Research Issues and Strategies

  • Andrew Christensen
  • Angela Arrington
Part of the Applied Clinical Psychology book series (NSSB)

Abstract

The investigation of family interaction and psychopathology presents a number of challenges. Any study in this area faces special difficulties because of the nature of the family, of psychopathology, and of their interaction. Families present methodological problems because they are an unusual unit of analysis. Most researchers examine the individual as the central unit of analysis, but studies of the family must focus on larger units, such as the dyad, the triad, and the entire family system. Systems for measuring and categorizing the person, although far from satisfactory, do have a history and tradition that gives the researcher options from which to choose. For example, the DSM-III provides a taxonomy of individual disorders that, despite its inadequacies, has some consensual validity across practitioners and researchers in the field. Nothing comparable exists for families or for interactional pathology.

Keywords

Group Status Family System Research Issue Marital Satisfaction Family Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Achenbach, T. M. (1978). Research in developmental psychology: Concepts, strategies, methods. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  2. Achenbach, T. M. (1982). Research methods in developmental psychopathology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Barthell, C. N., & Holmes, D. S. (1968). High school yearbooks: A non-reactive measure of social isolation in graduates who later become schizophrenic. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 313–316.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beavers, W. R., & Voeller, M. N. (1983). Family models: Comparing and contrasting the-Olson circumplex model with the Beavers systems model. Family Process, 22, 85–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin, L. S. (1974). Structural analysis of social behavior. Psychological Review, 81, 392–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, L. S. (1977). Structural analysis of a family in therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 45, 391–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benjamin, L. S. (1979). Structural analysis of differentiation failure. Psychiatry, 42, 1–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergin, A. E., & Lambert, M. J. (1978). The evaluation of therapeutic outcomes. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change ( 2nd ed. ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  9. Birchler, G. R., Weiss, R. L., & Vincent, J. P. (1975). A multi-method analysis of social reinforcement exchange between maritally distressed and non-distressed spouse and stranger dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braiker, H. B., & Kelley, H. H. (1979). Conflict in the development of close relationships. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston (Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cairns, R. B., & Green, J. A. (1979). How to assess personality and social patterns: Observations or ratings? In R. B. Cairns (Ed.), The analysis of social interactions: Methods, issues, and illustrations. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Chance, E. (1959). Families in treatment, from the viewpoint of the patient, the clinician, and the researcher. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  13. Christensen, A., Sullaway, M., & King, C. E. ( 1982, November). Dysfunctional interaction patterns and marital happiness. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Los Angeles,.Google Scholar
  14. Christensen, A., Sullaway, M., & King, C. E. (1983). Systematic error in behavioral reports of dyadic. interaction: Egocentric bias and content effects. Behavioral Assessment, 5, 129–140.Google Scholar
  15. Fiske, D. W. (1978). Strategies for personality research: The observation versus interpretation of behavior. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Gil, D. (1970). Violence against children. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein, M. J., Rodnick, E. H., Jones, J. E., McPherson, S. R., & West, K. L. (1978). Family precursors of schizophrenic specturm disorders. In L. C. Wynne, R. L. Cromwell, & S. Matthysse (Eds.), The nature of schizophrenia. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction: Experimental investigations. New York: Academic Press. Gottman, J. M., & Markman, H. J. ( 1978 ). Experimental designs in psychotherapy research. In S.Google Scholar
  19. Garfield & A. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change ( 2nd ed. ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Gurman, A. S., & Kniskern, D. P. (1978). Research on marital and family therapy: Progress, perspective and prospect. In S. L. Garfield & A. E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior changes ( 2nd ed. ). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Gurman, A. S., & Kniskern, D. P. (1981). Family therapy outcome research: Knowns and unknowns. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  22. Haley, J. (1968). Testing parental instructions to schizophrenic and normal children: A pilot study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 73, 559–565.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hartup, W. W. (1979). Levels of analysis in the study of social interaction: An historical perspective. In M. E. Lamb, S. J. Suomi, & G. R. Stephenson (Eds.), Social interaction analysis: Methodological issues. Madison: University of Wiscons in Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harvey, J. H., Christensen, A., & McClintock, E. (1983). Research methods. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berscheid, A. Christensen, J. Harvey, T. L. Huston, G. Levinger, E. McClintock, L. A. Peplau, & D. R. Peterson (Eds.), Close relationships. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  25. Jacob, T. (1975). Family interaction in disturbed and normal families: A methodological and substantive review. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 33–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelley, H. H., Berscheid, E., Christensen, A., Harvey, J., Huston, T. L., Levinger, G., McClintock, E., Peplau, L. A., & Peterson, D. R. (1983). Close relationships. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  27. Kroth, J. I. (1979). Child sexual abuse: Analysis of a fancily therapy approach. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.Google Scholar
  28. Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
  29. Liem, J. H. (1974). Effects of verbal communications of parents and children: A comparison of normal and schizophrenic families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 438–450.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lorr, M., & McNair, D. (1963). An interpersonal behavior circle. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 68–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mednick, S. A., & McNeil, T. F. (1968). Current methodology in research on the etiology of schizophrenia: Serious difficulties which suggest the use of the high-risk-group method. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 681–693.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mednick, S. A., & Schaffer, J. (1963). Mothers’ retrospective reports in child-rearing research. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 33, 451–461.Google Scholar
  33. Meehl, P. E. (1970). Nuisance variables and the ex post facto design. In M. Radner, & Winokur (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science: Vol. 4. Analyses of theories and methods of physics and psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  34. Meehl, P. E. (1971). High school yearbooks: A reply to Schwarz. journal of Abnormal Psychology, 772, 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1976). A typology of family social environments. Family Process, 15, 357–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Newcomb, T. M. (1961). The acquaintance process. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  37. Olson, D. H. (1981). Family typologies: Bridging family research and family therapy. In E. E. Filsinger, & R. A. Lewis (Eds.), Assessing marriage. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  38. Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 1. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications. Family Process, 18, 3–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1980). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 2. Empirical studies and clinical intervention. In J. P. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family intervention, assessment, and theory: An annual compilation on research (Vol. 1 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  40. Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 6. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22, 69–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Orvaschel, H., Weissman, M. W., Sc Kidd, K. K. (1980). Children and depression. Journal of Affective Disorders, 3, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Patterson, G. R. (1976). Some procedures for assessing changes in marital interaction patterns. Oregon Research Institute Research Bulletin, 16, (7).Google Scholar
  43. Patterson, G. R. (1979). A performance theory for coercive family interaction. In R. B. Cairns (Ed.), The analysis of social interactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family process: A social learning approach (Vol. 3 ). Eugene, OR: Castalia.Google Scholar
  45. Peterson, D. R. (1979). Assessing interpersonal relationships by means of interaction records. Behavioral Assessment, 1, 221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Raush, H. L., Barry, W. A., Hertel, R. K., & Swain, M. A. (1974). Communication, conflict, and marriage. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  47. Reiss, D. (1971). Varieties of consensual experience: 1. A theory for relating family interaction to individual thinking. Family Process, 10, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Reiss, D. (1981). The family’s construction of reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Robins, L. (1963). The accuracy of parental recall of aspects of child development and of child-rearing practices. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Robins, L. N. (1974). Deviant children grown up ( 2nd ed. ). Huntington, NY: Krieger.Google Scholar
  51. Rodnick, E. H., Goldstein, M. J., Doane, J. A., & Lewis, J. M. (1982). Association between parent-child transactions and risk for schizophrenia: Implications for early intervention. In M. J. Goldstein (Ed.), Preventive intervention in schizophrenics: Are we ready? Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  52. Royce, W., & Weiss, R. L. (1975). Behavioral cues in the judgment of marital satisfaction: A linear regression analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 816–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: 3. Empirical evaluation with families. Family Process, 18, 29–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schaie, K. W. (1965). A general model for the study of developmental problems. Psychological Bulletin, 64, 92–107.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skinner, H. A. (1981). Toward the integration of classification theory and methods. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 68–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Skinner, H. A., & Blashfield, R. K. (1982). Increasing the impact of cluster analysis research: The case of psychiatric classification. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 727–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sprenkle, D. H., & Olson, D. H. (1978). Circumplex model of marital systems: An empirical study of clinic and non-clinic couples. Journal of Marriage and Family Counseling, 4, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sullaway, M., & Christensen, A. (1983). Couples and families as participant observers of their interaction. In J. Vincent (Ed.), Advances in family interaction, assessment, and theory: An annual compilation of research (Vol. 3 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  59. Waxier, N. E. (1974). Parent and child effects on cognitive performance: An experimental approach to the etiological and responsive theories of schizophrenia. Family Process, 13, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weiss, R. L., & Margolin, G. (1977). Assessment of marital conflict and accord. In A. R. Ciminero, K. D. Calhoun, & H. E. Adams (Eds.), Handbook of behavioral assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  61. Wertheim, E. S. (1973). Family unit therapy and the science and typology of family systems. Family Process, 12, 361–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wertheim, E. S. (1975). The science and typology of family systems: 2. Further theoretical and practical considerations. Family Process, 14, 285–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  64. Yarrow, M. R., Campbell, J. D., & Burton, R. V. (1968). Child rearing: An inquiry into research and methods. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  65. Yarrow, M. R., Campbell, J. D., & Burton, R. V. (1970). A study of the retrospective method. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 35 (Serial No. 138).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew Christensen
    • 1
  • Angela Arrington
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of California at Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations