Source Book 22

7/28/2019 Source Book 22

1/16

Communication Theory and TheFamily

Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D.

(1993). Communication Theory and theFamily. 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. 565-585). New York:

Plenum Press.


2/16Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson

The Academic Discipl ine of

Communication

Develop testable hypotheses in order tounderstand the production, processing,

and effects of symbol and signal systems.

It focuses on one category of behavior --

communication -- across many levels ofanalysis.

There are various distinctions (e.g., mass

communication versus interpersonal,

applied versus theoretical).



Mass Communication Research

Early theoretical interests: propagandaand 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.



I nterpersonal Communication

Research

Early research focused on characteristicsof speakers, seeking to understand

variables associated with

persuasiveness.

Contemporary research examines factorswhich influence interpersonal

communication.



Terms

Definition of Human Communication

Dimensions of communication:

Symbols: something that can be used to

represent something else.

The medium for transmitting symbols.

Cognitive processes which influence

transmission and interpretation of symbols.

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:

Communication may require a shared set

of meanings.

Communication may occur in the context of

shared relationship norms.

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).



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.



Code Model I I : The Weak Code

Model

Early computer translation experimentsdiscovered that natural language is

ambiguous and nonlinear.

This refined model was more elaborate; it

recognized that each symbol can havemultiple 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.



The I nferential 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 theinteraction. 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 ofdistinguishing family features on

family members expectations;

structure of relevancies within the family;

and how family context shapes perception.



Metaphor 1: The Family is a

Private M inicul ture

Family culture is created and sustainedthrough communication.

Emphasizes knowledge, ideology, rules,

values, and day-to-day rituals.

Although families are private cultures, it isstill possible to identify predictable

patterns in families.

Influenced by symbolic interactionism.

The relational typology (seeFITZ2&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 conflictavoidance).

Most research has been conducted with

couples residing in the same house, although

limited research has been conducted on

cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual

couples.




Private M iniculture (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.




Private M iniculture (cont.)

The Family as an information-processinggroup (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 onindividuals behavior.

Central theoretical proposition: families

develop fundamental and enduring

assumptions about the world based on its

own development.Families develop constructs.

Paradigm change occurs because of crisis.

Family structure is generated and

sustained in the daily interactions among

family members.




Resource Exchange System

Assumption: family members exchangeresources (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.



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:

Family members are generally critical andpunitive.

Parents are poor observers of their childs

behavior so deviant behavior reaches

unmanageable proportions.

Punishment is used in an inconsistentmanner.

Parents display lower levels of positive

contact and are less likely to use positive

reinforcement.

Rewards are used coercively.



Metaphor 2: The Family is a Res.

Exchange System (cont.)

Social learning models of maritalinteraction

Assumptions: people only enter and stay in

relationships that are equitable.

Positive interaction is associated with

relationships satisfaction.

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.

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).



Metaphor 3: The Family is a set of

Relationships

Subsystems are the focus of researchand 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.


16/16

Metaphor 3: The Family is a set of

Relationships (cont.)

Relational control modelMessages are bimodal, featuring two levels:

Content level: what was said.

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.

Documents

Source Book 22