To Know from Kellas (2010) Tie b/w intergen. narrat’s & future Relat. Schemas Be able to provide examples of each subtype w/i the 4 main Memorable Message supratypes : – Value Self (4 subtypes: independ&time, self-esteem&don’tsettle, progressive sex/rel views, more than 1) – Charac’s of good rel. (5 subs: good qual’s, behav expect, emot/intim expect, homogamy, extend family) – Warnings (3 subs: general, pers regret, judg/expect females) – Sanctity of love (2 subs: virgin&morals, the “one”) 3 main implications drawn from results Discussed

CIRCUMPLEX MODEL (Olson, 2000) Patterns & Environment Largely based on Cohesion/Flexibility dimension of family systems theory COHESION – Ability to FLEXIBILITY – Ability to

How to ID a Family System TYPE COHESION –Emotional bonding twrd one another FLEXIBILITY –Amount of change in leadership, roles, rules COMMUNICATION –Group norms Listening Speaking Clarity Self-disclosure Continuity-tracking (meta-comm.) Respect Regard

COMMUNICATION! – Continuum: Open to Closed (same as boundary permeability covered next lecture )

COHESION types/levels – Extreme, emotional separateness & Little involvement b/w – Lot of personal separateness & indep. – Indiv’s “do their own thing” & have separate interests – Some emot. separateness but not as extreme – Time apart important, but some together & some joint decision-making – Activities/interests generally separate but few are shared – Some emot closeness & loyalty – Time together more important than time apart; Emphasis on togetherness – Separate friends, but also shared – Extreme emot closeness & loyalty demanded; Indiv’s very depend & reactive – General lack of personal separateness & little privacy permitted – Energy of indiv’s mainly focused inside family & few outside friends/interests

Olson (2006) Balanced Rigidly Cohesive Midrange Flexibly Unbalanced Chaotically Disengaged Unbalanced

Family flexibility has four levels Chaotic Flexible Structured Rigid

Rigidly Enmeshed Strictly enforce Negotiations are Rules are Roles are Little separation of self Time together & little private space Few outside friends Decisions made by the whole not individual

Chaotically Disengaged Little Limited Impulsive decision making Little Frequently Emotional Low Private space Individual friendships

But…. Studies show these things are They’re

Family Communication Patterns (Chaffee et al., 1971) – Values open, controversial discussion – Kids stimulated to express ideas, even if disagree – Stresses mainten. of harmony & IP relations – Kids encouraged to avoid controversy & repress anger Pros? Cons?