Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families Kathleen M

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Papers in Communication Studies Communication Studies, Department of

2014 Theory and Research From the Communication Field: Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families Kathleen M. Galvin Northwestern University

Dawn O. Braithwaite University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers Part of the Critical and Cultural Studies Commons, Gender, Race, Sexuality, and Ethnicity in Communication Commons, and the Other Communication Commons

Galvin, Kathleen M. and Braithwaite, Dawn O., "Theory and Research From the Communication Field: Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families" (2014). Papers in Communication Studies. 82. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/commstudiespapers/82

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Communication Studies, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Papers in Communication Studies by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (March 2014), pp 97–111. doi 10.1111/jftr.12030 Copyright © 2014 National Council on Family Relations; published by John Wiley & Sons Inc. Used by permission.

digitalcommons.unl.edu Theory and Research From the Communication Field: Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families

Kathleen M. Galvin Northwestern University 1

Dawn O. Braithwaite University of Nebraska–Lincoln 2

1 School of Communication, 2240 Campus Drive, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208–3545; email [email protected] 2 Department of Communication Studies, 430 Oldfather Hall, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln NE 68588–0329; email [email protected]

Abstract From the disciplinary perspective of communication studies, we review theory and research in family communication, including a brief history of the family communication field; the contributions of a family communication perspective; and 5 theories of family communication: communication accommodation theory, communication privacy management theory, family communication patterns theory, narrative theor(ies), and relational dialectics theory. We then illustrate the concept of discourse dependence in family communication processes and discuss current trends in family communication research. We also suggest emerging directions for family communication scholarship. Keywords: communication theories, discourse dependent families, family communication, family diversity, family identity

Family communication scholars belong to a vibrant and discourse dependence and family communication pro- inherently interdisciplinary field with strong commit- cesses, (e) current research trends in family communi- ments to translational scholarship. Although our goal cation, and (f) emerging directions in family communi- in writing this review is to focus on family scholarship cation scholarship. from the communication field, we recognize that schol- Communication researchers may conceptualize the ars across several disciplines, such as family studies, hu- family through lenses of role, as well as socio-legal and man development, psychology, and sociology, also have biogenetic lenses (Floyd, Mikkelson, & Judd, 2006), but examined communication questions related to fami- for most communication scholars, families are consti- lies. Previous surveys of the literature have taken a mul- tuted in interaction and talked into (and out of) being; tidisciplinary approach to family communication (e.g., families form, negotiate, change, and dissolve via inter- Stamp & Shue, 2013); however, in this review, we dis- action (Baxter, 2004; Craig, 1999). For many scholars, cuss the contributions of a family communication per- practitioners, and family members themselves, this perspective, including (a) history of the family communica- spective opens up what it means to be a family, includ- tion field, (b) contributions of a family communication ing not only families formed by blood or law but also perspective, (c) theories of family communication, (d) those formed by communicatively negotiated bonds

97 98 Galvin & Braithwaite in Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (2014) of affection, interdependence, history, and long-term When family therapy scholars introduced the in- commitment (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006a). For exam- teractive concepts of family systems and multigener- ple, Galvin, Bylund, and Brommel (2012) offer this defi- ational transmission of interaction patterns, the Palo nition of families: ‘‘Networks of people who share their Alto Group’s interaction studies, for example, led to lives over long periods of time bound by marriage, blood, major conceptual advances in communication the- or commitment, legal or otherwise, who consider them- ory and research. Family therapy pioneers, such as Vir- selves as family and who share a significant history and ginia Satir (1964), author of Conjoint Family Therapy, anticipated futures of functioning in a family relation- and Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, and Donald Jack- ship’’ (p. 8). Discourses of both stability and change char- son (1967), coauthors of Pragmatics of Human Commu- acterize the family communication field as scholars both nication, developed therapeutic approaches focused on extend established research areas and break new ground. family interaction patterns. The field’s early years also coincided with the rise of the self-improvement movement’s focus on teaching communication skills to cou- History of the Family Communication Discipline ples and parents, which affected early scholarly research programs (Mace, 1982; Mace & Mace, 1975). During the Family communication emerged as an academic field 1960s and 1970s, Jules Henry’s (1973) Pathways to Mad- within the broader discipline of communication in the ness and Kantor and Lehr’s (1975) Inside the Family iden- 1970s, and more than 40 years later it represents a rap- tified processes characteristic of healthy and unhealthy idly expanding scholarly area in communication studies. family interactions. The family therapist Froma Walsh Three major factors contributed to its development: (a) (1982) called for studying the complexities of everyday expanding research on interpersonal communication, family life to identify characteristics of ‘‘normal’’ family (b) advances in the field of family therapy and the self- functioning. Research on developmental stages, family improvement movement, and (c) increased scholarly at- structures, and ethnicity and culture flourished during tention to functional family interactions. this period. Interpersonal communication emerged from the By the early 1980s marital interaction research, in- group dynamics and general semantics movements of cluding marital typologies (Fitzpatrick, 1987, 1988), the 1930s and 1940s and the development of symbolic in- decision-making styles (Sillars & Kalbfleisch, 1988), teraction theory, the position that the self emerges out and relational control and coding work (Rogers & of interactions with significant others (Knapp, Daly, Al- Farace, 1975) appeared in communication and psy- bada, & Miller, 2002). Although much of the early in- chology journals. When the first family communica- terpersonal communication research was centered on tion textbook, Family Communication: Cohesion and dating and friendship dyads (given the availability of Change (Galvin & Brommel, 1982), was published, the undergraduate populations to researchers), interper- authors relied extensively on concepts and research sonal communication scholars soon expanded their fo- from psychology, sociology, and counseling. The Com- cus to the marital dyad (e.g., Fitzpatrick, 1987, 1988). mission on Family Communication began at the Na- During the 1970s, interpersonal communication schol- tional Communication Association in the early 1980s ars called for studies of long-term, committed relation- and brought together scholars, especially from the ships in place of short-term, collegiate relational ties and broader study of interpersonal communication, whose called for scholars to broaden their focus beyond dyadic interest was in family. relationships. Thus, scholarship focusing on communi- The 1990s brought an explosion of research that cation in family systems emerged within the discipline at moved beyond initial marital interaction as scholars be- this time, influenced by the publication of ‘‘Conceptual gan to study the constitutive function of communication, Frontiers in the Study of Communication in Families’’ examining communication across the family life cycle, (Bochner, 1976). Early family communication scholars a wide range of family communication processes, and represented a range of backgrounds, including interper- a breadth of family communication contexts. Theories sonal communication, instructional communication, developed by interpersonal relations scholars contrib- and counseling. uted to family communication scholarship. In addition, Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families 99 family communication scholars increasingly broadened then, persons and relationships are not analytically sep- the topics studied and the family forms and processes arable from communication; instead, communication under analysis. constitutes these phenomena. . . . Put simply, relation- Family communication achieved divisional status at ships are constituted in communication practices’’ (p. 3). the National Communication Association in 1989 and Craig (1999) argued for the importance of taking a con- has experienced healthy growth ever since, with a cur- stitutive approach to communication, paving the way for rent membership of 425. The inaugural issue of Journal the discipline to make a greater scholarly contribution of Family Communication in 2001 represented a major and to apply theory to everyday life. step forward. By the time Braithwaite and Baxter pub- While family communication scholars have argued lished Engaging Theories in Family Communication in for the value of a constitutive focus on communication, 2006, close to half of the theories included in their ed- outside of ethnographic approaches, it is challenging ited volume originated in the communication discipline. to study communication this way. Scholars across para- At the turn of the 21st century, communication scholars digms and methodologies are working on different ways had begun to study diverse family forms in varying con- to examine and understand communication as consti- texts and increasingly focused a critical lens on family tutive of families, for example, using data collection interaction. methodologies such as diaries and focus groups, obser- vations of family interactions, analysis of web-based interactions, and the development of sophisticated models. Contributions of a Family Communication Such family communication scholarship may be found Perspective in communication journals, most notably, Journal of Family Communication. Related work appears in inter- A scan of popular media and the research literature offers national and national communication journals, such as a picture of family as a contested concept (Floyd, Mikkel- Communication Monographs, Journal of Applied Com- son, & Judd, 2006), necessitating a wide lens to explore munication Research, and journals associated with re- how groups of people outside traditional structures of gional communication associations, such as the Western blood and law constitute and function as a family. Com- Journal of Communication. While family communica- munication scholars have made a unique contribution tion scholars have published a number of research re- to this conversation by focusing on ‘‘talking family,’’ that ports in interdisciplinary journals focusing on personal is, how families are socially constructed, negotiated, and relationships, particularly in Journal of Social and Per- legitimated in the discourse of relational parties (Baxter, sonal Relationships and Personal Relationships, family 2004, 2011; Leeds-Hurwitz, 2006). This is especially im- communication scholarship is also found in interdisci- portant for nontraditional families (Galvin, 2006), such plinary family outlets, for example, Journal of Marriage as same-sex, cohabiting, or stepfamilies, as they are in- and Family, Family Relations, Journal of Family Theory creasingly reliant on interaction to define and legitimate & Review, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, and Jour- the family to those inside the family and in the broader nal of GLBT Family Studies. social network, and need to negotiate roles and expectations that more traditional families may take for granted. As we have acknowledged, scholars across multiple Theories Originating in Communication Studies disciplines study communication variables relevant to family processes. Most often they examine communi- Family communication scholars engage a wide variety cation from a message transmission model with com- of theories developed in communication studies and munication functioning as an antecedent variable (Bax- allied disciplines. We highlight five of the most robust ter, 2004). In contrast, family communication scholars theories developed in family communication: com- conceptualize communication as the primary, consti- munication accommodation theory, communication tutive social process by which personal, relational, and privacy management theory, family communication family identity is formed, enacted, and managed. Bax- patterns theory, narrative theor(ies), and relational di- ter (2004) explained, ‘‘From a constitutive perspective, alectics theory. Family communication patterns theory 100 Galvin & Braithwaite in Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (2014) and communication privacy management theory orig- too loudly or using baby talk with an elderly person, or inated in family communication; however, the other underaccommodate, not listening or attending to one’s three theories, while originating in interpersonal com- own agenda in the interaction. munication, were quickly applied to the family context The theory has been used quite fruitfully to study as well. Four of these theories appeared in Baxter and family communication, for example, to study the posi- Braithwaite’s (2006a) analysis of the top five theories tive effects of accommodative communication for both used to guide family communication scholarship from grandchildren and grandparents (Soliz, 2007; Soliz & 1990 to 2004. We substituted communication accom- Harwood, 2006), among stepchildren and their non- modation theory for the fifth theory on their list (rela- residential parent’s family (DiVerniero, 2013), and in tional communication), which was very important to multiracial and multiethnic families (Soliz, Thorson, & the development of family communication but has seen Rittenour, 2009). Studying communication and accom- more limited use past the 1990s. Communication ac- modation in families is an important enterprise as schol- commodation theory is a robust theory that has sparked ars seek to explore shared family identity, especially in significant lines of research. outgroup contexts, and the application of CAT will continue to grow.

Communication Accommodation Theory Communication Privacy Management Theory Communication accommodation theory (CAT) began as a theory of how language creates or diminishes so- Frustrated by some of the limitations of self-disclosure cial distances between persons, and it has developed research to explain and predict the complexities of how into an interpersonal communication theory that has relational partners and family members navigate private been applied across different contexts, including fami- information, Petronio (2002, 2010) developed commu- lies (Giles, 2008). The theory is concerned with the ways nication privacy management (CPM) theory to explain people accommodate or communicatively adapt to oth- how relational parties make decisions about revealing ers, focused on intergroup communication and on how and concealing information. The theory uses a boundary and why persons adapt, or accommodate, their speech metaphor to represent highly nuanced principles of the behavior depending on their perceptions of group theory that we can cover in only general terms here: (a) membership of self and other(s) (Harwood, Soliz, & ownership (understanding private information as owned; Lin, 2006). This is important to understand in families one opens and closes boundaries, granting co-ownership that are made up of intergroup relationships (e.g., in- to others); (b) privacy rules (controlling access to privacy law relationships, intergenerational relationships, mul- boundaries by developing and enacting privacy rules, us- ticultural relationships). When trying to reduce social ing criteria of motivations, gender, culture, contexts, and distance with another, people may accommodate to- risk–benefit ratio that help one make judgments about ward another by convergence, for example, by approx- granting access to information); (c) shared boundaries imating or speaking more like the other, switching to (maintaining dyadic, family, group, organizational and the other person’s dialect, or using similar nonverbal cultural boundaries around co-owned information); (d) behaviors as the other (Li, 2001). boundary coordination (relational and family members Scholars have summarized sociolinguistic accom- coordinating and co-managing private information in modation as (a) approximation (adapting communica- their boundary linkages; as boundaries become more tion to converge or diverge), (b) discourse management permeable, third parties are granted more access) (Pet- (adapting on the basis of conversational needs), (c) in- ronio & Durham, 2008); and (e) boundary turbulence terpretability (accommodation based on perceptions of (when privacy rules are not coordinated or are not fol- the others’ abilities), and (d) interpersonal control (ac- lowed, privacy turbulence occurs, which can result in commodation based on perceptions of power) (see Giles, negative ramifications for the relationship or family). 2008; Harwood et al., 2006). In using any of these strate- The CPM theory has been applied to enlighten a wide gies, people may overaccommodate, for example, talking variety of issues and contexts in family communication, Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families 101 for example, marital interaction (Petronio & Jones, families characterized by interactions emphasizing uni- 2006), the decision of whether to have children (Dur- formity of beliefs and attitudes, harmony, and conflict ham & Braithwaite, 2009), and in postdivorce and step- avoidance. Low conformity orientation reflects interac- families (Afifi, 2003). The theory has been especially tions that display heterogeneous attitudes and beliefs re- adept in helping to enlighten the complexities of reveal- flecting independence and individuality. Later research ing and concealing information within families, for ex- linked the communication and conformity orientations ample, in cases of child sexual abuse (Petronio, Reeder, to four characterizations of family types (Koerner & Fitz- Hecht, & Mon’t Ros-Mendoza, 1996), or how physicians patrick, 2006). These family styles may be imagined on reveal their medical mistakes to family members (Pet- axes. The vertical axis runs from high conversation ori- ronio, 2006). While self-disclosure researchers often fo- entation to low conversation orientation, and the hori- cus on the perspective of the discloser, communication zontal axis runs from low conformity orientation to high researchers interested in privacy also enlighten the per- conformity orientation. spective of the recipient of private information and rea- Consensual families rate high in conversation and sons for topic avoidance (e.g., Caughlin & Afifi, 2004) and conformity. Some members experience pressure to family secrets (e.g., Vangelisti, 1994; Vangelisti, Caughlin, agree as well as encouragement to communicate openly & Timmerman, 2001). Communication privacy manage- and explore new ideas. Parents listen to children and ment is a dynamic theory with heuristic value for family then explain their decisions. Members avoid strong communication and beyond. conflicts. Decisions rest with the parent(s), although members express their respective positions. Pluralis- tic families are high in conversation and low in confor- Family Communication Patterns Theory mity. Members engage in open and unrestrained discussions across a wide range of topics. Parents are not Family communication patterns theory emerged from invested in control; children wield power in decisions. mass media research exploring how parents socialize Independence is valued. Although open conflict occurs, their children to process mediated information and was members tend to use positive conflict resolution strat- adapted by scholars interested in general family commu- egies. These families hold open discussions and con- nication patterns (Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994). Family sider ideas or concerns of all members when making researchers developed the Revised Family Communica- decisions. Protective families present as low on con- tion Patterns (RFCP) instrument, which establishes two versation and high on conformity. Parents expect chil- dimensions of family communication: conversation ori- dren to respond to their authority without negotiations. entation and conformity orientation. The interaction of Little open communication occurs; parents make de- these two dimensions creates four family types that are cisions and see little value in discussion. Finally, lais- qualitatively different: consensual, pluralistic, protective, sez-faire families are low in both conversation and con- and laissez-faire (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006). Each ori- formity. Members raise few topics and actively discuss entation ranges from high to low. even fewer. Emotional separation characterizes many First, conversation orientation describes the degree of these families as children make many decisions and to which family members are encouraged to participate adults are responsible for their own decisions. These in unrestrained interaction about a wide array of top- patterns serve to limit conflict. ics. A high conversation orientation suggests that family members speak freely and frequently with few limitations regarding time spent in interaction and topics Narrative Theor(ies) discussed. Low conversation orientation reflects less frequent interaction, and limited topics are openly dis- Family storytelling embodies sense making; members cussed; conformity is valued. Second, conformity orien- recount and account for their life experiences. Many tation depicts the degree to which family members func- communication-oriented narrative researchers rely tion within a climate of homogeneity of attitudes, values, heavily on an interpretive approach. Essentially, family and beliefs. A high conformity orientation describes stories construct family identity (Koenig Kellas, 2005) 102 Galvin & Braithwaite in Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (2014)

as they support memories, create belonging and iden- as negative but rather as at the core of relational life, un- tity, teach expected behaviors and values, develop fam- avoidable and essential to family functioning. ily culture, and provide stability across generations. Relational dialectics theory was developed by Les- Storytelling serves as a display of family identity. Many lie Baxter and Barbara Montgomery (1996) and fur- family communication researchers focus on adoption ther developed by Baxter (2011), who traced the roots narratives (Harrigan, 2010); others address topics such of the theory to the work in dialogism by the Russian as ethnicity, health, or entertainment. But family com- cultural and literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin. In Bax- munication scholars also go beyond the story to the sto- ter and Braithwaite’s (2006a) survey of the family com- rytelling process, because research suggests that both munication literature from 1990 to 2003, RDT was the are central to ‘‘creating, maintaining, understanding theory used most frequently by family communication and communicating personal relationships’’ (Koenig researchers. After the initial introduction of the the- Kellas, 2010, p. 1). ory, family communication scholars undertook projects Communication scholars address narrative perfor- wherein they identified contradictions in various re- mance because ‘‘storytelling is one way of doing fam- lationships, such as in stepfamilies (Braithwaite et al., ily’’ (Langellier & Peterson, 2006, p. 100). Studies of joint 2008), adoptive families (Harrigan, 2009), and families storytelling provide insight into how family and individ- with parents coping with the death of a child (Toller & ual identities emerge. Performances involve constraints Braithwaite, 2009). that both facilitate and restrict possibilities of who can Baxter (2011) concluded that scholarly work on rela- tell or listen, how stories can be told and listened to, tional dialectics needed to move beyond identifying con- and which meanings and identities matter. In participa- tradictions and to focus more centrally and critically on tory storytelling, performances incorporate shifting re- what she called ‘‘discursive struggles’’ of competing dis- lationships; the involvement of multiple performers re- courses, uncovering which discourses are centered and veals how family and individual identities are enacted. given voice and which are marginalized. This new ren- Performances reflect explicit and implicit rules that es- dition of RDT has taken a decidedly critical turn; for ex- tablish who speaks and/or listens, appropriate topics, ample, Baxter, Scharp, Asbury, Jannusch, and Norwood and how narrators share and enact roles. (2012) examined the discursive struggles in online narratives of birth mothers of adopted children, between identity constructions as bad mothers or resisting this Relational Dialectics Theory identity in favor of articulating birth mothers as good mothers or nonmothers. Relational dialectics theory (RDT) focuses on meaning Theorizing family communication is a work in prog- making of those in personal and family relationships as ress, and at the same time, scholars are encouraged by emerging from the interplay of competing discourses the number of theories developing in the field. In a study (Baxter, 2011). Discourses are those systems of mean- of family communication research published from 1990 ing at the level of the broader culture or localized in a to 2004, Baxter and Braithwaite (2006a) noted somewhat given relationship or family, by which interaction and re- better representation of research across paradigms: 76.1% lational life is made intelligible to those inside and out- of articles were in the postpositivist tradition (variable side of the relationship. Whenever parties interact, these analytic, focused on prediction or hypothesis testing); discourses interplay as multiple systems of meaning are 20.4%, interpretive (qualitative, focused on localized and invoked, and the discourses are often in opposition or contextualized meanings); and 3.5%, critical (focused on competition. For example, in a stepfamily, stepchildren power relationships and emancipation). By comparison, may face challenges as they navigate the cultural expec- interpretive and critical research has a smaller presence tations of family openness at the same time that they in the broader study of interpersonal communication are experiencing being ‘‘caught in the middle’’ between (83.2%, postpositivist). We echo their call for theory and their divorced parents who use the information against research that represents more fully the interpretive and each other (Braithwaite, Toller, Daas, Durham, & Jones, especially critical paradigms, the latter of which has been 2008). Scholars of RDT view competing discourses not almost nonexistent in the field of family communication. Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families 103

Discourse Dependence: Construction of Family identity when outsiders misunderstand or challenge Identities the validity of a specific family relationship. These four strategies, in order of imperative significance, include Family communication scholars have focused extensively (a) labeling, or creating titles or positions to indicate on the role communication plays in constructing con- the nature of a familial connection (e.g., calling a step- temporary families. Increasingly, families are formed by father ‘‘Dad’’ or lesbian mothers ‘‘Momma Sally’’ and ties other than biology and law. Extended longevity, ac- ‘‘Momma Ruth’’); (b) explaining, or rendering the re- companied by serial marriages, long-term cohabitation, lationship understandable to others (e.g., giving rea- reproductive technologies, voluntary kin, and varied sons for family terminology such as ‘‘My biological fa- adoption practices, creates a more accepting climate for ther left and Mom’s second husband is ‘Dad’ to me’’); family variability. These family forms, previously referred (c) legitimizing, or invoking law or custom to justify a to as ‘‘nontraditional,’’ appear increasingly normative, yet tie as genuine (e.g., ‘‘My parents adopted my deceased some members face unsettling challenges to their fam- aunt’s daughter, so Kacey is my sister’’); and (d) de- ily’s authenticity. Therefore, many members depend, in fending, or actively justifying a relationship against at- part or whole, on communication to ‘‘define themselves tack (e.g., responding to ‘‘Couldn’t you adopt a White for themselves’’ with respect to their family identity as child?’’ by saying, ‘‘Love trumps color—something you they interact with outsiders, and even with one another. would not understand’’). Family communication researchers frequently study how In discourse-dependent families, internal bound- members of discourse-dependent families strategically ary management involves using communication strat- interact to define their family form for those outside of egies to maintain members’ sense of family identity and the family and for themselves. ties. These include naming, or choosing names or ti- Family communication scholars emphasize the im- tles for persons considered family but who do not have portance of transactional process definitions of family to blood or legal ties (e.g., calling a grandmother’s sec- understand how families define themselves, rather than ond husband ‘‘Grandpa B,’’ where the B is for bonus); relying solely on genetic and sociological criteria. Such (b) discussing, or talking about the nature of special definitions involve viewing the family ‘‘as a group of inti- ties that bind certain persons to the family (e.g., con- mates who generate a sense of home and group identity, versations explaining the concept of known versus un- complete with strong ties of loyalty, emotion, and expe- known sperm donors); (c) narrating, or telling stories rience’’ (Fitzpatrick & Vangelisti, 1995, p. 254). Transac- that (re)present the family’s self-identity (e.g., repeat- tional definitions place a strong emphasis on communi- ing the complicated adoption saga that accompanied an cation while honoring a range of family forms; they rely international adoption); and (d) ritualizing, or involv- on ‘‘definitions of the family that depend on how fami- ing members in enactments of familial identity, rang- lies define themselves’’ (Fitzpatrick, 1998, p. 45). Because ing from holiday celebrations to ordinary routines (e.g., ‘‘our families, and our images for families, are constituted placing members’ names on Christmas stockings, par- through social interaction’’ (Vangelisti, 2013, p. x), this ticipating in a divorce ceremony). perspective renders all families ‘‘discourse dependent’’ Conversely, communication strategies may be used to (Galvin, 2006) and, with the decline of two-parent bio- dissolve or reject family ties (Galvin, 2009). This decon- logical families, language plays a greater role in defining struction process redefines family identity by distanc- the family. Discourse-dependent families have become ing from or eliminating certain persons who have rea- the new normal. son to be considered members. Such actions must be Galvin (2006) developed a framework that described reflected in 104Journal of Family Theory & Review delib- strategies through which family members communi- erate, patterned behavior over time. External boundary catively manage both their external and their inter- management involves labeling, explaining, delegitimiz- nal boundaries, and are key factors in managing fam- ing, and rejecting. Internal boundary management strat- ily identity. External boundary management involves egies include naming, discussing, narrating, and deritu- using communication strategies to reinforce family alizing. The conceptualization of discourse dependency 104 Galvin & Braithwaite in Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (2014) is not new, yet as families become increasingly complex, parties feel ‘‘caught in the middle’’), and the ongoing communication assumes greater significance in family interaction of co-parents (e.g., Afifi, 2003; Braithwaite self-definition and in ties among family members. Fam- et al., 2008). Given the difficulties that postdivorce re- ily communication scholars have focused significant relationship parties and stepfamilies face, scholars have search attention on diverse family forms, including post- focused on challenges, yet some scholars are studying divorce and stepfamilies, adoptive families, same-sex communication behaviors that promote growth and parent families, and multiethnic families. resilience.

Postdivorce and Stepfamilies Adoptive Families

Family communication scholars are working to under- Adoption is another exemplar of the communicative con- stand the central role of communication by which post- struction of family identity. Communication scholars divorce and stepfamilies interact and negotiate original have focused on families formed through international and new identities, relationships, and expectations con- and visible adoption and the role of adoption narratives cerning what it means to be a family. Researchers have and communication strategies in developing personal examined communication during the divorce process, identities and shared family history. For example, inter- including topic avoidance and privacy management, national and/or transracial adoptions present unique as well as negotiating postdivorce and co-parenting communicative challenges; outsiders confront parents, roles and expectations. For example, Afifi, McManus, siblings, or adoptees, openly questioning the validity of Hutchinson, and Baker (2007) discovered that exter- interracial and/or intercultural families (Docan-Morgan, nal factors like lack of control over stressors experi- 2010; Suter & Ballard, 2009). enced during the divorce process may lead to inappro- Adoptive parents also may struggle to create and nar- priate parental disclosures to their children. Schrodt rate birth or adoption stories to their children. For ex- and Ledbetter (2012) discovered that, by strengthen- ample, Krusiewicz and Wood (2001) studied adoptees’ ing their relationship with their children, parents can entrance stories and found five themes that emerged in help the children overcome negative effects from feel- parents’ narratives: destiny, compelling connection, res- ing caught between the parents. cue, legitimacy, and dialectical tensions. Other research- Communication scholars also have devoted research ers explored adult adoptees’ decisions about whether to attention to exploring the developmental pathways of search for birth parents to reduce uncertainty and the stepfamilies and have created and tested stepfamily ty- role of their adoptive parents in their decision making pologies. For example, Baxter, Braithwaite, and Nich- (Colaner & Kranstuber, 2010). A recent study examined olson (1999) examined the turning points in feeling online messages involving birth parents and prospective like a family over the first 4 years of stepfamily life and adoptive parents (Norwood & Baxter, 2011). identified five patterns of stepfamily development. Sch- rodt (2006) created a typology of five different stepfamily types and found significant differences in stepchil- LGBTQ Families dren’s communication competence and mental health symptoms across the family types. Family communi- The first study of families headed by gay and lesbian cation researchers have highlighted the central role of couples, written by family communication scholars, discourse in co-constructing and altering stepfamily appeared almost 20 years ago and provided a descrip- relationships via examining discursive struggles, rit- tive base of information and included data on paren- uals, and emotions. For example, family communica- tal ‘‘coming out’’ disclosures (West & Turner, 1995). tion scholars are focusing on how stepfamily mem- Later studies examined the nonbiological lesbian par- bers interact and navigate challenges, communication ent’s symbolic construction of a legitimate parent iden- and stepfamily roles (e.g., stepparents, stepchild), loy- tity (Bergen, Suter, & Daas, 2006), as well as how lesbian alty conflicts and triangulation (as different relational families also use family symbols (last names) and rituals Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families 105

(nightly neighborhood walks) strategically to represent research trends: (a) ritualizing and family communica- family identity. A recent study identified turning points tion, (b) dark side of family communication, (c) health in families headed by lesbian women: enacting strate- communication, and (d) work–family communication. gies for coming out to their children, managing chal- For a more comprehensive overview of family commu- lenges to family identity, and announcing commitment nication research and an extensive bibliography of more ceremonies or weddings (Breshears, 2010). A study of les- than 150 annotated sources, see Braithwaite, Galvin, bian mothers’ attempts to justify their family’s legitimacy Chiles, and Liu (2013). identified the challenges, verbal accounting strategies, and evaluations experienced or enacted by these parents (Koenig Kellas & Suter, 2012). However, few communica- Ritualizing and Family Communication tion studies address families headed by male partners or a bisexual or transsexual parent. Family communication scholars have conceptualized rituals as communication events that are important to families and that may be enacted in a variety of forms, Multiracial and Multiethnic Families from everyday rituals to calendar-based rituals to ex- traordinary rituals. A family ritual is defined as ‘‘a vol- Although communication scholars have been actively untary, recurring, patterned communication event studying diverse family types, there has been surpris- whose jointly-enacted performance by family mem- ingly little family communication scholarship on mul- bers pays homage to what they regard as sacred, thereby tiracial and multiethnic families. Given their discourse- producing and reproducing a family’s identity and its dependent nature, such families are especially reliant on web of social relations’’ (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006b, interaction to negotiate identities, roles, and expecta- p. 259). Scholars often cite Wolin and Bennett’s (1984) tions both internally and externally. For example, Soliz theoretical work on family ritualizing, which identified et al. (2009) examined relational outcomes, identity, and a typology of three ritual forms: (a) celebrations (rituals group salience in multiracial and multiethnic families. widely practiced throughout a culture; e.g., Thanksgiv- In follow-up work they have studied the influences of ing), (b) traditions (rituals idiosyncratic to a given fam- cultural orientation and identity socialization on family; e.g., doughnuts and coffee at the grave site on the ily interaction (e.g., Nuru & Soliz, 2013). Other schol- anniversary of a family member’s death), and (c) pat- ars have explored aspects of culture in families, such as terned interactions (everyday ritual forms; e.g., bedtime the role of interaction in interfaith marriages, which of- rituals for children). ten include multicultural couples. For example, Hughes Some communication scholars have focused their at- and Dickson (2005) explored religious orientation and tention on the importance of rituals in particular rela- the positive role of constructive communication on sat- tionship types, most often marriage (e.g., Bruess & Pear- isfaction in interfaith marriages. However, multiethnic son, 1997). Relational dialectics scholars have studied families remain an understudied area in family commu- family rituals as they highlight contradictions; for exam- nication research. ple, Braithwaite, Baxter, and Harper (1998) found that the most successful rituals were those that celebrated both ‘‘old’’ (original) families and the ‘‘new’’ develop- Current Research Trends in Family ing stepfamily. Rituals that failed in the stepfamily ei- Communication ther ignored one of the old families or celebrated the new family only. Family communication scholars also have Beginning in the 1990s family communication scholars explored celebrations held throughout a culture, partic- began studying a variety of interactional processes and ularly rites of passage (Baxter & Braithwaite, 2006b). For developing concomitant theories in several areas that example, Leeds-Hurwitz (2002) studied cultural identi- have already been discussed. Although family commu- ties inculcated in weddings, and Braithwaite and Bax- nication scholars have developed many different lines of ter (1995) examined couples’ renewal of marital vow inquiry, in this review we briefly highlight four current ceremonies. 106 Galvin & Braithwaite in Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (2014)

Baxter and Braithwaite (2006b) summarized several communication. The intersection of family communi- positive benefits that family rituals often have for fam- cation and health communication represents a thriving ilies, concluding that ‘‘rituals contain deep symbolism and growing scholarly area. Strong research strands in- about family identity and individual identity as a fam- clude parent–child communication about drugs, drink- ily member’’ (p. 272). However, although family rituals ing, and healthy behaviors, as well as family communica- are often quite positive, they can also be negative and tion when a member confronts cancer. Studies reveal that punishing. For example, Oswald (2000) poignantly de- parents of teenagers usually talk about drinking, drugs, scribed the difficulties that gay family members face and sex using ‘‘abstinence rules’’ or ‘‘contingency rules’’ when attending heterosexual weddings. Baxter, Braith- (Baxter, Bylund, Imes, & Routsong, 2009; Miller-Day, waite et al. (2009) interviewed young-adult stepchil- 2008) and that parents encourage adolescents to engage dren about the remarriage event of a parent and step- proactively in healthy behaviors related to nutrition, ex- parent and found that the ritual was empty for most ercise, and sun protection. stepchildren, as the focus was on the marriage rather Narrative medicine studies have examined chang- than the family. ing communication dynamics when a family member confronts cancer (Harter, Japp, & Beck, 2005). For example, prostate cancer survivors describe their wives as Dark Side of Family Communication sources of support and information research; adult children struggle to discuss their parents’ feelings during This family communication perspective focuses on fa- treatment, although positive humor strategies provided milial verbal abuse, physical violence, hate, and prej- some relief. Emotional support during mother–daugh- udice, often referred to as ‘‘the dark side of communi- ter interactions may be helpful or unhelpful as a mother cation’’ (Olson, Baiocchi-Wagner, Kratzer, & Symonds, confronts breast cancer, depending on the mother’s de- 2012) Family communication researchers studying velopmental stage (Fisher, 2010). Topic avoidance after a conflictual communication patterns often emphasize parent’s lung cancer diagnosis appears functional when dyadic sequential behavior or how reciprocal hostile adult children enact a dialogical process of openness and messages may escalate to a point of verbal or physical avoidance (Caughlin, Mikucki-Enyart, Middleton, Stone, violence, or both. Many studies focus on couples’ pat- & Brown, 2011). terned verbal aggression. For example, when couples enacted situational violence men and women partic- Work–life issues and family communication. Commu- ipated equally, and their interactions were character- nication researchers have studied the challenges con- ized as aggressive, violent, or abusive on the basis of fronting families managing work–home boundaries as their interaction patterns (Olson, 2004). Furthermore, ongoing negotiations occur among and between em- recent research has revealed a link between parental ployed partners and/or parents who manage compli- communication patterns and the relationship to inti- cated lives. For example, partners confront the effects mate partner violence among adult children (Babin & of spillover (Medved & Graham, 2006) as they man- Palazzolo, 2012). age dialectical tensions and struggle with competing Parent–child abuse and conflict serve as another fo- themes such as life planning and family permanency, cus of family communication scholars. For example, re- work choice and prioritizing family, and stopping work search has indicated how parental attributions regard- and career permanency. Spillover from family to work, ing child behavior can result in parental abuse (Wilson, such as having sick children, raise tensions for em- Morgan, Hayes, Bylund, & Herman, 2004). Brule (2009) ployed mothers, who report their reliance on coworkers described an adolescent-to-parent abuse pattern that be- for communicative support, including advice, affirma- gins with the adolescent’s verbal abuse and develops into tions, and instrumental efforts (Krouse & Afifi, 2007). episodes of physical and emotional abuse. Communica- Individual and joint accounts of partnered working par- tion scholars also have addressed issues such as children’s ents have revealed multiple collaborations that serve to disclosure of sexual abuse (Petronio et al., 1996) and pa- achieve accord, validate choices, shape identity, and de- rental infidelity (Thorson, 2009). Health and family fine a relationship (Golden, 2002). Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families 107

A more recent focus of family communication re- Floyd has developed a bioevolutionary theory of affection search involves the eroding boundaries between home exchange (e.g., Floyd, Judd, & Hesse, 2006), and there is and work as new technologies shatter the traditional ex- increasing attention on biological and evolutionary ap- pectations of physical presence. For example, military proaches of understanding family communication (e.g., wives with deployed husbands make decisions about Floyd & Afifi, 2011). Several scholars have called for an in- disclosing stressors to the absent spouse depending on creased development and application of critical theories how they perceive his current safety risks (Joseph & Afifi, to enlighten the study of family communication (Baxter, 2010). However, far less is known about communication 2011; Olson, 2012), although critical research is vastly un- practices of fathers and husbands as they manage fam- derrepresented in the literature at present (Braithwaite ily and workplace boundaries. & Baxter, 2006a). In the past 20 years, family communication scholar- Although research in family communication has in- ship has moved beyond dyadic (mostly marital) relation- cluded a breadth of topics, the field’s focus on discourse- ships to a focus on family systems and cultural and social dependent families necessitates broadening the family network influences. The field has also concentrated on forms studied and using scholarship to help families nav- theory development that maximizes the contributions igate their place in American culture. We look forward of a communication lens on family life. Understanding to more research on multiracial and multiethnic fami- families, especially nontraditional families, as discourse lies, families with transsexual members, blue-collar and/ dependent is a central contribution of the field. The ex- or low-income families, first-generation immigrant fam- pansion into scholarship on diverse family forms is still ilies, and foster families by scholars not only in the dis- in early stages, particularly research on communication cipline of family communication but also in family stud- in multiracial and multiethnic families and in same-sex ies more broadly. Finally, there is a dearth of literature on families. The field needs concentrated efforts on empir- communication and new media use within families and a ical work and theorizing that shed light into the unique need to learn more about the role of social media in fam- needs of communication in these family relationships ily life. With attention to these emergent directions, the across contexts. study of family communication, developed during the final decades of the 20th century, will continue to flour- ish and add to interdisciplinary scholarship and practice Conclusion: Emerging Directions in Family in the 21st century. Communication Research

Today family communication scholars have broadened References their areas of interest while collaborating actively across disciplines, including family science. Recent publications Afifi, T. (2003). ‘‘Feeling caught’’ in stepfamilies: Managing represent important areas of scholarship developing in boundary turbulence through appropriate communica- the field: an expansion on the understanding of children tion privacy rules. Journal of Social and Personal Rela- in family communication (Socha & Yingling, 2010), the tionships, 20, 729–755. role of family communication in forgiveness (Waldron Afifi, T. D., McManus, T., Hutchinson, S., & Baker, B. (2007). & Kelley, 2008), how families negotiate crisis and stress Inappropriate parental divorce disclosures, the factors (Dickson & Webb, 2012; Maguire, 2012), family commu- that prompt them, and their impact on parents’ and ad- nication about genetics (Galvin & Grill, 2010), and family olescents’ well-being. Communication Monographs, 74, communication surrounding assisted reproductive tech- 78–102. nologies (Rauscher & Fine, 2012). Finally, scholars are fo- Babin, E. B., & Palazzolo, K. E. (2012). The relationships cusing increased attention on translating scholarship to between parent communication patterns and sons’ and practice (e.g., Kelley, 2012). daughters’ intimate partner violence involvement: Per- Family communication scholars also continue to open spectives from parents and young adult children. Jour- the door to new theoretical approaches that span the nal of Family Communication, 12, 4–21. continuum of paradigmatic commitments. For example, Baxter, L. A. (2004). Relationships as dialogues. Personal Relationships, 11, 1–22. 108 Galvin & Braithwaite in Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (2014)

Baxter, L. A. (2011). Voicing relationships: A dialogic perspec- oxfordbibliographies.com/view/ document/obo- tive. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 9780199756841/obo-9780199756 841-0104.xml Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006a). Introduction: Braithwaite, D. O., Toller, P., Daas, K., Durham, W., & Jones, Meta-theory and theory in family communication re- A. (2008). Centered, but not caught in the middle: Step- search. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), En- children’s perceptions of contradictions of communica- gaging theories in family communication: Multiple per- tion of co-parents. Journal of Applied Communication spectives (pp. 1–15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Research, 36, 33–55. Baxter, L. A., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2006b). Rituals as com- Breshears, D. (2010). Coming out with our children: Turn- munication constituting families. In L. Turner & R. West ing points facilitating lesbian parent discourse with their (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 259– children about family identity. Communication Reports, 280). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 23, 79–90. Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., Kellas, J., LeClair-Under- Bruess, C., & Pearson, J. C. (1997). Interpersonal rituals in berg, C., Lamb-Normand, E., Routsong, T., & Thatcher, marriage and adult friendship. Communication Mono- M. (2009a). Empty ritual: Young-adult stepchildren’s graphs, 64, 25–46. perceptions of the remarriage ceremony. Journal of So- Brule, N. J. (2009). Adolescent to parent abuse. In D. D. cial and Personal Relationships, 26(4), 467–487. Cahn (Ed.), Family violence: Communication processes Baxter, L. A., Braithwaite, D. O., & Nicholson, J. H. (1999). (pp. 179–204) Albany, NY: State University of New York Turning points in the development of blended families. Press. Journal of Personal and Social Relationships, 16, 291–313. Caughlin, J., & Afifi, T. D. (2004). When is topic avoidance Baxter, L. A., Bylund, C. L., Imes, R. S., & Routsong, T. unsatisfying? Examining moderators of the association (2009b). Parent–child perceptions of parental be- between avoidance and dissatisfaction. Human Commu- havioral control through rule-setting for risky health nication Research, 30(4), 479–513. choices during adolescence. Journal of Family Commu- Caughlin, J. P., Mikucki-Enyart, S. L., Middleton, A. V., nication, 9, 251–271. Stone, A. M., & Brown, L. (2011). Being open without Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating: Dia- talking about it: A rhetorical/normative approach to logues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford Press. understanding topic avoidance in families after a lung Baxter, L. A., Scharp, K. M., Asbury, B., Jannusch, A., & Nor- cancer diagnosis. Communication Monographs, 78, wood, K. M. (2012). ‘‘Birth mothers are not bad people’’: 409–436. A dialogic analysis of online birth mother stories. Qual- Colaner, C. W., & Kranstuber, H. (2010). ‘‘Forever kind of itative Communication Research, 1, 53–82. wondering’’: Communicatively managing uncertainty Bergen, K. M., Suter, E. A., & Daas, K. L. (2006). ‘‘About in adoptive families. Journal of Family Communication, as solid as a fishnet’’: Symbolic construction of a legiti- 10, 236–255. mate parental identity for non-biological lesbian moth- Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field.Com - ers. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 201–220. munication Theory, 9, 119–161. Bochner, A. (1976). Conceptual frontiers in the study of Dickson, F. C., & Webb, L. M. (Eds.). (2012). Communica- communication in families: An introduction to the lit- tion for families in crisis. New York, NY: Lang. erature. Human Communication Research, 2(4), 381–397. DiVerniero, R. (2013). Children of divorce and their nonres- Braithwaite, D. O., & Baxter, L. A. (1995). ‘‘I do’’ again: The idential parent’s family: Examining perceptions of com- relational dialectics of renewing marriage vows. Journal munication accommodation. Journal of Family Commu- of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 177–198. nication, 13, 301–320. Braithwaite, D. O., Baxter, L. A., & Harper, A. M. (1998). The Docan-Morgan, S. (2010). Korean adoptees’ retrospective role of rituals in the management of the dialectical ten- reports of intrusive interactions: Exploring boundary sion of ‘‘old’’ and ‘‘new’’ in blended families. Communi- management in adoptive families. Journal of Family cation Studies, 49, 101–120. Communication, 10, 131–157. Braithwaite, D. O., Galvin, K., Chiles, B., & Liu, E. (2013). Durham, W. T., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2009). Communica- Family communication. In P. Molloy (Ed.), Oxford Bib- tion privacy management within the family planning liographies in Communication. New York, NY: Ox- trajectories of voluntarily childfree couples. Journal of ford University Press. Retrieved from http://www. Family Communication, 9, 43–65. Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families 109

Fisher, C. L. (2010). Coping with breast cancer across MA: Allyn & Bacon. adulthood: Emotional support communication in the Galvin, K. M., & Grill, L. H. (2009). Opening up the conver- mother–daughter bond. Journal of Applied Communi- sation on genetics and genomics in families: The space cation Research, 38, 386–411. for communication scholars. In C. S. Beck (Ed.), Com- Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1987). Marital interaction. In C. Berger munication Yearbook (Vol. 33, pp. 213–257). New York, & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of Family Communica- NY: Routledge. tion 109 communication science (pp. 564–618). Newbury Giles, H. (2008). Communication accommodation theory. Park, CA: Sage. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engaging in Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: interpersonal communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. Communication in marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 161–173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1998). Interpersonal communication on Golden, A. G. (2002). Speaking of work and family: Spou- the Starship Enterprise: Resilience, stability and change sal collaboration on defining role-identities and devel- in relationships in the 21st century. In J. S. Trent (Ed.), oping shared meanings. Southern Communication Jour- Communication: Views from the helm for the 21st cen- nal, 67, 122–141. tury. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Harrigan, M. M. (2009). The contradictions of identity- Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. (1994). Communication work for parents of visibly adopted children. Journal of schema within the family: Multiple perspectives on fam- Social and Personal Relationships, 26, 634–658. ily interaction. Human Communication Research, 20(3), Harrigan, M. M. (2010). Exploring the narrative process: An 275–301. analysis of the adoption stories mothers tell their inter- Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Vangelisti, A. L. (1995). Extending nationally adopted children. Journal of Family Commu- family boundaries. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vange- nication, 10, 24–39. listi (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 253–255). Harter, L. M., Japp, P. M., & Beck, C. S. (2005). Narratives, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. health and healing: Communication theory, research and Floyd, K., & Afifi, T. D. (2011). Biological and physiological practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. perspectives on interpersonal communication. In M. L. Harwood, J., Soliz, J., & Lin, M. C. (2006). Communica- Knapp & J. A. Daly, The SAGE handbook of interpersonal tion accommodation theory: An intergroup approach to communication (4th ed., pp. 87–127). Thousand Oaks, family relationships. In. D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter CA: Sage. (Eds.), Engaging theories in family communication: Mul- Floyd, K., Judd, J., & Hesse, C. (2006a). Affection exchange tiple perspectives (pp. 19–34). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. theory: A bio-evolutionary look at affectionate commu- Henry, J. (1973). Pathways to madness. New York, NY: Vin- nication. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), En- tage Press. gaging in interpersonal communication: Multiple per- Hughes, P. C., & Dickson, F. C. (2005). Communication, spectives (pp. 325–340). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. marital satisfaction, and religious orientation in inter- Floyd, K., Mikkelson, A. C., & Judd, J. (2006b). Defining the faith marriages. Journal of Family Communication, 5, family through relationships. In L. H. Turner & R. West 25–41. (Eds.), The family communication sourcebook (pp. 21– Joseph, A. L., & Afifi, T. A. (2010). Military wives’ stressful 42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. disclosures to their deployed husbands: The role of pro- Galvin, K. M. (2006). Diversity’s impact on defining the tective buffering.Journal of Applied Communication Re- family. In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family com- search, 38, 412–434. munication sourcebook (pp. 3–19). Thousand Oaks, CA: Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family: Toward a Sage. theory of family process. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Galvin, K. M. (2009, April 23). Discourse dependence and Kelley, D. L. (2012). Marital communication. Malden, MA: family identity. Keynote speech for Communication Polity Press. Week, Indiana University–Northwest, Gary, IN. Knapp, M. L., Daly, J. A., Albada, K. F., & Miller, G. R. (2002). Galvin, K. M., & Brommel, B. J. (1982). Family commu- Background and current trends in the study of interper- nication: Cohesion and change. Glenview, IL: Scott sonal communication. In M. L. Foresman. Knapp, & J. A. Daly, Handbook of interpersonal communi- Galvin, K. M., Bylund, C. L., & Brommel, B. J. (2012). Family cation (3rd ed., pp. 3–20). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. communication: Cohesion and change (8th ed.). Boston, 110 Galvin & Braithwaite in Journal of Family Theory & Review 6 (2014)

Koenig Kellas, J. (2005). Family ties: Communicating iden- Miller-Day, M. (2008). Talking to youth about drugs: What tity through jointly told family stories. Communication do late adolescents say about parental strategies? Fam- Monographs, 72, 365–389. ily Relations, 57, 11–12. Koenig Kellas, J. (2010). Narrating family: Introduction to Norwood, K. M., & Baxter, L. A. (2011). ‘‘Dear Birth Mother’’: the special issue on narratives and storytelling in the Addressivity and meaning-making in online adoption- family. Journal of Family Communication, 10, 1–6. seeking letters. Journal of Family Communication, 11, Koenig Kellas, J., & Suter, E. A. (2012). Accounting for les- 198–201. bian-headed families: Lesbian mothers’ responses to Nuru, A. K., & Soliz, J. (2013). Understanding how multi- discursive challenges. Communication Monographs, ethnic/racial children construct identity through paren- 79, 475–498. tal socialization. Manuscript submitted for publication. Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2006). Family commu- Olson, L. N. (2004). Relational control-motivated aggres- nication patterns theory: A social cognitive approach. In sion: A theoretically-based typology of intimate vio- D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Engaging theo- lence. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 209–223. ries in family communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. Olson, L. N. (2012). Editor introduction: Pushing the 50–64). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. boundaries. Journal of Family Communication, 12, 1–3. Krouse, S. S., & Afifi, T. D. (2007). Family-to-work spillover Olson, L. N., Baiocchi-Wagner, E. A., Wilson- Kratzer, J. M., stress: Coping communicatively in the workplace. Jour- & Symonds, S. E. (2012). The dark side of family commu- nal of Family Communication, 7, 85–122. nication. Boston, MA: Polity Press. Krusiewicz, E. S., &Wood, J. T. (2001). ‘‘He was our child Oswald, R. F. (2000). A member of the wedding? Hetero- from the moment we walked into that room’’: Entrance sexism and family ritual. Journal of Social and Personal stories of adoptive parents. Journal of Social and Per- Relationships, 17, 349–368. sonal Relationships, 18, 785–803. Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialectics of dis- Langellier, K. M., & Peterson, E. E. (2006). Narrative perfor- closure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. mance theory. In D. O. Braithwaite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.), Petronio, S. (2006). Impact of medical mistakes: Navigating Engaging theories in family communication: Multiple work–family boundaries for physicians and their fami- perspectives (pp. 99–114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. lies. Communication Monographs, 73, 462–467. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2002). Wedding as text: Communi- Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management cating cultural identities through ritual. Mahwah, NJ: theory: What do we know about family privacy regu- Erlbaum. lation? Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 175–196. Leeds-Hurwitz, W. (2006). Social theories: Social construc- Petronio, S., & Durham, W. (2008). Communication privacy tionism and symbolic interactionism. In D. O. Braith- management: Significance for interpersonal communi- waite & L. A. Baxter (Eds.) Family theories in communication. In L. A. Baxter & D. O. Braithwaite (Eds.), Engag- cation (pp. 229–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ing theories in interpersonal communication: Multiple Li, H. (2001). Cooperative and intrusive interruptions in in- perspectives (pp. 309–322). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ter- and intracultural dyadic discourse. Journal of Lan- Petronio, S., & Jones, S. S. (2006). When ‘‘friendly advice’’ guage and Social Psychology, 20, 259–284. becomes privacy dilemma for pregnant couples: Apply- Mace, D. R. (Ed.). (1982). Close companions: The marriage ing CPM theory. In R. West & L. Turner (Eds.), Family enrichment handbook. New York, NY: Continuum Press. communication: A reference of theory and research (pp. Mace, D. R., & Mace, V. C. (1975). Marriage enrichment— 201–208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wave of the future. Family Coordinator, 24, 131–135. Petronio, S., Reeder, H., Hecht, M., & Mon’t Ros-Mendoza, Maguire, K. C. (2012). Stress and coping in families. Mal- T. (1996). Disclosure of sexual abuse by children and ad- den, MA: Polity. olescents. Journal of Applied Communication Research, Medved, C. E., & Graham, E. E. (2006). Communicat- 24, 181–199. ing contradictions: (Re)producing dialectical tensions Rauscher, E., & Fine, M. A. (2012). The role of privacy in through work, family and balance memorable messages. families created through assisted reproductive technol- In L. H. Turner & R. West (Eds.), The family communi- ogy: Examining existing literature using communication cation sourcebook (pp. 353–371). Thousand Oaks, CA: privacy management theory. Journal of Family Theory & Sage. Review, 4, 220–234. Discourses That Constitute and Reflect Families 111

Rogers, E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational com- parents’ responses to inappropriate remarks. Journal of munication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Family Communication, 9, 107–125. Human Communication Research, 1(3), 222–239. Thorson, A. R. (2009). Adult children’s experiences with Satir, V. (1964). Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Sci- their parent’s infidelity: Communicative protection and ence and Behavior Books. access rules in the absence of divorce. Communication Schrodt, P. (2006). A typological examination of communi- Studies, 60, 32–48. cation competence and mental health in stepchildren. Toller, P., & Braithwaite, D. O. (2009). Grieving together and Communication Monographs, 73, 309–333. apart: Bereaved parents’ contradictions of marital in- Schrodt, P., & Ledbetter, A. M. (2012). Parental confirma- teraction. Journal of Applied Communication Research, tion as a mitigator of feeling caught and family satisfac- 37, 257–277. tion. Personal Relationships, 19, 146–161. Vangelisti, A. L. (1994). Family secrets: Forms, functions Sillars, S., & Kalbfleisch, P. (1988). Implicit and explicit de- and correlates. Journal of Social and Personal Relation- cision-making styles in couples. In D. Brinberg & J. Jac- ships, 11, 113–135. card (Eds.), Dyadic decision making (pp. 179–211). New Vangelisti, A. L. (2013). Preface. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The York, NY: Springer Verlag. Routledge handbook of family communication, (2nd ed., Socha, T. J., & Yingling, J. (2010). Families communicating pp. ix–xi). New York: Routledge. with children. Malden, MA: Polity. Vangelisti, A. L., Caughlin, J. P., & Timmerman, L. M. Soliz, J. (2007).Communicative predictors of a shared fam- (2001). Criteria for revealing family secrets. Communi- ily identity: Comparison of grandchildren’s perceptions cation Monographs, 68, 1–27. of family-of-origin grandparents and stepgrandparents. Waldron, V. R., & Kelley D. L. (2008). Communicating for- Journal of Family Communication, 7(3), 177–194. giveness. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage. Soliz, J., & Harwood, J. (2006). Shared family identity, age Walsh, F. (Ed.). (1982). Normal family processes. New York, salience, and intergroup contact: Investigation of the NY: Guilford Press. grandparent–grandchild relationship. Communication Watzlawick, P. A., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Monographs, 73, 87–107. Pragmatics of human communication. New York, NY: Soliz, J., Thorson, A. R., & Rittenour, C. E. (2009). Commu- Norton. nicative correlates of satisfaction, family identity, and West, R., & Turner, L. H. (1995). Communication in lesbian group salience in multiracial/ethnic families. Journal of and gay families: Building a descriptive base. In T. J. So- Marriage and Family, 71, 819–832. cha & G. H. Stamp (Eds.), Parents, children, and commu- Stamp, G. H., & Shue, C. K. (2013). Twenty years of fam- nication (pp. 147–169). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ily research of family research published in communi- Wilson, S. R., Morgan, W. M., Hayes, J., Bylund, C., & Her- cation journals: A review of the perspectives, theories, man, A. (2004). Mothers’ child abuse potential as a pre- concepts, and contexts . In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), The dictor of maternal and child behaviors during play-time Routledge handbook of family communication (2nd ed., interactions. Communication Monographs, 71, 395–421. pp. 11–28). New York, NY: Routledge. Wolin, S. J., & Bennett, L. A. (1984). Family rituals. Family Suter, E. A., & Ballard, R. L. (2009). ‘‘How much did you pay Process, 23, 401–420. for her?’’: Decision-making criteria underlying adoptive