17,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
- Serie: PKOS - Polity Key Themes in Family Communication series
- Sprache: Englisch
Family Conflict takes a life course approach as it provides an accessible discussion of family conflict issues, processes, and outcomes. Chapters draw on recent theory and research regarding sub-systems and stages in family life to give readers resource-rich overviews of conflict in contemporary families. After the initial chapter presents the landscape of family conflict theory and research, chapters focus on conflict in couple relationships, parent-child relationships, sibling relationships, and in stepfamilies. The book concludes with a discussion of how specific work, health, and disability challenges facing today’s families influence, and are influenced by, conflict interactions.
Family Conflict will be essential reading for students of family communication, family researchers, professionals who work with families in various stages of life, and anyone who desires a deeper understanding of their own family conflict processes.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 319
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2013
Ähnliche
Family Conflict
Key Themes in Family Communication
Heather E. Canary and Daniel J. Canary, Family Conflict
Douglas L. Kelley, Marital Communication
Katheryn C. Maguire, Stress and Coping in Families
Loreen N. Olson, Elizabeth A. Baiocchi-Wagner, Jessica M. W. Kratzer, Sarah E. Symonds, The Dark Side of FamilyCommunication
Thomas J. Socha and Julie Yingling, Families Communicating with Children
Family Conflict
Heather E. Canary and Daniel J. Canary
polity
Copyright © Heather E. Canary and Daniel J. Canary 2013
The right of Heather E. Canary and Daniel J. Canary to be identified as Author of this Work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published in 2013 by Polity Press
Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK
Polity Press350 Main StreetMalden, MA 02148, USA
All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN-13: 978-0-7456-7082-9
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.
Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.
For further information on Polity, visit our website: www.politybooks.com
We dedicate this book to our siblings, who gave us our earliest lessons in family conflict:
Holly Chase and Jon Bucher
David Canary, Richard Canary, and Debby Tankersley
Contents
Detailed Contents
Tables and Figures
Preface
1 Introduction to Family Conflict
2 Marital Conflict
3 Interparental Conflict, Post-Divorce, and Stepfamilies
4 Conflict between Parents and Children
5 Siblings in Conflict
6 Conflict in the Face of Family Challenges: Work–Family Interface, Health & Disability, and Family Resilience
Appendices
References
Index
Detailed Contents
Tables and Figures
Preface
1 Introduction to Family Conflict
The Importance of Family Conflict
Defining Family Conflict
Theoretic Perspectives on Family Conflict
A Multilevel Model of Family Conflict
Chapter Previews
2 Marital Conflict
The Nature of Marital Conflict
Marital Conflict Strategies and Tactics
Individual Outcomes of Marital Conflict
Relational Outcomes of Marital Conflict
Cultural Influences on Marital Conflict
Implications
3 Interparental Conflict, Post-Divorce, and Stepfamilies
Interparental Conflict
Post-Divorce Families
Stepfamilies
Cultural Influences
Implications
4 Conflict between Parents and Children
Conflict between Parents and Young Children
Conflict between Parents and Adolescents
Conflict between Parents and Adult Children
Single-Parent Families and Conflict
Cultural Considerations
Implications
5 Siblings in Conflict
What Makes Sibling Relationships Unique
Sibling Conflict and Child Development
Sibling Conflict in Childhood
Adolescent Sibling Conflict
Cultural Influences on Sibling Conflict
Implications
6 Conflict in the Face of Family Challenges: Work–Family Interface, Health & Disability, and Family Resilience
Work–Family Interface
Health, Disability, and Family Conflict
Family Resilience and Conflict
Implications
Final Thoughts on Family Conflict
Appendix 1 Discussion Questions
Appendix 2 Family Conflict at the Movies
References
Index
Tables and Figures
Tables
2.1 Communication Strategies and Tactics
2.2 Examples of Negative Reciprocation Patterns
2.3 Examples of Positive Reciprocation Patterns
3.1 Strategies for Managing Stepfamily Conflict
4.1 Parent–Child Conflict in Early Childhood
4.2 Parent–Child Conflict in Adolescence
4.3 Parent–Child Conflict in Adulthood
4.4 Parent–Child Conflict in Specific Cultural Contexts
5.1 Childhood Conflict Topic Categories
5.2 Childhood Sibling Strategies and Tactics
5.3 Adolescent Conflict Topic Categories
Figures
1.1 Grych and Fincham’s Cognitive-Contextual Framework
1.2 Multi-Level Model of Family Conflict
2.1 Links among Cooperative and Competitive Conflict, Relationship Maintenance Behaviors, Stability, and Relational Quality Features
2.2 Gottman’s Model of Divorce
3.1 Emotional Security Theory Paths Involving Interparental Conflict
Preface
This book concerns the contexts and content of family conflict. In the past 30 years, scholars have spent enormous energy and talent exploring the nature and processes of family conflict. This book likewise emphasizes the nature of family conflict with an eye on elaborating processes involved. More precisely, we provide background information that is necessary for understanding how family members use communication behaviors to manage their conflicts.
A multi-level model of family conflict helps to unify what we offer. That model is elaborated in chapter 1. For now, however, we should indicate its primary features, which are interconnected. At Level 4, culture occupies the highest, most abstract level containing other family conflict issues. Level 3 entails four structural factors that affect all family members: family status (e.g., intact vs. divorced homes), work–life integration, health of family members, and resiliency of the family to cope with difficulties. Level 2 regards relational-level processes that focus on marital, interparental, parent–child, and sibling relationships. Finally, Level 1 concerns the individual’s experiences with conflict, including factors such as personal development, cognitive reactions, and personality. Each of these levels is represented in this book to the extent that the research takes us there.
Several themes emerge in this book. First, the research reflects that family conflict is inevitable. As Shantz and Hartup (1992) observed, “Conflicts – between people and within people – are part and parcel of everyday living, and to such an extent that they must be regarded as intrinsic to the human condition” (p. 1). Of course, the inevitability of family conflict applies to everyone, though the frequency with which conflict occurs varies according to the external and internal pressures on family members, how they prefer to manage conflict, and whether or not the conflict is resolved.
The second theme concerns how family conflict management can be constructive or destructive (Deutsch, 1973). This theme reflects a strong current in the research literature. Putnam (2006) summarized the functional and dysfunctional aspects of conflict. Functional conflict can prevent system stagnation, stimulate interest, promote cohesiveness in groups, help lead to change, and so forth. Dysfunctional conflict can harm relationships, lead to intractable stalemates, foster entrenched behaviors, and the like. However, much of the research emphasizes the negative features of conflict, for example, how intense, chronic, and unresolved it might be. One can find this reliance on the negative (to the exclusion of positive) in research on interparental conflict, adolescent sibling conflict, and elsewhere.
Third, family conflict operates very differently in different types of family relationships. Marital conflict looks very different than parent–child conflict, which looks very different than sibling conflict. Although these relational contexts overlap and permeate each other, they remain distinct and house sometimes qualitatively different forms of conflict.
Fourth, and related to the point above, families assume different types. For example, Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2006) present four alternative types of families: consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire. These types are discussed in chapter 1. In addition, we discuss differences in marriage types, stepfamily types, single-parent family types, and sibling types.
Finally, the research yields many implications regarding family conflict. Many facts regarding family conflict can be variously unexpected, and we extend these to reflect on how readers might anticipate what is unexpected to become knowledgeable about their own family conflict experiences. Importantly as well, learning what to expect will offer ideas about how to anticipate and manage family conflict when it arises. In this light, we conclude each chapter with a section titled “Implications.”
There are a few issues that we do not emphasize. First, it is impossible to cover all topics that might be relevant to family conflict. Entire books have been written on each of the chapters (e.g., Cummings & Davies, 2010). For instance, we do not cover research on psychological, physical, and sexual abuse. Similarly, we do not cover hurtful messages, dominance, or compliance-gaining tactics. These domains of behavior remain important in their own right, of course. Accordingly, and out of survival necessity, we selected what we consider the most important material to review. Second, we do not discuss particular contexts related to family conflict (largely due to a lack of empirical evidence regarding them). These include cohabiting couples, same-sex partnerships, extended family members, parents and adopted children, and so forth.
We hope that the reader finds this book both interesting and informative. We begin each chapter with a story that foreshadows a segment of the chapter. We have based these on actual events, so these stories should sound realistic and plausible. As further resources, we have included two appendices at the back of the book. Appendix 1 contains discussion questions for each chapter. These discussion questions invite students to answer a question and provide a rationale for their answers. Most often, these discussion questions require a reading of the book. Appendix 2 contains media examples (i.e., films that help illustrate the chapter themes). In addition to a quick summary of the plot, we provide the date, actors, and ratings of the films. We hope that these features will add to the reader’s appreciation of the principles and findings in this book. We encourage the reader to use our discussions, resources, and references as starting points for deeper explorations of topics they find particularly compelling.
Finally, we wish to thank several people who helped make this book possible. The editors at Polity Press, Andrea Drugan and Lauren Mulholland, were extremely helpful, encouraging, and patient as we experienced delays and re-imaginings during the project. We appreciate the hard work of the production staff at Polity Press, including Ian Tuttle and Neil de Cort, who corrected our mistakes and shaped our manuscript into a finished product. Also, we thank our families for encouraging and teasing us along the way.
1
Introduction to Family Conflict
Adam grabbed a shovel to plant the roses he had just purchased. He was looking forward to time bonding with his 14-year-old stepson, Bryson. He imagined them planting the roses together. Stopping at Bryson’s room he announced, “For this weekend’s chore, you are going to help me plant these roses.” Bryson was irritated but followed Adam outside. Once outside, Adam handed him the shovel and pointed to circles he had drawn on the ground. “OK, we need to start by shoveling holes in the ground.” But instead of shoveling, Bryson protested, “Why don’t you get a gardener?” “I can’t afford a gardener,” Adam replied. “Why don’t you make Mark (his older brother) do this? This isn’t fair.” Adam reacted, “Look, this is your only chore for the weekend and if you stop whining and do it, you will finish before noon.” Bryson replied, “I don’t want to; give me something else to do.”
We all have experienced various forms of conflict in our families, some leading to constructive outcomes and some leading to destructive outcomes. This book focuses on family conflict and how the reader can help their family conflicts lead to more constructive outcomes.
We begin by discussing why this book is warranted. That is, why should we study family conflict? Then we define family and conflict. Third, relevant theoretic approaches are illustrated. Theory is critical for understanding family conflict. Next, we present a model that summarizes key features of family conflict. Finally, we offer a preview of the remaining chapters in this book.
The Importance of Family Conflict
Many reasons exist to study family conflict. Knowing that conflict is an unexpected occurrence for family members represents the first reason to examine family conflict. The reader can learn about unexpected processes in conflict in order to anticipate them. Sillars and Weisberg (1987) noted that conflicts tend to be confusing and surprising, although interpersonal conflicts are natural to the human condition. That is, conflicts most typically occur when people are doing something else, such as having dinner, driving in the car, doing homework, or walking the dog. So we are often caught off guard by conflicts (which are also part of our own making).
Second, how conflict is managed has direct implications for the quality of family relationships. Consider the marriage relationship. As Gottman (1994) observed, “Nearly all the research on marital interaction has involved the observation of conflict resolution” (p. 66). And this research shows that the destructive use of conflict messages more so than constructive use of messages predicts both the quality of the marriage as well as divorce (Kelley, 2012).
Third, family members are affected by how conflict is managed psychologically as well as socially. One of the clearest findings in the interparental and parent–child conflict research is that children become more withdrawn to the extent their parents use negative communication tactics. Moreover, parents sometimes attempt to enlist the help of the child to combat the other parent – a strategy known as “triangulation,” which is detrimental to the child as well as the parent–child relationship (e.g., Atkinson et al., 2009).
Next, and related to the point above, how people manage family conflicts can affect their physical health. Both over-expression of anger and avoidance can lead to cardiovascular, endocrine, and immunological system problems (Kiecolt-Glaser & Newton, 2001). In considering the cardiovascular system alone, the use of anger has been found to predict heart disease, high blood pressure, and heart attacks (e.g., Metz & Epstein, 2002; Suarez, 2004). Learning how to cope better with unexpected family conflicts can lead to living longer.
Finally, conflict management occurs within an entire system of family members. Each member influences the others and is influenced by the others. The interrelationships of family members cannot be underestimated. For example, the parent–child conflict literature indicates that the manner in which parents manage conflicts with one child affects how a sibling interprets the relevance of those conflicts for himself/herself (Selman, 1980). Likewise, a reciprocal relationship exists between family members, such that the interplay of conflict communication behaviors must be understood to appreciate how family relationships operate.
No doubt, the reader can think of other reasons as well. And research suggests additional reasons for examining interpersonal conflict (e.g., Canary & Lakey (with Marmo), 2013; Cupach et al., 2010). From what we have outlined here, though, the reader can ascertain why the examination of family conflict is both relevant and important.
Defining Family Conflict
At this juncture, we should define family conflict. We do so by first separating these terms and then bringing them back together.
What is a Family?
Defining family is not a simple task. Researchers, politicians, healthcare providers, and the average person walking down the street can all have different ideas about what family means. One way to arrive at a working definition for this book is to consider criteria that have been used to define what constitutes a family. Segrin and Flora (2005) point to structure, function, and interaction as three criteria for determining who counts as and acts as family. Some definitions focus on structure, or the family form, to determine whether a social group is a family or not. For example, the US Census Bureau (2012) states, “A family is a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together.” This definition emphasizes the number of people, a legal relationship, and sharing living space. This definition is useful for eliminating other types of residential social groups, such as fraternity or sorority houses, from the definition of a family.
Another dimension for defining families is function, which refers to the “tasks performed and expected” by those who are considered family (Segrin & Flora, 2005, p. 5). For instance, Patterson (2002) reviewed several functions that researchers and policymakers have identified as primary functions of families: (1) membership and family formation (e.g., providing a sense of belonging); (2) economic support (e.g., providing food and shelter); (3) nurturance, education, and socialization (e.g., instilling social values); and (4) protection of vulnerable members (e.g., protecting young, sick, or otherwise vulnerable members). Using these functions as criteria, any group of people that fulfills these familial functions would be defined as a family, whether they were related by blood, legal bonds, or something else. This dimension is useful for including non-traditional relationships as families that might not be included in a structural definition, such as same-sex couples living with or without their biological children.
The final dimension that has been used to define families highlights interaction, which focuses on ways communication processes constitute family (Segrin & Flora, 2005). As one might expect, communication researchers have been particularly prone to use interaction to define family. For example, Baxter and Braithwaite (2006) focus on this dimension in their definition of family as “a social group of two or more persons, characterized by ongoing interdependence with long-term commitments that stem from blood, law, or affection” (p. 3). This definition downplays structure and function (although those dimensions are still present) as it highlights the importance of interdependence, commitment, and affection for defining who counts as a family.
Our choice of chapter titles indicates some of our own definitional commitments. We offer here a working definition of family that acknowledges the importance of structure, function, and interaction for determining a family. Importantly, we do not offer this working definition as superior to or a substitute for the many valid definitions offered by others. Rather, we offer this simply so the reader knows our position. We define family as “a long-term group of two or more people related through biological, legal, or equivalent ties and who enact those ties through ongoing interaction providing instrumental and/or emotional support.”
What is Conflict?
Conflict can be defined in numerous ways (Putnam, 2006). Putnam highlighted the various definitions and also pointed to dimensions that can be used to typify definitions of conflict. Two dimensions of definitions are especially salient to family conflict (Canary et al., 1995). These concern whether conflict occurs in specific behaviors or that behaviors are not necessary to locate conflict. The second dimension regards whether conflicts occur outside of any recognizable episode or are tied to specific episodes that have a clear beginning, middle, and end.
The combination of these two dimensions yields four possible definitions of conflict. The first definition sees conflict as behaviorally specific but free of specific episodes, meaning conflict is pervasive in nature. For example, Sprey (1971) held that “the family process per se is conceived of as a continuous confrontation between participants with conflicting – though not necessarily opposing – interests in their shared fate” (p. 722). In a congruent manner, Deutsch (1973) defined conflict as any incompatibility between people.
The second definition holds that conflict occurs when particular types of behaviors occur, regardless of hostility. Research on parent–toddler conflict contains such a definition, for example, as two consecutive opposing statements by the mother and child. Accordingly, the number of conflicts in any interaction can be counted by the number of opposing statements. In an academic sense, conflict is linguistically defined (as we see in chapter 4).
The third approach emphasizes that conflict represents any episode that is marked by opposition and hostility. In this vein, conflict relies on partners’ perceptions of the event as to whether or not it is a conflict. Other terms that represent this definition involve having an “argument,” a “quarrel,” a “significant disagreement,” and so forth. The point is that some scholars see conflict as contained within specific episodes that are typically marked by opposition and hostility. In brief, conflict is a type of episode.
Finally, the fourth definition holds that conflict is defined in particular kinds of behaviors enacted within particular kinds of episodes (marked by opposition and hostility). As we can see in the next chapter on marital conflict, researchers have identified specific conflict strategies and tactics that occur in conflict episodes. Here, then, the hallmarks of this definition imply that conflicts refer to particular episodes containing particular behaviors.
We refer to conflict as any incompatibility that can be expressed between people (Canary & Lakey (with Marmo), 2013; Deutsch, 1973). Accordingly, family conflict refers to incompatibilities that can be expressed by people related through biological, legal, or equivalent ties. As we discuss in later chapters, conflict issues and the precise manner in which family members communicate during conflict vary as a function of family members’ relationships to each other, age, and other factors.
We should recognize that the reader likely has an implicit understanding of what everyday families look like. Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2006) presented a model of “family types” (similar to “marital types” discussed in chapter 2 and “stepfamily types” presented in chapter 3). According to Koerner and Fitzpatrick, two dimensions define families. The first is conversational orientation, or the extent to which families have open discussions about attitudes, feelings, values, and so forth. The second is conformity orientation, which concerns how family climates promote homogeneity in beliefs. By intersecting these two dimensions, one can derive four different types of families (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006).
Families high in both conversational and conformity orientation are called consensual. Communication in these families reflects open discussion but, at the end of the day, consensus with the dominant belief system. So lively discussion is promoted so long as it coincides with what the parents think. Pluralistic families entertain high conversational orientations but low conformity. “Parents in these families are willing to accept their children’s opinions and to let them participate in family decision making” (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006, p. 169). Families that are low in conversation orientation but high on conformity orientation are called protective. In other words, parents expect obedience and do not care for much discussion. Finally, laissez-faire families involve low conversation orientation and low conformity orientation. Here families “let them be” (as the French implies). That is, family members interact infrequently and are “emotionally divorced from their families” (Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2006, p. 169).
The effect of different family types in conflict communication is readily clear. Some families promote discussion of various issues and even welcome disagreement (pluralistic families), whereas other families welcome discussion but not disagreement (consensual families). And some families do not contain much communication among members and so do not provide a welcome context for disagreement. According to Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2006), consensual families express themselves emotionally (venting negative emotions) and seek social support from other members. Pluralistic family members also engage in solicitation of social support but they do not engage in much venting of negative emotion. Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2006, p. 170) explain that pluralistic family members avoid use of negative emotions precisely because they are not required to confine their discussions (i.e., conform). Next, protective families contain a combination of negative emotion and avoidance. The protective members do not have the communicative means to get their points across in a constructive manner, so they engage in these direct and indirect fighting tactics (Korner & Fizpatrick, 2006, p. 170). Finally, laissez-faire families contain infrequent, low intensity, and avoid-ant conflict communication. Because these family members are emotionally separated from each other, they have little interaction and, as a result, little conflict interaction.
Two important terms recur in the literature. These are mediating and moderating effects. A mediation effect occurs when one variable filters the effects of the independent variable on the dependent variable. For example, the level in trust of the parent can filter (mediate) the effects of parents’ conflict on the child doing well in school. A moderating effect occurs when the effects of the independent variable change according to levels of the moderating factor. For example, high trust in the parent has no effect on the link between interparental conflict and school performance, whereas low trust in the parent has a negative effect on the relationship between interparental conflict and performance at school.
Theoretic Perspectives on Family Conflict
Theories are important because they explain people and processes. Theories also determine what should be studied (how you attempt to explain something leads to what should be explained) (Fisher, 1978). This section briefly offers three different theoretic approaches scholars have offered to study family conflict: systems, cognitive, and developmental. Although these three approaches do not represent all the perspectives one can take to examine family communication, one cannot delve into the topic of family conflict without running into the use of these theories. We present each as a conceptual context for understanding many of the findings in this book. The reader will recognize influences of these perspectives in definitions we reviewed above for both “family” and “conflict.” Each major perspective contains an example theory that illustrates the broader perspective.
A Systems Perspective
One of the more integrating points of view on family communication behavior, including conflict, is systems theory. Systems theory offers a general approach regarding human behavior and provides an umbrella term for related approaches such as cybernetics and pragmatics, among others (see White & Klein, 2008, for a review). One theory that epitomizes the systems approach from a pragmatic perspective is Edna Rogers’ relational communication theory (e.g., Millar & Rogers, 1976; Rogers, 2006).
Rogers’ relational communication theory focuses on how interaction behavior defines the systems within families. Several properties of these systems should be mentioned. First, a family system is a whole; that is, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. So the interactions between each family dyad require that one look at the message exchanges between them and not merely the behaviors or perceptions of one person.
Second, family members are interdependent. Interdependence means that one cannot be a family member without the other members present. The interdependence of all the members creates the family system. For example, Noller et al. (2000) found that conflict patterns between parents associated with the conflict behaviors that parents and children enacted. Likewise, parent–child interactions associated with sibling conflict behaviors.
Next, a part/whole relationship exists, such that each member and relationship is only part of the larger system. Here, “each level simultaneously influences and is influenced by the higher level. Thus each relational subsystem influences the larger family system and is influenced by the larger system” (Rogers, 2006, p. 118). Moreover, the part/whole relation implies that one subsystem has properties not present in other levels. For example, Ackerman et al. (2011) found that parents mutually influenced each other and siblings mutually influenced each other in terms of how positively they behaved during conflict interactions.
Fourth, the system is continually informing itself about its status through feedback. That is, systems are self-regulating in order to maintain equilibrium. There is a “cyclical flow” of information that provides feedback to its members. For instance, Robin and Foster’s (1989) systems theory of adolescence describes how parents respond to adolescent changes in behavior that rock the family system, and how adolescents respond. The kernel idea here is that family members monitor information so as to maintain equilibrium.
Fifth, Rogers uses Bateson’s (1951) concept of two types of meanings – content and relational. Content messages concern what is said, for example, “Give me the remote.” Relational messages concern how something is said. For example, “Give me the remote” can be said as a request, as a command, as a tease, among other ways. “Content plays a part, but it is largely at the relational level that interactors indicate how they define their relationship” (Rogers, 2006, pp. 119–20).
Finally, family members can engage in symmetrical and/or complementary communication. Symmetrical refers to mirroring the other person’s behavior, whereas complementary behavior refers to providing a message that endorses the other person’s relational move. For example, if someone says “Come here,” and a second person says “No, you come here,” they have created a symmetrical interact (Millar & Rogers, 1976). However, if someone says “Come here,” and the second person says “OK,” they have created a complementary interact. As we shall see in chapter 2, these two forms of behavior can readily identify conflict message interacts. As Rogers (2006) stated, “Symmetry and complementarity exemplify the process of pattern identification and serve as prototypes for describing relational form” (p. 121).
Consider the following brief family conflict, which shows how family conflict is a system (from Vuchinich et al., 1988, p. 1296). The conflict begins when daughter (D) indicates she has plans to hang out with her friends, Sue and Rita. The mother (M) immediately objects and finds an ally in the father (F). The son (S) listens at first and then offers a possible solution.
Speaker
Message
D (to M):
Sue and Rita are coming over Saturday.
M (to D):
There you go again, looking for trouble.
You know we’re going to Grandma’s Saturday.
D (to M):
You didn’t say I had to go.
M (to D):
You know what I meant.
F (to D):
Don’t argue with your mother. You’re going.
D (to M):
But I’ve been planning this for weeks.
S (to F):
Why couldn’t she have them over in the morning, then we could go to Grandma’s in the afternoon?
D (to S):
You stay outta this. You’re just makin’ trouble.
S (to D):
I was trying to help, you jerk …
F:
I don’t want to listen to this. You two button it.
[2.3 second silence]
M (to F):
Did Mr Baxter show you that big tomato?
F (to S):
Yeah, wasn’t that something?
In terms of the part-whole feature of systems, note how the parents appear to adopt a coalition and the son wants to serve as a mediator of the entire discussion (turn 7). The example above also illustrates several subsystems through communication behavior: the daughter–mother relationship, the mother–father relationship, and the father–son relationship. However, to understand how each subsystem operates depends on the family as a whole and how equilibrium is kept to maintain the family. For example, the mother responds right away to her daughter with “There you go again, looking for trouble,” and the daughter cautions her brother, “You stay outta this.” However, the son replies with a symmetrical move, “I was trying to help, you jerk . . .” Once the parents regain equilibrium the mother changes the topic (after what appears to be two seconds of awkward silence).
A Cognitive Approach
Cognitive approaches tend to focus on meanings that people attach to conflict interactions. This view emphasizes how the mind works to process information related to conflict. For example, one study found that when people view their conflicts on videotape immediately after they occur, their recollections and interpretations of messages that occurred overlap with the other person’s recollections and interpretations only by 3 percent at most (Sillars et al., 2000). Their recollections and inferences about conflicts are driven by their own experiences of the event (Sillars et al., 2000).
In brief, people’s cognitive views of conflicts are limited, biased, and unreliable. Still, cognitions are all people have to make sense of conflict, and scholars have invested a great deal of time analyzing people’s thoughts and feelings related to conflict communication. Grych and Fincham’s (1990, 1993) cognitive-contextual model illustrates this approach.
Grych and Fincham’s (1990) cognitive-contextual model concerns how interparental conflict affects children. This issue is important, as interparental conflict management strongly affects children’s psychological and social adjustment (see chapter 3). Several factors are presented. We discuss the primary and secondary processes only because these highlight the cognitive bases of the model. As Grych and Fincham stated, “Interparental conflict can be viewed as prompting three questions for children: ‘What is happening?’, ‘Why is it happening?’, ‘What can I do about it?’ Children’s answers to these questions emerge from two proposed stages of processing, termed primary and secondary processing” (p. 281). Figure 1.1 presents their model.
Figure 1.1 Grych and Fincham’s Cognitive-Contextual Framework
Source: Grych & Fincham (1990, p. 278)
Primary processing concerns appraisals that children make regarding how negative and relevant their parents’ conflicts are. The more intense and negative the conflicts, the more threatened the child will feel. Likewise, the more self-relevant the child perceives interparental conflict, the more threatened the child will feel. Such appraisals lead to negative emotions as well as secondary appraisals. As Grych and Fincham (1990) argued, “If conflict is not evaluated negatively or considered important, attention may shift away from the conflict and it may cease to affect the child. If the conflict is perceived as negative, significant, or self-relevant, further processing usually will occur” (p. 281). Thus, children attend to the extent to which their parents’ conflict is negative, threatens them personally, and is related to them.
For example, Fosco and Grych (2010) examined how parents attempt to involve children in their conflicts, a phenomenon known as triangulation. As chapter 3 shows, children who are drawn into interparental conflicts find it difficult to cope with triangulation attempts. The researchers looked at the perceptions of interparental conflict and triangulation attempts among high-school students. Fosco and Grych found that the amount and severity of interparental conflict was associated with perceptions of triangulation and perceived threat, lack of coping, and self-blaming appraisals. Assessments of triangulation (feelings of being caught between parents) were then associated with self-blame. In brief, this study showed that perceptions of interparental conflict were more predictive than perceptions of triangulation in predicting how children made appraisals of interparental conflicts. These findings largely support the primary processing element of the cognitive-contextual model.
Secondary processing concerns attributions that children make regarding the cause(s) for the conflict and responsibility for the conflict. And this processing includes expectations that one has for managing one’s responses to interparental conflict in a more or less successful manner. Several dimensions that compose attributional causes have been identified (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). The most critical for conflict management are internality, stability, and globality. Internality refers to whether the cause is attributed to a feature of the other person (internal) or to an external force. Stability refers to whether the cause is seen as stable over time or temporary. Globality refers to whether the cause is seen as referring to a number of other events or isolated to the conflict issue. The most destructive attributions involve causes that are internal, stable, and global (Bradbury & Fincham, 1990). Grych and Fincham (1990) observed:
This suggests that a child who views him or herself as the cause of parental conflict is likely to experience more distress than a child who attributes the cause of conflict to one or both parents or to outside circumstances. Similarly, a child who views conflict as caused by a stable and global factor (e.g., the parents do not love each other) is likely to be more upset by conflict than a child who makes an unstable, specific attribution (e.g., mother is in a bad mood), because it implies that the causes of the conflict are more likely to recur in the future and to affect many areas of family life. The expectation of future family turmoil or dissolution may lead to fear, sadness, or feelings of hopelessness in the child. (p. 282)
Next, expectations for dealing with interparental conflict concern the child’s self-efficacy for conflict management, or the extent to which the child believes s/he has the wherewithal to manage turbulent situations. As might be anticipated, the higher the self-efficacy, the higher one’s ability to manage conflict. Of course, this finding holds not only for children, but also for adults who decide on strategies for their own conflict interactions (e.g., Caughlin & Vangelisti, 2000). People with high self-efficacy (or high locus of control) for managing conflict are significantly more likely to engage in cooperative interaction tactics than are people who hold low self-efficacy (low locus of control) beliefs.
Finally, as Grych and Fincham’s (1990, 1993) model shows, secondary processing affects the child’s coping behavior (e.g., hiding in one’s room vs. approaching a parent) which then might affect interparental conflict in the future. Also, several other factors affect the primary processes (e.g., contextual factors, emotions). However, the primary and secondary processes remain largely intact as key features of the model.
A Developmental Approach
Developmental approaches stress how children mature, and how communication behavior reflects different levels of maturation (as we emphasize in chapters 4 and 5). One of the clearest examples of a developmental approach is that of Robert Selman (1980, 2003). Key components to Selman’s theory are perspective taking, perspective coordination, and interpersonal orientation. Each of these components is said to increase in sophistication as the child matures, from level 0 to level 4.
