Advertisement

Communication Theory and the Family

  • Mary Anne Fitzpatrick
  • L. David Ritchie

Abstract

Communication is a “god” term in our society because it is viewed as a panacea for ailing human relationships. Communication has moved from the periphery to center stage as the sine qua non of family life. Communication is central to family life today because the expectations for personal relationships have changed slowly but inexorably in this century. Although many of the traditional functions of the family have been delegated to other social agencies (e.g., care of the aged, education of the children, and so forth), the nurturance function remains. And, the nurturance of family members takes place primarily through the exchange of verbal and nonverbal messages (Fitzpatrick & Badzinski, 1985).

Keywords

Communication Theory Human Communication Code Model Interpersonal Communication Family Communication 
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. Baxter, L. (1988). A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 257–274). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. (1987). Communication as science. In C. R. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 15–19). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, P., & Kellner, H. (1964). Marriage and the construction of reality. Diogenes, 46, 1–23.Google Scholar
  4. Beuf, A. (1974). Doctor, lawyer, household drudge. Joumal of Communication, 24, 142–145.Google Scholar
  5. Bochner, A. P. (1976). Conceptual frontiers in the study of communication in families: An introduction to the literature. Human Communication Research, 2(4), 380–397.Google Scholar
  6. Bochner, A., & Eisenberg, E. (1987). Family process. In C. R. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 540–563). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Bodin, A. (1981). The interactional view: Family therapy approaches of the Mental Research Institute. In A. Gurman & D. Kniskern (Eds), The handbook of family therapy (pp. 267–309). New York: Brunner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  8. Bransford, J. D., & McCarrell, N. S. (1977). A sketch of the cognitive approach to comprehension: Some thoughts about what it means to comprehend. In P. N. Johnson-Laird & P. C. Wason (Eds.), Thinking (pp. 377–399). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Burgess, R. I., & Conger, R. (1978). Family interaction in abusive, neglectful, and normal families. Child Development, 49, 1163–1173.Google Scholar
  10. Capaldi, D., & Patterson, G. R. (1987). Multiple comparisons of intact, stepfather, and single-mother families in family management practices and parent and child behaviors. Unpublished manuscript, Oregon Social Learning Center.Google Scholar
  11. Cappella, J. N. (1976). Modeling interpersonal communication systems as a pair of machines coupled through feedback. In G. R. Miller (Ed.), Explorations in interpersonal communication (pp. 59–86). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Chaffee, S., & McLeod, J. (1970). Coorientation and the structure of family communication. Paper presented to the annual convention of the International Communication Association, Minneapolis.Google Scholar
  13. Chaffee, S., McLeod, J., & Wackman, D. (1966). Family communication and political socialization. A paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism, Iowa City.Google Scholar
  14. Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, M. S. (1985). Implications of relationship type for understanding compatibility. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 119–140). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, H., & Marshall, C. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In A. Joshi, B. Webber, & I. Sag (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization: A study of the larger mind. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  18. Courtwright, J., Millar, F., & Rogers, L. E. (1979). Domineeringness and dominance: Replication and extension. Communication Monographs, 46, 179–192.Google Scholar
  19. Czitrom, D. J. (1982). Media and the American mind. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  20. Dance, F., & Larson, C. (1976). The functions of human communication. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  21. Delia, J. G. (1987). Communication research: A history. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 20–98). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  23. Dunn, J. (1988). Relations among relationships. In S. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 193–210). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Ervin-Tripp, S. M., Strage, A., Lampert, M., & Bell, N. (1987). Understanding requests. Linguistics, 25, 107–143.Google Scholar
  25. Finn, S., & Roberts, D. (1984). Source, destination, and entropy: Reassessing the role of information theory in communication research. Communication Research, 11(4), 453–476.Google Scholar
  26. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1976). A typological approach to communication in enduring relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University.Google Scholar
  27. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1987). Marital interaction. In C. R. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds), Handbook of communication scince (pp. 564–618). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Models of marital interaction. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 433–450). Chichester, England: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Badzinski, D. (1985). All in the family: Interpersonal communication in kin relationships. In M. Knapp & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 687–736). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Jandt, F. (1990). A typological study of homosexual couples. A paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Wamboldt, F. (1990). Where is all said and done?: Towards an integration of intrapersonal and interpersonal models of marital and family interaction. Communication Research, 17(4), 421–430.Google Scholar
  33. Forgatch, M. S. (1987). Family process model for depression in mothers. NIMH Grant Proposal (2 RO1 MH38318-04). Rockville, MD.Google Scholar
  34. Galvin, K., & Brommel, B. (1990). Family communication: Cohesion and change (3rd ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  35. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Berkeley: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. Giles, H., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1984). Personal, couple and group identities. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning form and use in context (pp. 253–277). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Gitlin, T. (1978). Media sociology: The dominant paradigm. Theory and Society, 6, 205–253.Google Scholar
  38. Gottman, J. M. (1979). Marital interaction. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  39. Gottman, J. M. (1990). How marriages change. In G. Patterson (Ed.), Depression and aggression in family interacion (pp. 75–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. (1988). The social psychophysiology of marriage. In P. Noller & M. A. Fitzpatrick (Eds), Perspectives on marital interaction (pp. 182–200). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  41. Greenberg, B. (1982). Television and role socialization: An overview. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and social behavior. Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  42. Grossberg, L. (1982). Does communication theory need intersubjectivity: Toward a deductive theory. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6(pp. 171–205). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. (1990). Marital conflict and children’s adjustment: A cognitive contextual framework. Psychological Bulletin, 108(2), 267–290.Google Scholar
  44. Handel, G. (1985). Central issues in the construction of sibling relationships. In G. Handel (Ed.), The psychosocial interior of the family (3rd ed., pp. 367–396). New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  45. Hawkins, R., & Pingree, S. (1982). Using television to construct social reality. Journal of Broadcasting, 25, 347–364.Google Scholar
  46. Hawkins, R., Pingree, S., Fitzpatrick, M. A., Thompson, M., & Baumann, I. (1991). Implications of concurrent measures of viewer behavior. Human Communication Research, 17, 485–504.Google Scholar
  47. Hess, R., & Handel, G. (1959). Family worlds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hewes, D., & Planalp, S. (1987). The individual’s place in communication science. In C. R. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 146–183). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Hinde, R. A. (1987). Individuals, relationships, and culture: Links between ethology and the social sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Howes, P., & Markman, H. (1989). Marital quality and child functioning: A longitudinal investigation. Child Development, 60, 1044–1051.Google Scholar
  51. Jacobson, N. S. (1984). A component analysis of behavioral marital therapy: The relative effectiveness of behavior exchange and communication/problem solving training. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 295–305.Google Scholar
  52. Jacobson, N. S., & Moore, D. (1981). Spouses as observers of events in their relationship. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 269–277.Google Scholar
  53. Jacobson, N. S., Follette, W. L., & McDonald, D. W. (1982). Reactivity to positive and negative behavior in distressed and nondistressed married couples. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 50, 706–714.Google Scholar
  54. Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  55. Laing, R. D., Phillipsen, H., & Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and method of research. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  56. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  57. Larzelere, R., & Klein, D. (1987). Methodology. In M. Sussman & S. Steinmetz (Eds), Handbook of marriage and the family (pp. 125–156). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  58. Lindlof, T. R. (Ed.) (1987). Natural audiences. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  59. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  60. Lull, J. (1980). Family communication patterns and the social uses of television. Communication Research, 7, 319–344.Google Scholar
  61. Manderscheid, D. W., Rae, D. S., McCarrick, A. K., & Silbergeld, S. (1982). A stochastic model of relational control in dyadic interaction. American Sociological Review, 47, 62–75.Google Scholar
  62. Margolin, G., & Wampold, B. E. (1981). Sequential analysis of conflict and accord in distressed and nondistressed marital partners. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 554–567.Google Scholar
  63. McLeod, J., & Chaffee, S. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 50–99). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.Google Scholar
  64. McLeod, J., & Chaffee, S. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 469–499.Google Scholar
  65. McLeod, J., & Chaffee, S. (1979). Guiding perspective of a loose collaboration. Paper presented to the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism.Google Scholar
  66. McLeod, J., Fitzpatrick, M. A., Glynn, C., & Fallis, S. (1982). Television and social relations: Family influences and consequences for interpersonal behavior. In D. Pearl, L. Bouthilet, & J. Lazar (Eds.), Television and social behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (pp. 272–283). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  67. Meadowcroft, J., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Theories of family communication: Toward a merger of intersubjectivity and mutual influence processes. In R. P. Hawkins, J. M. Wiemann, & S. Pingree (Eds), Advancing communication science: Merging mass and interpersonal processes (pp. 253–274). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  68. Millar, F., & Rogers, L. E. (1987). Relational dimensions of interpersonal dynamics. In M. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 117–139). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  69. Miller, G. R., & Burgoon, M. (1978). Persuasion research: Review and commentary. In B. D. Rubin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 2 (pp. 29–47). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
  70. Miller, M., & Reeves, B. (1976). Dramatic TV content and children’s sex-role stereotypes. Journal of Broadcasting 20, 35–50.Google Scholar
  71. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  72. Newcomb, T. M. (1953). An approach to the study of communicative acts. Psychological Review, 60, 393–404.Google Scholar
  73. Paisley, W. (1984). Communication in the communication sciences. In B. Dervin & M. Voight (Eds.), Progress in the communication sciences (pp. 1–43) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  74. Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J. Mash, L. A. Hamerlyck, & L. C. Handy (Eds), Behavior modification and families (pp. 27–42). New York: Bruner/Mazel.Google Scholar
  75. Patterson, G. R. (1982). A social learning approach: Vol. 3. Coercive family process. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Google Scholar
  76. Patterson, G. R., & Dishion, T. J. (1988). Multilevel family process models: Traits, interactions, and relationships. In R. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families: Mutual influences (pp. 283–310). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  77. Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1989). A social learning approach: Vol. 4. Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.Google Scholar
  78. Pearl, D., Bouthilet, L., & Lazar, J. (1982) (Eds.) Television and social behavior. Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.Google Scholar
  79. Pearson, J. (1989). Family communication. Dubuque, IO: Brown.Google Scholar
  80. Poole, M. S., Folger, J., & Hewes, D. (1986). The analysis of interpersonal interaction. In M. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research (pp. 220–257). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  81. Raush, H., Greif, A., & Nugent, J. (1979). Communication in couples and families. In W. R. Burr, R. Hill, I. Nye, & I. R. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 468–492). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  82. Reiss, D. (1981). The family’s construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Reiss, D., Gonzalez, S., & Kramer, N. (1986). Family process, chronic illness and death: On the weakness of strong bonds. Archives of General Psychiatry, 43, 795–804.Google Scholar
  84. Revenstorf, D., Hahlweg, K., Schindler, L., & Vogel, B. (1984). Interaction analysis of marital conflict. In K. Hahlweg & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Marital interaction (pp. 159–181). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  85. Ritchie, L. D. (1986). Shannon and Weaver: Unraveling the paradox of information. Communication Research, 13(2), 278–298.Google Scholar
  86. Ritchie, L. D. (1987). Whose accuracy, whose congruency, and whose agreement? Variations on the theme of coorientation. A paper presented to the annual meeting of the International Communication Association.Google Scholar
  87. Ritchie, L. D. (1989). Family communication patterns and the flow of information in the family. Paper presented to the annual convention of the Association for Education in Journalism, Portland.Google Scholar
  88. Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intrapersonal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523–545.Google Scholar
  89. Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns and the relational dimensions instrument: Conceptual and empirical relationships. Paper presented to the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  90. Robinson, E. A., & Jacobson, N. S. (1987). Social learning theory and psychopathology: A Kantian model in behaviorism. In T. Jacobs (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology (pp. 117–162). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  91. Rogers, L. E., & Farace, R. V. (1975). Analysis of relational communication in dyads: New measurement procedures. Family Process, 1, 222–239.Google Scholar
  92. Roloff, M. (1981). Communication and social exchange. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  93. Roloff, M. (1987). Communication and conflict. In C. R. Berger & S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  94. Roloff, M., Janiszewski, C. A., McGrath, M. A., Burns, C., & Manrai, L. A. (1988). Acquiring resources from intimates: When obligation substitutes for persuasion. Human Communication Research, 14, 364–396.Google Scholar
  95. Sameroff, A. J., & Emde, R. N. (1989). Relationship disturbances in early childhood. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  96. Scanzoni, J. (1972). Sexual bargaining. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  97. Schaap, C. (1984). A comparison of the interaction of distressed and nondistressed married couples in a laboratory situation. In K. Hahlweg & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.), Marital interaction (pp. 133–158). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  98. Schramm, W. (Ed.) (1954). The process and effects of mass communication. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  99. Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. B. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Shannon, C. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication. In C. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds), The mathematical theory of Communication (pp. 1–25). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  101. Sillars, A., & Kalbfleisch, P. (1988). Implicit and explicit decision-making styles in couples. In D. Brinberg & J. Jaccard (Eds.), Dyadic decision-making (pp. 179–215). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  102. Smetana, J. G. (1988). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority. Child Development, 59(2), 321–335.Google Scholar
  103. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  104. Steinhauer, P. (1988). The family as a small group: The process model of family functioning. In T. Jacobs (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology (pp. 67–116). New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  105. Strodtbeck, F. (1954). The family as a three-person group. American Sociological Review, 19, 23–29.Google Scholar
  106. Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior (1972). Television and social behavior. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  107. Tims, A. R., & Masland, J. (1985). Measurement of family communication patterns. Communication Research, 12, 35–57.Google Scholar
  108. Ting-Toomey, S. (1983). An analysis of verbal communication patterns in high and low marital adjustment groups. Human Communication Research, 9, 306–319.Google Scholar
  109. Vaughn, B., Block, J., & Block, J. (1988). Parental agreement on child rearing during early childhood and the psychological characteristics of adolescents. Child Development, 59, 1020–1033.Google Scholar
  110. Wamboldt, F., & Reiss, D. (1989). Defining a family heritage. Family Process, 28, 317–335.Google Scholar
  111. Weaver, W. (1949). Recent contributions to the mathematical theory of communication. In C. Shannon & W. Weaver (Eds.), The mathematical theory of communication (pp. 26–160). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  112. Yerby, J., Buerkel-Rothfuss, N., & Bochner, A. (1989). Communication in the family. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mary Anne Fitzpatrick
    • 1
  • L. David Ritchie
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Communication ResearchUniversity of WisconsinMadison
  2. 2.Department of CommunicationPortland State UniversityPortland

Personalised recommendations