CMN 124 - Exam 1

Role lens

Defines family by whether people perceive and act like family; focuses on social behavior (what people do and say) and emotion (feeling like a family)

Socio-legal lens

Defines family through laws and regulations; focuses on being formally included or excluded by policy or law

Biogenetic lens

Defines family by whether the relationship is directly or potentially reproductive and shares genetic material

Defining family by form (structure)

Relies on observable criteria like biological lineage, legal ties, or shared residence; emotional dimensions are excluded

Defining family by function

Prioritizes the instrumental and socio-emotional tasks members perform (e.g., sustenance, socialization, economic resources)

Defining family by interaction

Focuses on the communicative behaviors among members that create intimacy, group identity, loyalty, and a shared history and future

Popenoe's dependent criterion

A family structure is fundamentally defined by the presence of a dependent

Limitation of structural definitions

Observable criteria exclude emotional bonds and leave out many real families

Limitation of functional definitions

More flexible, but it is hard to set legal or empirical thresholds for which tasks make someone a family member

Limitation of interactional definitions

Highly inclusive but overly broad; could capture non-family groups like sororities or fraternities

Textbook definition of family

Networks of people who share their lives over long periods, bound by marriage, blood, laws, or commitment, who consider themselves family and share a significant history and anticipated future

Family of origin

The family an individual is born or adopted into; the initial environment where they are raised

Family of orientation / procreation

The family an individual intentionally creates through a partner, marriage, children, or lifelong commitments

Nuclear / two-parent biological family

Two adults and at least one child, with biological links between both parents and the offspring

Single-parent family

One adult takes full daily and legal responsibility for raising the children

Stepfamily / blended family

An adult with a child from a previous relationship marries someone who may or may not have children

Adoptive family

A child born into one biological family is legally transferred to and permanently raised by another

Foster family

Children temporarily placed with an approved family when they can't live with their biological family

Cohabitating family

Two unmarried partners living together, with or without children

LGBTQIA+ family

Any family where at least one member (parent or child) identifies within the LGBTQIA+ spectrum

Childfree family

A married couple that chooses not to have children

Extended family

Relatives beyond the nuclear unit (aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents) connected by biological, legal, or emotional bonds

Intentional (chosen) family

Friends or unrelated individuals who deliberately commit to family roles without legal, marital, or biological ties

Nurturance (family function)

Providing basic physical, medical, and psychological care; a legal obligation for children and a strong moral expectation for aging adults

Socialization (family function)

Imparting language, education, societal norms, and cultural traditions

Reciprocal socialization

Two-way learning in which younger generations socialize older members (e.g., teaching grandparents technology)

Alien thought experiment

Asked to define family for an extraterrestrial, people name biological ties, legal ties, coresidence, shared activities, and roles; affective (emotional) ties rank number one

Media representations of family

Media (e.g., Parents magazine) overemphasize mothers, babies, affluent upper-middle-class and traditional Western heterosexual families; fathers and diverse families are underrepresented

Conversation orientation

Degree to which a family creates a climate where all members are encouraged to participate freely, frequently, and without restraint on many topics

Conformity orientation

Degree to which a family communication climate stresses uniformity of attitudes, values, beliefs, and obedience

Consensual family

High conversation, high conformity; open discussion encouraged, but parents hold final authority and children are expected to adopt family beliefs

Pluralistic family

High conversation, low conformity; open discussion of all topics, and individual perspectives are validated without pressure to conform

Protective family

Low conversation, high conformity; stresses obedience and tradition, children have little voice, and conflicting ideas are suppressed

Laissez-faire family

Low conversation, low conformity; emotionally detached with minimal communication; members hold independent beliefs with little shared identity

Circumplex Model

Systemic model (Olson) mapping marital and family dynamics on three dimensions: cohesion, adaptability (flexibility), and communication

Communication dimension (Circumplex)

The facilitating dimension; functional families use positive skills (active listening, self-disclosure, clarity, empathy) rather than negative ones (criticism, defensiveness, stonewalling) to regulate cohesion and adaptability

Family cohesion

Emotional closeness members feel toward one another versus the individual autonomy maintained (balancing "I" versus "We")

Disengaged (cohesion)

Low cohesion, extreme autonomy; independent, weak coalitions, maximizes time and space apart, many individual friends, individual decisions

Separated (cohesion)

Low-to-moderate cohesion; balances independence and togetherness, values time alone but includes joint time, individual decisions with joint input welcome

Connected (cohesion)

Moderate-to-high cohesion; strong partner coalition, prioritizes group time and shared friends, joint decision making preferred, open internal and mostly closed external boundaries

Enmeshed (cohesion)

High cohesion, over-identification; dependent, blurred internal boundaries, parent-child coalitions, maximal time together, minimal private space, all decisions made collectively

Family adaptability

The family system's capacity to change its power structure, roles, and rules in response to situational and developmental stressors (e.g., childbirth, bereavement, marriage)

Rigid (adaptability)

Low adaptability; authoritarian leadership, autocratic and strict discipline, limited negotiation, stereotypical roles, extreme rules strictly enforced

Structured (adaptability)

Low-to-moderate adaptability; democratic leadership with a clear authority figure, predictable consequences, good negotiation, defined roles, explicit and enforced rules with few changes

Flexible (adaptability)

Moderate-to-high adaptability; egalitarian shared leadership, democratic discipline with changing consequences, cooperative negotiation, fluid roles, rules change implicitly

Chaotic (adaptability)

High adaptability; limited or absent leadership, lenient and erratic discipline, endless negotiation, dramatic role shifts (e.g., parentification), rapidly changing rules

Balanced systems (Circumplex)

Inner grey core: flexibly separated/connected and structurally separated/connected; highest relational competence and stability

Mid-range systems (Circumplex)

Middle ring; imbalanced on one dimension (e.g., chaotically separated, rigidly connected)

Extreme systems (Circumplex)

Outer corners; extreme on both dimensions (chaotically disengaged, chaotically enmeshed, rigidly disengaged, rigidly enmeshed); dysfunctional

Capri et al. (2021) screen media study

Families where parents and young children both had low screen use fit balanced Circumplex types; high, unmonitored screen use in both predicted extreme, dysfunctional systems

Communication privacy management (CPM)

Theory placing communication at the core of how family members negotiate private information: what to reveal and what to conceal

Boundary access rules

Rules guiding decisions about disclosure: whether to reveal to this person, how much, when, and the short- and long-term implications

Boundary rule coordination

Once private information is shared it becomes co-owned (by dyads, groups, or whole families), and co-owners explicitly or implicitly coordinate privacy boundaries

Boundary turbulence

Occurs when privacy rules break down and adjustments are needed to prevent future privacy breakdowns

Chilling effect

The tendency to withhold complaints and avoid confrontation with a partner or family members for fear of reprisal

Secret function: bonding

Secrets increase cohesiveness among family members (e.g., a sister covering for her brother; sharing secrets with in-laws acknowledges their place)

Secret function: evaluation

Secrets help members avoid negative judgment (e.g., hiding a child's sexual preference or a partner's multiple divorces from relatives)

Secret function: maintenance

Secrets keep family members close while protecting them from stressors (e.g., sperm donor, unusual religious practices, unexpected inheritance)

Secret function: privacy

Secrets seen as personal or irrelevant to others (e.g., income, pregnancy plans, major purchases)

Secret function: defense

Volatile secrets protect information from outsiders who might use it against the family (e.g., Huntington's diagnosis, immigration status, a parent's CIA work)

Secret function: lack of communication

Having multiple secrets reflects low open communication; topics never surface because the family is closed or doesn't know how to discuss them

Individual secret

Information held by one person and concealed from the entire family (e.g., private grades, sexual orientation, affairs)

Shared (intra-family) secret

Information held by some family members but hidden from others in the family

Whole-family secret

Information known by all family members but shielded from outsiders

Taboo secret

Topics with severe social stigma (e.g., addiction, incarceration, mental illness) hidden to avoid judgment

Toxic secret

Concealment that poisons relationships, erodes trust, and causes ongoing dysfunction (e.g., unacknowledged alcoholism)

Dangerous secret

Concealment that puts someone in immediate physical or psychological danger (e.g., domestic violence, abuse)

Conventional secret

Mundane private details that are awkward to share with extended family or outsiders (e.g., salary, assets)

Rule violation secret

Concealed violations of family rules (e.g., underage drinking, breaking curfew)

Sweet secret

Temporary secret kept to create a happy surprise (e.g., pregnancy reveal, surprise party)

Essential secret

Starts as individual information but, once shared, promotes vulnerability, trust, and cohesion

Bostwick & Johnson (2018) secret disclosure study

Of undergraduates (n = 248), neither conversation nor conformity orientation alone, nor conflict style alone, predicted disclosure; disclosure occurred with high conversation + low conformity (pluralistic) plus a collaborative conflict style

Revelation Risk Model (Afifi & Steuber)

Before revealing private information, people weigh the relational fallout, personal exposure, and social consequences

Catharsis (revelation criterion)

Desire to relieve the burden and anxiety of keeping a secret ("a weight off one's shoulders")

Target's need to know (revelation criterion)

How much the recipient needs the information for their own health, well-being, or decisions

Pressure from others (revelation criterion)

A third party who knows the secret pressures the holder to disclose it

Preparation / rehearsal (disclosure strategy)

Scripting, planning, and mentally practicing the revelation beforehand

Directness (disclosure strategy)

Telling the secret clearly and explicitly, face to face

Third-party revelation (disclosure strategy)

Telling an intermediary, expecting the information to reach the target

Incremental disclosure (disclosure strategy)

Releasing the secret in pieces ("breadcrumbs") to gauge the recipient's reaction before full disclosure

Indirect mediums (disclosure strategy)

Avoiding face-to-face by using texting, letters, phone calls, or FaceTime

Family time (historical context)

Before the Industrial Revolution, home and work were unified; modern family time emerged when industrialization separated wage labor from home life

Outcomes of shared family time

Promotes social competence, individual identity development, and cohesion

Informal venues for family communication

Car rides (without screens or headphones) and cooperative video game play

All-channel network

Decentralized; every member interacts directly, openly, and reciprocally with all others

Chain network

Decentralized; information passes in a line from one member to the next along generational or relational alliances

Wheel network

Centralized; communication routes through one hub person who controls information, and spokes talk to the hub rather than each other

Y-network

Centralized; information diverges from a central stem into branches, often linking a family of origin with extended kin or families of procreation

Social cognitive theory (Bandura)

Behavior is shaped by seeking rewards and avoiding punishments through direct experience and observational (vicarious) learning

Bobo doll experiment

Classic Bandura study in which children imitated aggressive adult behavior, demonstrating observational learning

Attention (SCT)

The person must focus on a family model and notice the behavior and its consequences

Retention (SCT)

The observed behavior must be mentally encoded and remembered, through mental or physical rehearsal

Behavioral production (SCT)

The person must have the physical, communicative, and cognitive ability to reproduce the behavior

Motivation (SCT)

Enacting the behavior depends on expecting reinforcement, self-satisfaction, or avoiding negative consequences

Perceived similarity (modeling)

Children model more when they see shared traits, temperament, or characteristics with the model

Self-efficacy (modeling)

The observer believes they can successfully do the behavior ("if they can do it, I can do it")

Model status (modeling)

Family figures with higher authority, prestige, or status are imitated more closely

Multiple models (modeling)

When several family members consistently model the same behavior, reproduction becomes more likely

Smith (1982) on family modeling

Communication patterns are learned mainly by observing parents, then secondarily admired peer groups

Relational dialectics theory

Relationships involve ongoing tensions between opposing needs that members must manage