|
Article Excerpt
The circumplex model of marital and family systems (Olson, 1986, 2000; Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983; Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979) represents one of the most extensively used models of family functioning, both in clinical and academic settings (Yahav, 2002). According to this model, families function in terms of cohesiveness, or the 'emotional bonding that family members have toward one another' (Olson, 2000, p. 145), and flexibility, which refers to the amount of change a family experiences in terms of its leadership, role relationships, and relationship rules (Olson, 2000). The third, and perhaps most important dimension in the model is communication, as family communication is viewed as the dynamic component that aids or hinders family movement along the other two dimensions (Olson et al., 1983; Perosa & Perosa, 2001). Whereas positive communication skills, including clarity, empathy, and effective problem solving, are believed to facilitate healthy levels of family cohesion and flexibility, a lack of communication skills is believed to inhibit the family system's ability to change when needed (Olson, 2000; Olson et al., 1983).
Despite the heuristic value of the circumplex model, however, researchers testing the underlying assumptions behind the model have found inconsistent and/or inconclusive results. For example, Perosa and Perosa (2001) recently examined a key hypothesis from Olson's model, namely, that cohesion and flexibility are curvilinearly related to perceptions of family communication, and found little to no support for this hypothesis. Instead, these researchers found strong, linear relationships among both dimensions of family functioning and adolescent perceptions of family expressiveness, clarity, and problem solving. Likewise, Perosa and Perosa (2001) identified a number of limitations to extant research on family functioning and communication, among which include faulty research designs, insider vs. outsider perceptions, distinctions among first-order and second-order changes, and distinctions among clinical and nonclinical families, to name a few. Perhaps the greatest criticism from a communication perspective, however, involves the tendency of researchers outside of the communication discipline to over-simplify family communication and reduce it in form to 'good' or 'bad' communication, 'positive' or 'negative' communication skills. For example, in his most recent articulation of the circumplex model, Olson (2000) contends that 'balanced (family) systems tend to have very good communication, whereas unbalanced systems tend to have poor communication' (p. 150). Although family researchers and clinicians have examined a few of the communication issues relevant to family functioning (e.g., Anderson, 1986; Barnes & Olson, 1985; Johnson, 2002; Perosa & Perosa, 2001), the tendency for most researchers has been to collapse key dimensions of family communication into overall indices, thereby neglecting not only the unique contributions that different beliefs about family communication provide in facilitating family functioning, but the theoretical grounding provided in the family communication literature.
One theory that is particularly useful for examining the extent to which family communication facilitates family functioning is Koerner and Fitzpatrick's (2002a) general theory of family communication. This theory focuses researchers' attention on the organized knowledge structures, or schemata, that family members use to communicate and exchange ideas. Koerner and Fitzpatrick's (2002a) theory provides a useful framework for extending the circumplex model by providing a much better detailed description of the ways in which family communication environments facilitate family cohesion and flexibility. Although previous researchers have established associations among family expressiveness and both dimensions of family functioning, much less is known about other dimensions of family schemata that may or may not facilitate family functioning (e.g., structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance). Consequently, the primary purpose of this study is to extend the circumplex model by examining the degree to which family communication schemata facilitate family functioning within the model.
The Circumplex Model and Family Communication
In their original articulation of the circumplex model, Olson et al. (1979, 1983) suggested that cohesiveness and adaptability (later termed flexibility) are curvilinearly related to positive family functioning, and that each consists of four levels. Accordingly, overly cohesive (or enmeshed) families and under-cohesive (or disengaged) families are problematic, whereas those that fall within the mid-range (separated or connected) are considered optimal (Olson et al., 1983). Likewise, overly adaptive (or chaotic) and under-adaptive (or rigid) families are problematic, whereas families that fall in the mid-range (flexible or structured) are considered optimal. Using four levels for each dimension, then, the circumplex model identified 16 different types of family systems, which in turn could be re-classified into three general types: balanced, mid-range, and extreme (or unbalanced) families.
Empirical research conducted with the initial circumplex model, however, yielded inconsistent and mixed results (e.g., Farrell & Barnes, 1993; Perosa & Perosa, 2001). Specifically, researchers have challenged the notion that cohesion and flexibility are curvilinear dimensions, and there is increasing evidence to suggest that both dimensions are, in fact, linearly related to optimal family functioning (e.g., Farrell & Barnes, 1993; Perosa & Perosa, 2001). In response to these criticisms, Olson and his colleagues refined the circumplex model, as well as the primary survey instrument used to measure cohesion and flexibility, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES). With each set of revisions, Olson (2000) gradually transformed the circumplex model from a two-dimensional model to a three-dimensional model. In doing so, Olson (2000) distinguished between first-order changes, or changes within a family system (i.e., flexibility), and second-order changes, which involve change from one system type to another. This, in turn, enabled the circumplex model to more accurately reflect the dynamic similarity within the balanced and unbalanced types (Olson, 2000). More importantly, as part of the revised model, cohesion and flexibility are conceptualized as linear dimensions--high scores on FACES cohesion and flexibility scales are now indicative of balanced systems, whereas low scores on both dimensions reflect unbalanced (or extreme) systems.
Throughout revisions to both the circumplex model and FACES (including four different versions), Olson has maintained that balanced family systems have more positive communication than unbalanced systems. Earlier reports found general support for Olson's initial model, namely that family cohesion and flexibility are curvilinearly related to family expressiveness and clarity (Anderson, 1986), and that balanced family systems are more open and have less problems in communication than unbalanced family systems (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Perosa and Perosa (2001), however, recently critiqued investigations of communication within the circumplex model and identified a number of limitations to extant research, including faulty research designs, differences in perceptions of insiders vs. those of outsiders, and distinctions among nonclinical and clinical families, to name a few. In response to these limitations, Perosa and Perosa (2001) conducted a series of regression analyses comparing the extent to which linear and curvilinear models of cohesion and flexibility contributed to communication expressiveness, clarity, and problem solving. Overwhelmingly, their results yielded linear relationships among both...
|
