Chapter 2: Review of Literature

In this literature review, models from the field of family studies used in evaluating families will be highlighted. Four leading paradigms will be examined: Olson’s circumplex model, Beavers’s level of family functioning, the McMaster model of evaluating families, and Moos’s family environment scale.

Models for Evaluating Families

Olson’s Circumplex Model

Olson and his colleagues began their research by examining concepts from the fields of family therapy and family sociology. As they used this interdisciplinary approach to evaluating families, several common concepts emerged. The two concepts from family social sciences that were identified were cohesion and adaptability.¹ As an outgrowth of this research they developed a family typology—termed the circumplex model—as a method of bridging the gap between research, theory, and practice. Using this circumplex model, these colleagues did extensive research on family functioning that lasted over a decade and included a sample of over one thousand families (one hundred or more in seven different life-cycle stages).²

The circumplex model examines families on two dimensions of family functioning: cohesion (which is defined as the emotional bonding between family members) and adaptability (the family system’s ability to be flexible and change). Each of these concepts is described as occurring along a continuum (see fig. 1). ^[6] Cohesion’s continuum includes four categories: (a) disengaged, (b) separated, (c) connected, and (d) enmeshed. The continuum for adaptability also includes four categories: (a) rigid, (b) structured, (c) flexible, and (d) chaotic. As seen in figure 1, the two dimensions of cohesion and adaptability are divided into four categories, resulting in a four-by-four matrix with a possibility of sixteen different family types.^{3 [7]}

Figure 1. The Circumplex Model representing sixteen types of marital and family systems. (Source: Olson, “Circumplex Model VII,” 339.)

Olson indicates that couple and family functioning on the circumplex model has a curvilinear relationship. In other words, it is hypothesized that moderate levels of both cohesion and adaptability are most desirable for optimal family functioning, while families who tend to be at the extremes of the continuum have the highest levels of dysfunction. Much of Olsen’s research has served to confirm his hypothesis. It should be noted that the most balanced family functioning falls within the inner circle of the matrix and includes one of the following four types: flexibly separated, flexibly connected, structurally separated, or structurally connected. Families within these categories are described as having “stability, the flexibility to change whenever necessary, and sufficiently open boundaries to permit effective communication.”⁴

Beavers’s Level of Family Functioning

Instead of focusing their research on pathological symptoms of individual members of the family, Beavers and his colleagues focused on how competent families negotiate transactions with one another. By studying families in this light, these researchers were able to see beyond just strengths and weaknesses of the family and determine the type of interactions that create healthy family functioning.⁵

Beavers’s research strategy included using raters who observed each family’s videotaped interaction and ranked their behavior along a scale of one to five. Categories that were rated included (a) structure of the family—this included subcategories of parental coalitions and closeness; (b) mythology; (c) goal-directed negotiation; (d) ^[8] autonomy—with subcategories of such things as responsibility, invasiveness, and permeability; and (e) family affect—with subcategories of expressiveness, mood and tone, conflict, and empathy. The total ratings were then tabulated and families received a global health-pathology score. The healthy families were compared to a large sample of families that were considered less functional, to determine which qualities were indicative of healthy family functioning.

Results seem to indicate that there was no single quality that was representative of healthy families. The way families communicated with one another, however, was one key difference between the two samples, as those in the competent family group were able to communicate their thoughts and feelings in a healthier manner. Additionally, those in the healthy group had a stronger parental coalition (a close bond or alliance), which provided a healthy model for interpersonal relationships. This parental coalition was also found to provide needed structure in the family, creating a sense of familial leadership.⁶

Subsequent research by Beavers indicates that families can be classed along a continuum with respect to their level of functioning (see fig. 2).⁷ The Beavers systems model is an attempt to classify families along “two axes rating the stylistic quality of their interactions and their degree of family functioning. . . . Optimal and adequate families are considered competent; midrange, borderline, and severely disturbed families represent progressively poorer functioning levels.”⁸

Figure 2. The Beavers Systems Model, with one leg representing centripetal families and the other leg representing centrifugal families. Optimal family functioning is at the apex. (Source: Beavers and Voeller, “Family Models,” 90.)

A centripetal stylistic dimension indicates that family members perceive that ^[9] relationship satisfactions are largely based within the family, whereas a centrifugal stylistic dimension indicates that individuals tend to seek relationship satisfaction outside the family. As indicated in the figure, those families that are able to strike a balance between these two extremes (centripetal and centrifugal) enjoy the most optimal level of family functioning.^9 [10]

McMaster Model

The McMaster model provides another method of researching and evaluating families through a systemic paradigm.¹⁰ This model focuses its attention on how a family develops and maintains itself through coping skills. Within the McMaster model, families are examined on a three-tiered task scale. The first level includes how a family deals with the universal tasks of providing for the family (i.e., money, food, housing). The second level researchers evaluate includes the developmental task area, which comprises major life adjustments (i.e., birth of the first child or launching children from the home). The last and most difficult task area for families is termed the hazardous task area and includes how a family copes with crises such as illness, accidents, or financial loss.

To assess how families cope within these three task areas, six domains of family functioning are investigated. These items are based on research and are considered to be the areas that have the greatest impact on the emotional and physical well-being of the family. These areas include (a) family problem solving; (b) family communication; (c) family roles—including how roles are defined and responsibilities allocated; (d) affective responsiveness; (e) affective involvement—how a family values the interests of its members; and (f) behavior control during crises. Based on how individual family members respond to a self-report questionnaire, the family is given a health-pathology score.¹¹ The rationale behind this approach is that the health of the family is related to their ability to ^[11] carry out important, life-sustaining tasks. The effectiveness with which the family is able to perform such tasks is positively correlated with healthy family functioning.

Moos’s Family Environment Scale

Moos’s research has been widely used by family scientists since its development. His approach to looking at families centered on how the environment serves to impact individual and family functioning. Moos argued that because all social interaction is demonstrable, it can subsequently be measured and categorized. For example, some families are more rigid, inflexible, and controlling in their interaction, while others are more democratic and adaptable.¹²

As a result of this research, Moos developed the family environment scale.¹³ This instrument is based on family members’ self-reports of how they perceive the current state of family functioning and how they would like the family to be. Researchers then examine the discrepancy to determine the level of satisfaction among family members. These responses taken collectively are examined according to three facets of family functioning: personal growth, relationships, and systems maintenance. These three dimensions of family life “characterize the family climate and its influence on behavior. That is, scores on the three sets of dimensions provide a framework for understanding the relationships (for example, its cohesiveness) among family members, the kinds of personal growth (for example, intellectual, religious) emphasized in the family.”^{14 [12]}

Moos described ten subscales that make up his family environment scale (see fig. 3). The subscales include three relationship measures that examine interpersonal interaction among family members: cohesion, expressiveness, and conflict. Additionally, there are five subscales that are geared towards evaluating ^[13] personal development within the family atmosphere: independence, achievement, intellectual-cultural orientation, active recreational orientation, and moral-religious emphasis. Lastly, two subscales attempt to measure the way the family maintains the system: organization and control. Scores are obtained for each subscale and then a composite family score is created by averaging individual scores. This family score is then utilized by the evaluator to create a comprehensive family profile.¹⁵

Family Process Constructs Selected

Obviously, not all of the relationship dimensions outlined in the above models could be used to evaluate a historical family. One of the challenges of this study was to select variables that could feasibly be evaluated within written records. The evaluation of the Smith family is limited to the surviving historical sources. Thus, five family process variables were selected from the models of evaluating families based on what was historically obtainable on the Smith family.

Cohesion

As Olson researched general concepts in the field of social sciences, cohesion was a common thread that surfaced in the literature.¹⁶ Since that time, the concept of cohesion has been widely used across disciplines within the field of social sciences. “This cross-disciplinary use of the concept of cohesion gives credibility to the construct and confirms its usefulness in the study of interpersonal relationships.”¹⁷

When first hypothesized, the concept of cohesion specifically related to couples and how much time they spent together. It was theorized that the more ^[14] time a couple spent together, the closer the couple’s relationship.¹⁸ Olson broadened the definition of cohesion to include emotional closeness in any relationship, but focused his research on families. Furthermore, he identified cohesion as occurring along a continuum. This continuum includes four categories: (a) disconnected, (b) separated, (c) connected, and (d) enmeshed. Olson’s research indicated that couple or family functioning and cohesion were curvilinear. This means that families on the extremes of the continuum (i.e., disconnected or enmeshed) have the lowest levels of functioning, while those with more moderate levels of cohesion (i.e., separated or connected) operate on a healthier level.¹⁹

As the idea of cohesion began to be developed and researched more extensively, the meaning began to be equated with emotional closeness in relationships. Components of cohesion include such elements as emotional bonding, parent-child coalitions, family involvement, marital relationship, and boundaries (i.e., time, space, friends, decision making, interests). For purposes of this study, cohesion will be defined as the emotional bonding or sense of identification family members feel toward each other and the family and will include research related to the components identified above.²⁰ The researcher will attempt to determine the level of cohesiveness in the Smith family from the available historical sources. ^[15]

Resiliency

How a family develops and maintains itself through coping skills was also a common variable reflective of family functioning that emerged from the models of evaluating families. This variable might be termed resiliency. Resiliency is a concept that has been developed more extensively over the past twenty years. The idea of resiliency was an outgrowth of family stress literature.²¹ In the literature, stress refers to significant experiences or major life adjustments, such as emotional disturbances, unexpected changes, or major disruptive events (i.e., death, divorce, disabilities). When a family encounters such major life adjustments, they must be able to adapt in order to maintain family functioning. Pathological symptoms develop when the level of stress exceeds a family’s ability to handle such events.²²

Resiliency, however, tends to direct its attention to how a family adapts after a crisis has occurred. The focus of resiliency is on what family characteristics, types, patterns, supports, strategies, and interactions with the community lead to family recuperation. It is useful in determining what factors facilitate adjustment in families and attempts to explain how some families overcome major life stressors and are deemed resilient, while others break down or disintegrate under the same circumstances.²³

The researcher will attempt to ascertain which qualities, if any, the Smith family ^[16] exhibited that helped it cope with such major setbacks as death, illness, persecution, and financial reverses. The family’s coping ability will then be compared to modern family process literature to determine the degree of resiliency.

Conflict Management

Ability to manage and resolve conflict is one of the most pervasive concepts stemming from family studies literature. Much of the research related to studying the family is geared towards helping families or couples overcome differences so that they might live happier and more productive lives. John Gottman, a leader in the field of marital research, states, “If there is one lesson I have learned from my years of research it is that a lasting marriage results from a couple’s ability to resolve the conflicts that are inevitable in any relationship.”²⁴ He indicates that people grow closer in their relationships through reconciling their differences, although the way they manage reconciliation may vary. The key in resolving differences in family relationships is bringing about reconciliation, and whether the problem-solving style leads to feelings of resolution for both parties.

Managing conflict also includes the ability to have empathy for the other party when conflicts aren’t immediately solvable. Positive thoughts or feelings for the family member in conflict act as a buffer to the differences manifest in the relationship. Maintaining an underlying friendship and a sense of meaning are salient features of strong families and successful marriages and help maintain closeness, even in a conflictual situation.^{25 [17]} Thus, how a family handles conflict reveals a lot about the family structure.

The Smith family will be examined to see how family members handled conflict within the family group. Marital, parent-child, and sibling conflict will be examined in the historical records to determine how the Smiths handled disagreements and whether this led to feelings of resolution or increased tension among the family members involved.

Religiosity

Commitment to both the marriage and the family appears to be a common factor among strong families.²⁶ One variable that is thought to strengthen commitment to the family and has received increased attention in recent years is religiosity. Researchers have been increasingly aware of the impact that spirituality and moral values can have on family functioning. (See above section entitled “Models for Evaluating Families,” where religiosity is identified as a critical factor in assessing family functioning.)²⁷

Recent studies have demonstrated a link between religion and physical and mental well-being.²⁸ Additionally, researchers have found a correlation between religiosity, marital satisfaction, and marital stability.²⁹ Also, divorce rates among religious couples are significantly lower than that of the general population, and religiosity has been identified as a strong predictor of marital and family happiness.³⁰ Thus, if marital partners are highly ^[18] religious, their relationship is not only likely to succeed, but also to provide fulfillment and purpose.

It should also be noted that researchers draw a distinction between public and private religiosity. Public religiosity includes behaviors such as going to church, public prayers, and social gatherings. Private religiosity includes such things as personal or family prayer, private scripture study, deeply held values or beliefs, and personal attitudes. Findings indicate that private religiosity tends to have greater benefits for marriage and family life than public religiosity.³¹

Further, research indicates that fathers who manifest high levels of religiosity are more likely to be involved in meaningful relationships with their children and to be more affectionate in those relationships than nonreligious fathers.³² Additionally, religious fathers are less likely to have extramarital affairs or abuse spouse or offspring.³³ This makes sense—after all, most religions teach that marriage is a divinely instituted covenant, that parents and children should have a deep and lasting commitment to each other, and that the family should be the central source of joy and fulfillment.³⁴

Another by-product of family spirituality is an increase in emotional intimacy through enhancing interpersonal skills such as forgiveness, patience, and empathy, which can, in turn, lead to an increased ability to resolve conflict. In addition, religious families have the added component of spiritual strength to draw upon during times of crisis.^{35 [19]} Understanding a family’s level of religiosity yields important insights into the quality of family functioning.

For purposes of this study, religiosity will be defined as how much time is spent in religious activities (prayer, hymn singing, church attendance, scripture study, rituals). Additionally, a distinction will be drawn between public and private religiosity. The historical records will be examined to see how the Smith family practiced religion and whether spiritual traits were passed to the succeeding generation. Religiosity will not be singled out, but rather highlighted within the other family process variables.

Family Work and Recreation

The last concepts selected from the models of evaluating families are that of family work and recreation. These two variables are closely related in the literature and are often evaluated together to determine the familial balance between work and recreation. These variables will be evaluated individually and then jointly to ascertain the family’s work ethic, participation in recreational activities, and the balance between the two.

Family Work. Although most parents assign children household chores with the primary purpose of teaching responsibility and promoting greater work ethic, the literature provides little empirical evidence to support this behavior. In fact, findings in the research indicate it is the type of work families participate in and the amount of interaction during the work process that is most likely to produce positive developmental outcomes in children. If children are taught to do family work tasks rather ^[20] than self-care tasks, they will have a greater family connection. In other words, children learn to care about others by doing work that helps them think about others.³⁶

Family work is fundamentally tied to relationships within the family. The key to examining family work is to determine how the family perceives the work and whether or not the work links, or fails to link, family members to one another.³⁷ One way to determine whether families are linked through work is to examine whether they are united in working towards a common goal or purpose which is larger than self. If families are working together towards a common purpose, they are more likely to perceive work as both meaningful and important. In addition, they are more likely to develop caring for those whom they are working for, which results in stronger emotional bonds.³⁸

Family Recreation. Another family process that has the potential to link families together is family recreation. Family recreation is defined as activities that two or more family members engage in together. In addition to typical activities such as family outings or games, recreation can include family rituals. Rituals are defined as “repeated and coordinated activities that have significance.” In order for rituals to be considered family rituals, they must not only include two or more family members but must be repeated and predictable.³⁹ Rituals are ^[21] recreational activities that have the potential to bind families together and give them a sense of identity.

Obviously both work and recreation (or rituals) will look different in a nineteenth-century family than they would today. Thus, the Smith family will be examined within a historical context (early-nineteenth-century farmers). Doing so will provide a clearer picture of how the family operated around the family processes of work and recreation. The researcher will attempt to determine from historical records what kinds of family work and recreation the Smith family engaged in and whether these processes were mediums that brought them closer as a family. Additionally, the researcher will attempt to ascertain what level of work ethic was promoted in the family. The Smiths will be examined generationally to see what types of family work and recreation passed to the succeeding generation. Finally, the researcher will attempt to determine the balance that the Smiths achieved between work and recreation.

The above chart (fig. 4) highlights the family process concepts that have been selected from the body of literature on marriage and family. This list is by no means comprehensive; however, it represents a broad enough spectrum from the literature to ^[22] enable the researcher to conduct a thorough evaluation of the Smith family. ^[23]