Communication Theory and The Family Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1993). Communication Theory and the Family. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp ). New York: Plenum Press.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson The Academic Discipline of Communication  Develop testable hypotheses in order to understand the production, processing, and effects of symbol and signal systems.  It focuses on one category of behavior -- communication -- across many levels of analysis.  There are various distinctions (e.g., mass communication versus interpersonal, applied versus theoretical).

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Mass Communication Research  Early theoretical interests: propaganda and persuasion; free expression and regulation; political participation; influence of technology.  Influence on discipline:  Increased popularity of television.  Fear about unethical persuasion techniques.  Research on families compared the influence of families to the influence of television.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Interpersonal Communication Research  Early research focused on characteristics of speakers, seeking to understand variables associated with persuasiveness.  Contemporary research examines factors which influence interpersonal communication.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Terms  Definition of Human Communication  Dimensions of communication: è Symbols: something that can be used to represent something else. è The medium for transmitting symbols. è Cognitive processes which influence transmission and interpretation of symbols. è Social norms which govern meaning.  Two Key Communication Constructs  Intersubjectivity: sharing of cognitions in a communicative event. There are three ways intersubjectivity may affect communication: è Communication may require a shared set of meanings. è Communication may occur in the context of shared relationship norms. è Communication may lead to a shared set of ideas about the environment.  Interactivity: the degree to which symbol creation and interpretation are linked. This requires encoding by the sender and decoding by the receiver(s).

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Code Model I: The Strong Code Model  Communication is linear.  Words and meanings are mapped in a simple one-to-one correspondence with “meanings.” A dictionary is a “codebook.”  Communication failure is attributed to  incompetent coding,  incompetent decoding,  or degradation of the signal (a/k/a/ “noise”).  Implication of this model: limited opportunity to distinguish family communication from other forms.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Code Model II: The Weak Code Model  Early computer translation experiments discovered that natural language is ambiguous and nonlinear.  This refined model was more elaborate; it recognized that each symbol can have multiple meanings.  A decoder is responsible for interpreting the meaning of the message.  Implication of this model: limited opportunity to distinguish family communication from other forms.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson The Inferential Model  Fundamental assumption: many, if not most, symbols are ambiguous.  Communicative act requires the speaker to direct attention toward facts from which certain inferences are likely to be drawn.  Communication occurs when  one person produces some representation of their thoughts,  and anther person constructs a mental representation of that representation.  Comprehension is dependent on knowledge of goals and plans of participants in the interaction. We supply information from our knowledge.  Implication of this model: opportunity to develop unique theories of family communication which requires that we account for the influence of distinguishing family features on  family members’ expectations;  structure of relevancies within the family;  and how family context shapes perception.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Metaphor 1: The Family is a Private Miniculture  Family culture is created and sustained through communication.  Emphasizes knowledge, ideology, rules, values, and day-to-day rituals.  Although families are private cultures, it is still possible to identify predictable patterns in families.  Influenced by symbolic interactionism.  The relational typology (see FITZ2&3.DOC for a typology and research about marital satisfaction):  Measures relational (e.g., traditionalism) and information exchange aspects of communication (e.g., sharing, and conflict avoidance).  Most research has been conducted with couples residing in the same house, although limited research has been conducted on cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Metaphor 1: The Family is a Private Miniculture (cont.)  Family communication patterns:  Examines the influence of communication on shared understanding between family members.  Research often emphasizes the influence of family structure on communication.  Accuracy: match between impression of one person and the thoughts of another.  Congruency: first person presumes that the second person thinks in a compatible way.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Metaphor 1: The Family is a Private Miniculture (cont.)  The Family as an information-processing group (exemplified by Reiss, 1981):  Focuses on entire family rather than on a dyad within the family.  Families are classified according to the effects of observed behavior of the family on individuals’ behavior.  Central theoretical proposition: families develop fundamental and enduring assumptions about the world based on it’s own development. è Families develop constructs. è Paradigm change occurs because of crisis. è Family structure is generated and sustained in the daily interactions among family members.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Metaphor 2: The Family is a Resource Exchange System  Assumption: family members exchange resources (e.g., time, expertise); exchanges are guided by the desire to maximize rewards and minimize costs.  Family scientists, using exchange theory, focus on the resources; communication scientists, in contrast, focus on  communication as the means for exchanging,  communication as a resource to be exchanged.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Metaphor 2: The Family is a Res. Exchange System (cont.)  Coercive family process theory  Problematic interactional patterns between parents and children may cause antisocial and aggressive behavior in children.  There are five major forms: è Family members are generally critical and punitive. è Parents are poor observers of their child’s behavior so deviant behavior reaches unmanageable proportions. è Punishment is used in an inconsistent manner. è Parents display lower levels of positive contact and are less likely to use positive reinforcement. è Rewards are used coercively.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Metaphor 2: The Family is a Res. Exchange System (cont.)  Social learning models of marital interaction  Assumptions: people only enter and stay in relationships that are equitable.  Positive interaction is associated with relationships satisfaction. è John Gottman, for example, has demonstrated that couples with at least a 5:1 ration of positive to negative interactions are less likely to divorce. è See also Fitzpatrick, 1988; Ting-Toomey, 1983; Schaap, 1984; Gottman, 1979, 1995; Jacobson et al., 1982; Margolin and Wampold, 1981; and Revenstorf et al., 1984).

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Metaphor 3: The Family is a set of Relationships  Subsystems are the focus of research and theory.  Relationship: conceptualized as a series of interactions between individuals  Each interactions is limited in duration.  Each interaction is influenced by previous interactions.  This approach has had a strong influence on family systems theory and research.

Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson Metaphor 3: The Family is a set of Relationships (cont.)  Relational control model  Messages are bimodal, featuring two levels: è Content level: what was said. è Report level: what is meant or interpreted.  Messages are interconnected.  Patterns of interaction:  Complementary: two messages are paired which are “opposite” or compatible forms (e.g., a dominant message with a submissive responsive). Example: messages to assert control is paired with a message that relinquishes control.  Symmetrical: two messages have similar intent. Example: both speakers seek to assert control.