to own a
firearm:
RQ4: To what extent can perceptions about the role of guns in society, family socialization, and family communication patterns predict individual likelihood of becoming – or remaining – a gun owner?
Method
Measures
Demographics
To gain information about the respondents, a four-part survey was created. Please see
Appendix A for the complete survey. The first block included demographic questions about age, gender, ethnicity, political affiliation, social affiliation, veteran status, voting history, the area where the participants were raised (rural vs. urban), and the type of family life they experienced growing up (parents married, divorced, lived with mom/dad, etc.) Each was measured with a single multiple-choice item. Also included in this section were three Likert-type questions addressing Lakoff’s socialization theory surrounding dominant parents vs. nurturing parents, as well as favorability of their parental figure/s. All three questions were measured using a 5-point scale.
Experience with and Perceptions about Guns
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 20
The second block of the survey contained questions generated to measure respondents’ experience with and perceptions about guns. The first question provided information about overall experience with guns. Respondents who indicated they had experience with guns were then asked whether they owned one or more guns, whether parents and friends know they own guns, whether they have taken a gun safety course, and whether they keep their guns locked in a safe or with trigger locks. In addition, respondents were asked whether they are likely to own a gun in the next year, the reason they would be likely to obtain a gun in the next year, and the likelihood their feelings about guns would change in the future. Finally, all respondents completed a composite measure of perceptions about guns. Questions for this measure were created using a 5-point Likert response addressing perceived utility and functions of guns.
Sample items included “Shooting guns is a good recreational activity,” “Guns are dangerous,”
“Guns make valuable collectors’ items,” and “Guns serve no real purpose in society.” The measure proved very reliable (α =.90), and a single score was calculated by summing across all items.
Family Socialization
In the third block of the survey, respondents answered questions about family socialization regarding firearms. Individual questions provided information about respondents’ exposure to hunting and perceptions about guns relative to their parents and friends. Then all respondents completed a composite measure of family socialization. Nine Likert-type items were created to measure respondents' beliefs about guns as well as their perception about the involvement of their family in the socialization process. Sample items included “My grandparents, parents, and I feel the same way about guns,” “Mmy family has some traditions passed down from generations,” “My parents played a large role in how I feel about most
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 21 controversial topics,” and, “I don’t remember my family talking about guns much growing up.”
This measure also proved reliable (α =.79). Summing across all items produced a single score.
Family Communication Patterns
This variable was measured with Richie & Fitzpatrick’s (1990) Revised Family
Communication Patterns Instrument (RFCP). Developed in 1990 as a modified version of
McLeod and Chaffee’s (1972) Family Communication Patterns Measure, the instrument consists of a 26-item self-report questionnaire using a 5-point Likert response format. Fifteen items address conversation orientation and indicate the degree to which open communication is emphasized within an individual’s family. Eleven questions focus on conformity orientation and are indicative of families that place an emphasis on parental power, harmonious interpersonal relations, homogeneous beliefs within the family, and avoidance of conflict. There is little doubt as to the importance of the RFCP and its place in communication studies. According to Graham
(2011), “The RFCP measure is perhaps the most widely used instrument in family communication research… [and] is internally consistent and capable of generating valid conclusions concerning family communication” (pp. 318-319).
In 2002, Koerner and Fitzpatrick reported a low to moderate negative correlation between the two dimensions, noting that they are distinct yet not independent of each other
(Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a). As a result of the continuous nature of these dimensions and their intersections, four distinct family types are identified: consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire.
In terms of reliability, several studies have produced consistently high alpha levels, with the conversation orientation subscale producing Cronbach alphas ranging from .84 to .92 and conformity orientation levels between .72 and .87. Fitzpatrick and Ritchie (1994) assessed the
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 22
test-retest reliability of the RFCP Instrument across three different age groups with a three-week gap between administrations and found alphas close to 1.00 for conversation and .73-.93 for conformity. Within this sample, reliability of these measures produced prototypical values for this reputable instrument. Alpha scores of .92 for conversation orientation and .82 for conformity further validated the reliability of this popular and proven measure.
Participants
Respondents were 335 students, enrolled in a basic communication course at a medium- sized Midwestern university. The mean age of the sample was 20.38 (SD= 5.799) with a range from 18 to 55. Of the respondents, 146 (43.5%) were men, 185 (55.1%) were women, and 4
(1.2%) identified as other or preferred not to say. Most (84.2%) were Caucasian, 10 (3%) were
African American, 18 (5.4%) were Asian/Pacific Islander, 12 (3.6%) were Hispanic, and 11
(3.3%) classified themselves as multi-ethnic or “other”. The sample also consisted of 191
(57.0%) respondents who indicated they grew up in a rural community while 144 (43.0%)
indicated they were raised in an urban environment. A majority of the respondents 256 (76.4%)
reported having grown up in a home where their parents were married living in the same
household. Thirty-two (9.5%) said they split time with their parents, while 32 (9.6%) reported
having lived with only Mom and 5 (1.5%) with only Dad. All respondents received extra credit
for their participation.
Procedure
Potential respondents were emailed a link to an anonymous survey. After indicating their
consent to participate, they answered the remaining survey questions. At the conclusion of the
survey, respondents were provided the opportunity to link to a separate survey to record their
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 23 identifying information. This final step enabled them to receive extra credit for their participation, while keeping their answers separate from any identifying information.
Results
As noted above, the demographic breakdown (Table 1) indicated that respondents were mostly female (55.1%), Caucasian (84.2%), neither liberal nor conservative (36.7%), from rural areas (57%), raised in a household with both parents married (76.2%), not eligible to vote in the last election (46.3%), and not veterans (97.6%). Respondents had an average age of 20.38.
Table 1: Sample Demographics
Prefer not to Gender: Male-146 (43.6%) Female-185 (55.1%) Non-Binary-3 (.9%) say- 1 (.3%)
African- Multi-
Ethnicity: White-283 (84.2%) Asian-18 (5.4%) Hispanic-12 (3.6%) American-10 ethnic/Other-
(3.0%) 15 (4.5%)
Did not Parents married living in Split time with parents- Only lived with Mom-32 Only Dad-5 Family Origin: specify-10 same house-256 (76.2%) 32 (9.6%) (9.6%) (1.5%) (1.8%)
Served in No-325 (97.6%) Yes-8 (2.4%) Armed Forces:
Political Don’t pay attention-77 Independent-43 Other-23 Democrat-100 (29.9%) Republican-92 (27.5%) Affiliation: (23.0%) (12.8%) (6.9%)
Very Social Neither liberal or Conservative-92 Very Liberal-24 Liberal-83 (24.8%) Conservative- Affiliation: conservative-123 (36.7%) (27.5%) (7.2%) 13 (3.9%)
Rural vs. Rural-191 (57.0%) Urban-144 (43.0%) Urban:
Eligible but didn’t-58 Not eligible to vote-155 Voted Yes-122 (36.4%) (17.3%) (46.3%)
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 24
Pearson correlations between continuous variables (see Table 2) revealed several
interesting relationships. Likelihood of having a dominant parent correlated significantly with
having a nurturing parent [r (332) = .22, p < .001]. Considering over 76% of the sample came
from households consisting of two parents married and living together, one could surmise that
most respondents had one dominant and one nurturing parent growing up. Likelihood of having a
dominant parent also was associated with likelihood of owning a gun in the next year [r (243) =
.20, p = .001], having favorable perceptions about guns [r (327) = .18, p = .001], having more family socialization about guns [r (329) = .16, p < .01], and higher conformity scores [r (325) =
.32, p < .001]. On the other hand, having a nurturing parent or parents was associated with a strong conversation-oriented family communication style [r (323) = .30, p < .001], more family socialization about guns [r (331) = .17, p < .01], and greater liking for parents [r (330) = .39, p <
.001].
Liking of parents was significantly related to both family socialization [r (331) = .30, p <
.001] and conversation orientation [r (319) = .48, p < .001]. As mentioned above, liking of parents had a significant negative correlation to conformity orientation [r (324) = -.28, p < .001].
The strongest significant correlation occurred between likelihood of owning a gun in the next year and having favorable perceptions about guns [r (242) = .65, p < .001]. Those who reported a high likelihood of owning a gun in the next year also scored higher on family socialization about guns [r (246) = .30, p < .001].
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 25
Table 2: Initial Correlations Dominant Nurturing Like my Likely to Gun Family Conversa- Parent Parent Parent(s) Own Gun Perception Socialization tion Conformity Dominant Pearson 1 .220** -.005 .203** .183** .159** -.045 .320** Parent Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .933 .001 .001 .004 .422 .000 N 332 331 330 243 327 329 320 325 Nurturing Pearson .220** 1 .386** .120 .008 .166** .303** -.008 Parent Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .061 .885 .002 .000 .885 N 331 334 330 244 328 331 323 328 Like my Pearson -.005 .386** 1 .127* .130* .299** .476** -.275** Parent(s) Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .933 .000 .049 .019 .000 .000 .000 N 330 330 330 241 325 327 319 324 Likely to Own Pearson .203** .120 .127* 1 .645** .295** -.010 -.057 Gun Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .061 .049 .000 .000 .873 .378 N 243 244 241 246 242 246 236 240 Gun Pearson .183** .008 .130* .645** 1 .252** .009 -.092 Perception Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .885 .019 .000 .000 .871 .099 N 327 328 325 242 330 327 318 323 Family Pearson .159** .166** .299** .295** .252** 1 .341** .056 Socialization Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .002 .000 .000 .000 .000 .316 N 329 331 327 246 327 333 321 326 Conversation Pearson -.045 .303** .476** -.010 .009 .341** 1 -.256** Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .422 .000 .000 .873 .871 .000 .000 N 320 323 319 236 318 321 324 320 Conformity Pearson .320** -.008 -.275** -.057 -.092 .056 -.256** 1 Correlation Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .885 .000 .378 .099 .316 .000 N 325 328 324 240 323 326 320 329 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 26
A significant correlation was uncovered between family socialization and FCP conversation orientation [r (321) = .34, p < .001]. As further validation of the use of the FCPI, a negative correlation was observed between conversation orientation and conformity orientation
[r (320) = -.26, p < .001]. As much of the sample was found to have high scores for family socialization about guns, the differences came in their perceptions of their parents and the way their family communicates at home. Keeping in mind the significant correlation between those who reported both dominant and nurturing parents, those who reported having nurturing parents were found to also like their parents and to have experienced a more conversation-oriented family communication style. Those with dominant parents were more likely to own a gun in the next year, have more favorable perceptions about guns, and be more prone to a conformity- oriented family communication style.
Research Questions Testing
The first research question looked to compare perceptions about guns between gun owners and non-gun owners. Although the answer to this question may seem obvious, it is useful as a measure of the attitudes of this specific sample as it verifies assumptions about the difference between gun and non-gun owners, subsequently laying the groundwork to answer the remaining research questions. RQ1 was addressed using an independent samples t-test, with gun ownership as the grouping variable and perceptions about guns as the dependent variable. Not surprisingly, gun owners had significantly more positive perceptions about guns [t (234) = -9.27, p < .001], thereby confirming what would normally be assumed in this comparison.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 27
The second research question looked to distinguish between the family socialization experiences of gun and non-gun owners. To test this, an independent samples t-test was conducted. Gun owners in this sample scored significantly higher on this measure [t (235) = -
6.01, p < .001], indicating a higher level of inter-family communication about firearms and rituals and a greater influence passed down from generation to generation among gun owners.
To address the third research question, which asked whether gun and non-gun owners had different family communication patterns, two independent samples t-tests were performed. The first test used gun ownership as the grouping variable and conversation orientation as the dependent variable. The results of this test indicated no significant differences between gun owners and non-gun owners with regard to individual conversation orientation tendencies
[t (231) = .32, ns]. The second test used gun ownership as the grouping variable and conformity orientation was the dependent variable. Again, no discernable differences between the groups were observed [t (237) = .53, ns].
The fourth and final research question sought to predict individual likelihood of becoming or remaining a gun owner by taking into account an individual’s perceptions about the role of guns in society, the role of guns in one’s personal experience, family socialization, and family communication patterns. To do this, these four variables were entered into a stepwise regression equation (see Table 3) with the likelihood that someone will own a gun in the next year as the dependent variable. The only two significant predictors were perceptions about guns and family socialization. These two variables accounted for approximately 43% of the variance in scores about the likelihood of an individual owning a gun in the next twelve months.
Perceptions about guns made the strongest contribution to the model.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 28
Table 3: Regression Results
Model Summary Adjusted R Model R R Square Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .644a .414 .412 1.220 2 .660b .435 .430 1.201 a. Predictors: (Constant), GunPercep b. Predictors: (Constant), GunPercep, FamSocialization
ANOVAa Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 234.815 1 234.815 157.699 .000b Residual 332.048 223 1.489 Total 566.862 224 2 Regression 246.696 2 123.348 85.528 .000c Residual 320.166 222 1.442 Total 566.862 224 a. Dependent Variable: GunLikNxtYr b. Predictors: (Constant), gunperception c. Predictors: (Constant), gunperception, FamSocialization
Coefficientsa Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 1 (Constant) -.924 .258 -3.581 .000 gunperception .127 .010 .644 12.558 .000 2 (Constant) -1.527 .329 -4.633 .000 gunperception .119 .010 .607 11.651 .000 FamSocialization .036 .012 .149 2.870 .004 a. Dependent Variable: GunLikNxtYr
While calculating means, other tests were run, the first relating to how respondents feel about their parents and whether they percieved their parents to fall into the dominant or nurturing
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 29
category. Interestingly, gun owners were more likely to agree they had a dominant parent
[t (240) = -3.52, p = .001], more likely to agree they had a nurturing parent [t (241) = -2.43, p <
.05], and liked their parents more [t (227) = -2.08, p < .05] than non-gun owners. In addition, a gender comparison found that women had more negative perceptions about guns [t (293) =
7.11, p < .001] than men.
Discussion
The results of this study reveal the sample and its respondents to be indicative of a predominantly rural population raised in traditional households. Cultural influences such as hunting provide insight as to the proliferation of guns among the sample as suggested by the strong influence of family socialization about guns. As expected, gun-owners come from families with strong histories of hunting rituals, gun use and accessibility, and a “strict-father” conformist family communication model while often simultaneously indicating the presence of a
“nurturing parent” in their life. Predictably, this group also indicated a strong likelihood to owning a gun in the next year and favorable feelings about firearms overall. However, gun- owners were also shown to have a strong tendency toward conversation about guns and an emphasis on gun safety. Non-gun owners were shown to have many of the same characteristics as their counterparts but those from both groups who indicated having “nurturing parents” generally liked their parents more and grew up in a house where conversations were frequent and open.
Little predictive power can be gleaned from the application of these measures as the only two significant predictors of gun ownership were family socialization about guns and perceptions about guns. In addition, the negligible differences in family communication styles between gun
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 30 owners and non-gun owners indicates that all else aside, the two are similar in many other facets which may be the most important finding. Outliers are present in every study and are often the focus of discussion as they are the extremists and radicals who dominate the divide. This process would indicate otherwise: that we are far more alike than different. Perhaps this should more often than not be our focus.
Very little research has been done on the topic of family communication and firearms.
Most of what has been studied has focused on consumer behavior from a marketing or business perspective as an attempt to understand how hunting rituals are passed down generationally
(Littlefield & Ozane, 2011). Statistically, firearms in the United States are primarily measured in ownership, involvement in crimes, and function or utility (Azrael, et al. 2016). As noted, not until recent years has the transition of gun ownership shifted from primarily hunting/collection to a larger number of people who purchase firearms for personal protection (Gramlich, 2018).
Perhaps the news media plays a part in this, as does the rise in mass shootings, the uncertainty of our personal saftey, and the individualistic nature of United States culture (Celinska, 2007). As we have seen, family socialization about guns and the research surrounding it tends to focus on the ritual of hunting for consumerism, but the question this study seeks to raise is where does it originate? The goal was to find determining factors prevalent in an individuals life that would help illuminate the origins of their feelings about guns. The study of family socialization has certainly indicated the influence of the family in child value acquisition as published in the works of Bandura, Lakoff, Grusec, Baxter, and Clark to name a few.
In addition, the application of the FCPI and RFCPI have been used for decades to study how families communicate with one another. Although the classifications are not static and can vary within samples, they do provide insight into the different ways in which families
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 31 communicate. They have been used to study communication apprehension, family rituals, conflict, and parent/child relationships and have developed into both valid and reliable measures of conversation and conformity orientation (Richie & Fitzpatrick, 1990; Baxter & Clark, 1996;
Elwood & Schrader, 1998; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002; Schrodt, et al. 2007).
In summary, family socialization, family communication patterns, and gun culture have all been studied and researched extensively over the past thirty years, but very little has been done to tie the three together. As we have seen, humans are social creatures who learn from those around them, aquire values, and who are shaped by their family units. Each of these circles or family units has a unique preference for how they communicate with one another, some more frequently and open, others more sparsely with one dominant “rule maker” to whom the rest are forced to conform. With the evolving gun culture in the United States as a lens through which to view the acquisition of individual firearm ideology, the importance of understanding the origins of these ideologies comes to the forefront. Only then will educated and civilized discourse about the role of guns in our lives be realized, paving the way for a deeper understanding of not only our differences but, most importantly, all that we have in common.
Limitations
This study proved to be more indicative of the local population and its deeply rooted hunting culture than previously thought. The homogeneity of the sample did not provide for the diversity necessary to identify differences about many of the corresponding variables. To be able to identify predictors about the influence of FCP and family socialization on individual feelings about guns, a more ethnically and culturally diverse group of respondents would be required.
Doing this would create a sample more resembling the rest of the country and allow for
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 32
comparisons with nationwide trends, as most gun survey data is conducted on a national scale.
In addition, the infancy of the family socialization measures has not allowed for its testing for
reliability across varying sample sizes. As in most surveys, respondent self-reporting can lead to inconsistencies and inaccurate data. Furthermore, the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and the
ripple effect upon respondents’ academic, professional, social, and personal lives likely
influenced the outcome of this study. Remote access to collaboration and faculty expertise, coupled with drastic changes in individual daily routines, deterred the fluidity of the project.
Finally, the uncharted territory and infancy of this type of study coupled with the relatively untested family socialization instrument could contribute to a lack of reliability, validity, and questionable conclusions based solely on the results of this exercise.
Future Research
Future research can hope to expand on this study through its application of a new measure of family socialization, existing usage of the RFCP instrument, and the examination of gun culture in the United States. Future studies will benefit from the ability to easily classify qualifying respondents using the FCPI and furthermore, confirm or refute correlations exhibited in this study. In addition, the importance of hunting as a ritual and as a social agent of feelings about guns would be one area of interest, particularly considering the predominance of hunting culture among this sample. The reliability of the RFCP has been tried and tested as both valid and reliable for nearly thirty years and can be used as a predictor for gun ownership, social affiliation, and perhaps eventually, feelings about guns with any number of combinations of variables providing new and exciting insight into the relationships among them. There is no doubt our feelings about guns originate from someone and somewhere along our lifelong social
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 33 spectrum. Most would argue those closest to us – normally family members – are at the heart of these feelings. Studying the impact of family socialization and how families and individuals communicate about difficult or sensitive topics, we can use reliable and valid methods to look for associations and differences. As one of the first studies of its kind, this research hopes to lay the groundwork for future social scientists who hope to uncover where polarizing feelings about guns originate and how ideologies are transmitted generationally.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 34
References Azrael, D., Hepburn, L., Hemenway, D., & Miller, M. (2016). The stock and flow of US firearms: Results
from the 2015 National Firearms Survey. Russell Sage Foundation Conference. New York.
Retrieved October 15, 2019, from
http://www.russellsage.org/sites/all/files/RSF_Journal?Cook_Pollack??Azrael_et_al.pdy
Bandura, A., & Walters, R. (1977). Social learning theory (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Baxter, L. A., & Clark, C. L. (1996). Perceptions of family communication patterns and the enactment of
family rituals. Western Journal of Communication, 60, 254-268.
Bell, R. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in the studies of socialization. Psychological
Review, 75, 81-95.
Bellesiles, M. A. (1996, September). The origins of gun culture in the United States. Journal of American
History, 83, 425-455.
Blanco, D. V. (2016). The gun control debate: Why experience and culture matters. International Journal
of Public Administration, 39, 620-634.
Burleson, B., Delia, J., & Applegate, J. (1995). The socialization of person-centered communication:
Parents' contributions to their children's social-cognitive and communication skills. In M.
Fitzpatrick, & A. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 34-76). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Carlson, J. (2015). Mourning Mayberry: Guns, masculinity, and socioeconomic decline. Gender and
Society, 29, 386-409.
Celinska, K. (2007). Individualism and collectivism in America: The case of gun ownership and attitudes
toward gun control. Sociological Perspectives, 50, 229-247.
Cramer, C. (2006). Armed America: The remarkable story of how and why guns became as American as
apple pie. Nashville, TN: Nelson Current.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 35
Defoster, R. (2010). American gun culture, school shootings, and a 'frontier mentality': An ideological
analysis of British editorial pages in the decade after Columbine. Communication, Culture, &
Critique, 3, 466-484.
DeFoster, R., & Swalve, N. (2018). Guns, culture, or mental health? Framing mass shootings as a mental
health crisis. Health Communication, 33, 1211-1222.
Elwood, T. D., & Schrader, D. C. (1998). Family communication patterns and communication
apprehension. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 493-502.
Elwood, T., & Schrader, D. (1998). Family communication patterns and communication apprehension.
Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 493-502.
Fitzpatrick , M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple
perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 275-301.
Fitzpatrick, M., & Koerner, A. (1997). Family communication schemata: Effects of children's resiliency.
In H. McCubbin (Ed.), Promoting resiliency in families and children at risk: Interdisciplinary
perspectives (pp. 1-24). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, M., & Ritchie, L. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple perspectives
on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 275-301.
Froese, P. (2016). On purpose: How we create the meaning of life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gecas, V. (1981). Contexts of socialization. Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives, 165-199.
Gilmore, R. (1999). “Another branch of manly sport”: American rifle games, 1840-1900. In J. E. Dizard,
R. M. Muth, & S. P. Andrews Jr. (Eds.), Guns in America: A reader (pp. 105-121). New York:
NYU Press.
Graham, E. E. (2011). Revised Family Communication Patterns Instrument (RFCP). In R. B. Rubin, A.
M. Rubin, E. E. Graham, E. M. Perse, & D. R. Seibold (Eds.), Communication research measures
II (pp. 314-323). New York, NY: Routledge.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 36
Gramlich, J. (2018, December 27). Facts about guns in the United States. www.pewresearch.org.
Retrieved from Pew Research Center: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/12/27/facts-
about-guns-in-united-states/
Grusec, J. (2002). Parental socialization and children's acquisition of values. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting Volume 5 practical issues in parenting (pp. 144-145). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Haag, P. (2016). The gunning of America: Business and the making of American gun culture. New York:
Basic Books.
Hamilton, D., Lemeshow, S., Saleska, J. L., Brewer, B., & Strobino, K. (2018). Who owns guns and how
do they keep them? The influence of household characteristics on firearms ownership and storage
practices in the United States. Preventive Medicine, 116, 134-142.
Harcourt, B. (2006). Language of the gun: Youth, crime, and public policy. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Hemenway, D. (2004). Private guns, public health. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Hofstadter, R. (1970). America as a gun culture. American Heritage, 21, 1-13.
Ingraham, C. (2018, June 19). “There are more guns than people in the United States”, The Washington
Post. Retrieved October 22, 2019, from www.washingtonpost.com:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-
in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/
Kemp, C. L. (2007). Grandparent-grandchild ties: Reflections on continuity and change across three
generations. Journal of Family Issues, 28, 855-881.
Kleck, G., Gertz, M., & Bratton, J. (2009). Why do people support gun control? Alternative explanations
of support for handgun bans. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37, 496-504.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. (2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication
Theory, 12, 70-91.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 37
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002a). Understanding family communication patterns and family
functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the
family. Communication Studies, 26, 37-69.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002b). You never leave your family in a fight: The impact of
family of origin on conflict behavior in romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 53, 234-
251.
Koerner, A. F., & Schrodt, P. (2014). An introduction to the special issue on family communication
patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 1,1-15.
Koerner, A., & Cvancara, K. (2002). The influence of conformity orientation on communication patterns
in family conversations. Journal of Family Communication, 3, 133-152.
Kuczynski, L., & Grusec, J. E. (1997). Future directions for a theory of parental socialization. In L.
Kuczynski, & J. E. Grusec (Eds.), Parenting and the internalization of values: A handbook of
contemporary theory (pp. 399-414). New York: Wiley.
Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, morality, and politics, or, why conservatives have left liberals in the dust.
Social Research, 2, 177-213.
Ledbetter, A. (2009). Family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior: Direct and
mediated associations with friendship closeness. Human Communication Research, 35, 130-147.
Littlefield, J., & Ozanne, J. L. (2011). Socialization into consumer culture: Hunters learning to be men.
Consumption Markets & Culture, 14, 333-360.
Lunceford, B. (2011). On the rhetoric of Second Amendment remedies. Journal of Contemporary
Rhetoric, 1, 31-39.
Lunceford, B. (2015). Armed victims: The ego function of Second Amendment rhetoric. Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, 18, 333-346.
Maccoby, E. E. (1992). The role of parents in the socialization of children: An historical overview.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 1006-1017.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 38
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, J. M. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American
Behavioral Scientist, 16, 469-499.
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The
social influence process (pp. 50-59). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
Mencken, F. C., & Froese, P. (2019). Gun culture in action. Social Problems, 66, 3-27.
Metzl, J. M., & MacLeish, K. (2015). Mental illness, mass shootings, and the politics of American
firearms. American Journal of Public Health, 105, 241-249.
Newcomb, T. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393-
404.
Noller, P. (1995). Explaining family interactions. In M. A. Fitzpatrick, & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.),
Explaining family interactions (pp. 77-11). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parker, K., Horowitz, J., Igielnik, R., Oliphant, B., & Brown, A. (2017). America's complex relationship
with guns. Pew Research Center.
Rasmussen, C. (2019). Final research paper. Unpublished manuscript.
Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring interpersonal
perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523-544.
Roth, R. (2002). Counting guns: What social science historians know and could learn about gun
ownership, gun culture, and gun violence in the United States. Social Science History, 26, 699-
708.
Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A., & Ohrt, J. (2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators of family
communication patterns and children's mental well-being. Journal of Family Communication, 7,
23-46.
Sillars, A., Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2005). Communication and understanding in parent-
adolescent relationships. Human Communication Research, 31,103-128.
Smith, C. (2003). Moral believing animals: Human personhood and culture. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 39
Stenross, B. (1994). Aesthetes in the marketplace: Collectors in the gun business. Qualitative Sociology,
17, 29-42.
Taylor, J. (2009). American gun culture: Collectors, shows, and the story of the gun. El Paso, TX: LFB
Scholarly Publishing.
Tsushima, T., & Gecas, V. (2001). Role-taking and socialization in single parent families. Journal of
Family Issues, 22, 267-288.
Tudge, J., & Scrimsher, S. (2003). Lev S. Vygotsky on education: A cultural-historical, interpersonal, and
individual approach to development. In B. J. Zimmerman, & D. H. Schunl (Eds.), Educational
Psychology: A century of contributions (pp. 207-28). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Turner, J., & Stets, J. (2005). The sociology of emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Utter, G. H., & True, J. L. (2000). The evolving gun culture in America. Journal of American and
Comparative Cultures, 23, 67-79.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wallace, L. N. (2017). Concealed ownership: Americans' perceived comfort sharing gun ownership status
with others. Sociological Spectrum, 37, 267-281.
Whitbeck, L. B., & Gecas, V. (1988). Value attributions and value transmission between parents and
children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50, 829-840.
Williams, J. S., & McGrath III, J. H. (1976). Why people own guns. Journal of Communication, 26, 22-
30.
Wright, J. (1995). Ten essential observations on guns in America. Society, 32, 63-68.
Yamane, D. (2017). The sociology of gun culture. Sociology Compass, 11, 1-10.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 40
Appendix A – Survey Instrument Gun Ownership and Perception
Start of Block: Block 4
Q28 Mr. Chris Rasmussen, a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point would appreciate your participation in a research study designed to explore the relationship between family communication patterns, gun ownership, and perceptions about guns. You are being asked to complete an anonymous survey that should take up no more than 10 minutes of your time. Your participation is completely voluntary. The benefit of this study is a greater knowledge about family communication patterns as they relate to guns in society. I anticipate no risk to you as a result of your participation in this study other than the inconvenience of the time to complete the survey. You could, however, experience some discomfort if you have had an uncomfortable experience with firearms and your completing the survey causes you to remember this. Some participants will be eligible for extra credit. Following the completion of the survey, participants will follow a link where they can record their name and course and section number to receive extra credit. All identifiable information gathered this way will be kept separate from survey results. The only individuals with access to this information will be myself, my committee chair Dr. Rhonda Sprague, and your course instructor, so that they can provide you with extra credit for your participation. After course instructors are notified all identifiable information will be destroyed or deleted. While this information could be obtained by interviewing you, I feel that a survey is the quickest and easiest method for obtaining this information. You may also choose not to participate as an alternative. The information that you provide on the questionnaire will be recorded in anonymous form. I will not release information that could identify you. All completed surveys will be kept in a secure password protected file folder and will not be available to anyone not directly involved in this study. Once the study is completed, you may receive the results of the study. If you would like these results, or if you have any questions in the meantime, please contact: Dr. Rhonda Sprague School of University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point Stevens Point, WI 54481 (715) 346-2812 [email protected] If you have any complaints about your treatment as a participant in this study or believe that you have been harmed in some way by your participation, please call or write: Anna Haines, PhD Professor, Natural Resource Planning Director, Center for Land Use Education 800 Reserve Street College of Natural Resources University of Wisconsin, Stevens Point and Extension Stevens Point, WI 54481 715.346.2386 [email protected] Although Dr. Haines will ask your name, all complaints are kept in confidence. https://www.uwsp.edu/acadaff/orsp/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc=/ac adaff/orsp/Documents/Informed%20Consent%20Instructions%20and%20Samples.docx&action =default
End of Block: Block 4
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 41
Start of Block: Demographics
Q30 Are you at least 18 years old? o Yes No o Skip To: End of Survey If Are you at least 18 years old? = No
Q1.2 Do you wish to participate in this study? o Yes No o Skip To: Q1.3 If Do you wish to participate in this study? = Yes Skip To: End of Survey If Do you wish to participate in this study? = No
Page Break
Q1.3 What is your age?
______
Q1.4 With which gender do you identify? o Male o Female o Non-binary o Other Prefer not to answer o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 42
Q1.5 With which ethnic group do you most identify? o White/Caucasian o Hispanic/Latinx o Black/African American o Native American or American Indian o Asian/Pacific Islander o Multi-ethnic Other o Q29 Which BEST describes your family origin? o My parents are/were married living in the same house o I only live/lived with my Mom o I only live/lived with my Dad o I split time between my two parents households o I live/lived with another relative or caregiver growing up One or both of my parents are deceased o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 43
Q33 Please mark your level of agreement with the following statements. Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly
agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree My family life was structured around a strong, dominant parental figure or figures, who assumed that children needed to be disciplined o o o o o to be made into responsible adults. My family life was structured around a nurturing parent or parents who worked to keep essentially good children away from o o o o o corrupting influences. I generally like my parents or those who primarily raised me. o o o o o
Q1.6 Have you ever served in the U.S. Armed Forces? o Yes No o
Q1.7 Did you vote in the last election? o Yes, I did. o I was eligible, but I did not vote. I was not eligible to vote in the last election. o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 44
Q1.8 Which BEST describes your current political affiliation? o Republican o Democrat o Independent o Other (Green, Libertarian, etc.) I do not pay attention to political matters (apolitical). o
Q1.9 Which BEST describes your current social affiliation? o Very conservative o Conservative o Neither conservative nor liberal o Liberal Very liberal o
Q1.10 Which BEST describes the area where you were raised? o Rural Urban o End of Block: Demographics
Start of Block: Firearms
Q2.1 We would like to know your feelings about a number of issues related to guns and gun culture. Please remember that any information you provide is anonymous.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 45
Q2.2 Which of the following statements BEST reflects your experience with guns? o I have never handled or shot a gun. o I occasionally have handled and shot guns. I regularly handle and shoot guns. o Skip To: Q2.9 If Which of the following statements BEST reflects your experience with guns? = I have never handled or shot a gun.
Q2.3 How many guns do you own? o None o 1 - 3 4 or more o
Display This Question: If How many guns do you own? != None
Q2.4 Do your parents know you own a gun? o Yes No o
Display This Question: If How many guns do you own? != None
Q2.5 Do your friends know you own a gun? o Yes No o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 46
Display This Question: If How many guns do you own? != None
Q2.6 Have you taken a gun safety course? o Yes No Displayo This Question: If How many guns do you own? != None Q2.7 Do you keep your gun(s) locked up (e.g., in a safe or with a trigger lock)? o Yes No Displayo This Question: If How many guns do you own? != None Q2.8 What is the PRIMARY reason you own one or more guns? o Hunting o Personal Protection o Collection o Target/Sport shooting Other o Q30 I am likely to own a gun in the next year. o Strongly agree o Somewhat agree o Neutral or not sure o Disagree Strongly disagree o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 47
Q32 What is the PRIMARY reason you are likely to own a gun in the next year? o I am not likely to own a gun in the next year o Hunting o Personal protection o Collection o Target/Sport shooting Other o
Q31 I think my feelings about guns could change in the future. o Strongly agree o Somewhat agree o Neutral or not sure o Disagree Strongly disagree o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 48
Q2.9 Please mark your level of agreement with the following statements about guns. Strongly Neither Agree Strongly Agree Disagree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Shooting guns is a good recreational activity. o o o o o Guns are dangerous. Guns are necessary o o o o o for personal protection. o o o o o Guns are exhilarating. o o o o o Guns make valuable collectors' items. o o o o o Guns scare me. o o o o o Guns serve no real purpose in society. o o o o o Guns are destructive. o o o o o Guns are necessary. o o o o o Guns intimidate me.
o o o o o
Page Break
End of Block: Firearms
Start of Block: Family Socialization
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 49
Q3.1 Hunting was my first exposure to gun culture. o Strongly agree o Agree o Neutral or not sure o Disagree Strongly disagree o
Q3.2 I have similar perceptions about guns as my friends. o Strongly agree o Agree o Neutral or not sure o Disagree Strongly disagree o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 50
Q3.4 Please indicate your level of agreement with Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly each of the agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree following statements about your family. My parents, grandparents, and I feel the same way about guns. o o o o o My parents, grandparents, and I feel the same way about most controversial o o o o o topics. I believe I inherited many of my parents' beliefs about guns. o o o o o My parents played a large role in how I feel about most controversial topics. o o o o o I don't remember my family talking about guns much growing up. o o o o o I believe my grandparents played a large role in how my parents feel about controversial o o o o o topics. My family has some traditions passed down from generations. o o o o o My family shares similar beliefs about controversial topics. o o o o o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 51
My family has talked openly about guns for as long as I can remember. o o o o o
End of Block: Family Socialization
Start of Block: Revised Family Communication Patterns Instrument
Q4.1 The following items relate to what it was like growing up in your family.
Q4.2 Please indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements about your family.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 52
Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly Strongly agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree In our family we often talk about topics like politics and religion where some persons o o o o o disagree with others My parents often say something like, "Every other member of the family should have some say o o o o o in family decisions." My parents often ask my opinion when the family is talking about o o o o o something. My parents encourage me to challenge their ideas and beliefs. o o o o o My parents often say something like, "You should always look at both sides of o o o o o an issue." I usually tell my parents what I am thinking about things. o o o o o I can tell my parents almost anything. o o o o o
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 53
In our family we often talk about our feelings and emotions. o o o o o My parents and I often have long, relaxed conversations about nothing o o o o o in particular. I really enjoy talking with my parents, even when we disagree. o o o o o My parents encourage me to express my feelings. o o o o o My parents tend to be very open about their emotions. o o o o o We often talk as a family about things we have done during the day. o o o o o In our family, we often talk about our plans and hopes for the o o o o o future. My parents like to hear my opinion, even when I don't agree with o o o o o them. When anything important is involved, my parents expect me to obey without o o o o o question.
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 54
In our home, my parents usually have the last word. o o o o o My parents feel like it is important to be the boss. o o o o o My parents sometimes become irritated with my views if they are o o o o o different from theirs. If my parents don't approve of it, they don't want to know about it. o o o o o When I am at home, I am expected to obey my parents' rules. o o o o o My parents often say things like, "You'll know better when o o o o o you grow up." My parents often say things like, "There are some things that just o o o o o shouldn't be talked about." My parents often say things like, "A child should not argue with o o o o o adults."
PREDICTING ATTITUDES ABOUT GUNS 55
My parents often say things like, "You should give in on arguments rather than risk o o o o o making people mad." In our family we often talk about our feelings and emotions. o o o o o
End of Block: Revised Family Communication Patterns Instrument
Start of Block: Block 5
Q31 Thank you for participating. In order to receive extra credit, please follow the link below https://uwsp.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5C2hvTTLB8c5dm5
End of Block: Block 5