Family Systems Theory

Everything that happens to any family

member has an impact on everyone else in
the family

Members are INTERCONNECTED

Individual behaviors mask the fact that the
members also operate as a GROUP
 Family Systems Theory
Our experiences of ourselves are organized by
our membership in a family

There are no individuals in the world - only
fragments of families - Carl Whitaker

We are inextricably linked to our family of origin

Our style of thinking, our behavior (habits),
our values

A huge amount of effort goes into maintaining
or changing family relationships
 PATTERNS OF MARITAL CHANGE 519

"stays good" (n=51)

80-

76-

72- good-gets-worse" (n=10)

Husband
Love
68-

64-
"bad-to-worse" (n-38)
60-
10 27 36 60
Child Age In Months

Figure I. Patterns of change in husband-love scores.

good-gets-worse groups to determine why marriages (as experienced by wives). Finally, a

 Family Systems
How Good goes to bad or Good stays
Good in the graph by Belsky & Hsieh is an
example of family systems thinking

The needs of the toddler organizes the
relationship of the mother and father

How the mother and father interact
around the toddler organizes the marriage
And Baby Makes Three
Examples

Jane has trouble sleeping

Mom is told by pediatrician to let her cry
herself to sleep

Dad cant stand this sound, and goes in

Mom criticizes Dad whenever he gets
upset, Dad responds by withdrawing (Jack
Daniels) or retaliating verbally, or non-
verbally
And Baby Makes Three
Jane has trouble sleeping

Dad gets upset when she cries

Mom VALIDATES Dads reaction

By accepting his emotional reaction as
valid, they are able to take a step
towards conflict resolution

They remain on the same page
 Validation

Promotes a sense of union

(companionship)

Invalidation creates a sense of separation
or isolation
Family Systems Theory

Emerged from observation that working

with an individual alone did not result in
change

Working with parts of, or the entire, family,
could produce long lasting change
 Baby makes three
In our example of Jane

Working with the mom, alone, who feels
isolated and contemptuous of her husband

Working with dad, alone, who feels
alienated and vulnerable

Working with the two together, you would
perceive how they interact

Work with all three
 Baby makes three
Multiple Systems Levels

Systems are imbedded within systems

In our Example of Jane

The dyadic system of Mom & Dad

The SUPRAsystem of Mom & Dad and each
of their families of origin

The SUBsystem of how Dad and Jane interact
around separation
 Family System
The Whole is greater than the parts

What the family is capable of creating exceeds the
capacities of the individual

INSTITUTIONAL perspective on marriage and
family

Farming, child rearing

EMOTIONAL perspective on marriage and family

Emotional depths not usually felt individually
 Family System
Interdependence of Parts

When one part changes, the rest changes

When Jane learns to sleep on her own,
Mom & Dad rearrange part of their
relationship

When Dad starts taking anti-depressants, it
changes the way the whole family operates

Dad is less reactive, mom is less critical,
etc.
 Family Systems

Each element in the mobile is weighted in

relation to the other to create a system
that responds to subtle changes
 Roles and Identity
Role = the expected behavior of a person
in a given category

Each of you plays many roles simultaneously

Student, child, spouse, worker, parent

Role confusion, role change, role conflict
are all potential problems to a family
system
 Marriages Make
Families
Marriage is a ROLE TRANSITION for two
individuals

The Love story they are in may change

Men become husbands and women
become wives

When babies arrive, the marriage becomes
a family
 Roles and Identity
Most of our lives, we define ourselves, at
least partly, by the roles we play in these
systems

The great exception is early adulthood

i.e. NOW

Many college students experience this as
tension upon returning home

Falling back into role-based identity that
had been left behind
 Roles and Identity
James returns from college

His role has been - student (independent),
and boyfriend (loyal, around, dependable)

His family expects him to be - son (obedient,
helpful), and worker (confined to a rigid role
8 hours/day)

His girlfriend expects him to keep his role
(which he cannot for the summer)

His brother has assumed his role in the family
in his absence (role conflict - who gets the
car keys, etc)
 Role Making
In courtship, in marriage, and in parenting

We are living through an experiment where
we are forced to reinvent the roles and
expectations associated with

Courtship and sex (hook up culture?)

Gender roles within marriage
(egalitarianism)

Division of labor in family work - who
wears the pants (earning, discipline,
playtime)
 Who will guide us?

Where do we find templates for figuring

out what to expect from ourselves and
others?
Insert Image of Your
Mom and Dad?
Children of Divorce
Who Fights and Who Divorces
or
Why Infidelity Matters
 Reading

Amato & Hohmann Marriott, A

Comparison of High- and Low-Distress
Marriages That End in Divorce, Journal of
Marriage and Family 69: 621-638. 2007.
 Learning Objectives
Be able to describe the three components
of Social Exchange Theory, and connect
these concepts to specific facts we have
discussed in the class

Identify the differences between Quiet
and Loud divorcing couples

Identify the similarities bewteen Quiet
and Loud divorcing couples
 A framework for
understanding divorce
Social Exchange Theory (Levinger 1976)

Attractions

Barriers

Alternatives
Exchange Theory: Attraction
Attraction = Rewards minus the Costs

Rewards

love, sex, companionship, everyday help

Costs

hostility, aggression, stress

People are motivated to stay when rewards are
high and costs are low

The Me Marriage reflects this dimension
 Exchange Theory:Barriers
Even if rewards are low or costs are high, to end a
marriage a spouse must overcome Barriers.

Moral/religious values

Social stigma

Legal restrictions

Financial dependence

Barriers are sociological and psychological
 Barriers
Barriers have fallen as Individualism has
risen

More acceptable (socially, morally) to
leave a marriage to pursue fulfillment

Legally easier

Religion is less institutional and more
affirmative of individual attainment (high
divorce rates among Evangelicals, for
example)
Coontz & Exchange Theory
Jane Austen wrote to her niece that anything is to
be preferred or endured rather than marrying
without affection. But, she added, single women
have a dreadful propensity for being poor - which is
one very strong argument in favor of Matrimony. (p
185)

Even as the companionate ideal emerged, the
expectations were institutional (security)

Economic insecurity was a Barrier to leaving
marriage
7K!
,.!
H-.0!
Distribution of US Labor
%(3G.(EIG(*)!*+!G#$!YL;L!:-E*.!6*.&$!EK!W$)1$.A!
?RN@SBCCR!
Force by Gender 1948-2009
3!,&)!
)%#()7!
PQR&!

FCC
!,&)!
).1!
9.(!%(! TU
,$)
#$
*%$&''37!
WY!#2! UC
9.(!
hTY!
BU !"
X*7$)

-.!
C
&'!
FGUC FGVC FGTC FGIC FGGC BCCC BCCG
#2!
 ;#-.$!*+!,*G#$.3!X#*!0.$!()!G#$!:-E*.!6*.&$!
! Share of Mothers Working
PQR&!
! W2A;&1;24=96<&L0J<869&A;3<&FI
IC W2A;&1;24=96<&L0J<869&A;3<&V
W2A;&1;24=96<&L0J<869&A;3<&H TF
$! TC
VE
4!
VC
)! VC
ET
#*! UC
! HG
EC

HE
HC
1!
BC
FGTU FGIU FGGU BCCU
FGIC&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&FGGC&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&BCCC&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&BCCI
!
(!
 Exchange Theory and
Feminism
Women became more self-sufficient (less at risk
of poverty without the economic protection of
a man)

The expectation of the companionate ideal
could be held more firmly - there was less
NEED to compromise

Women working, per se, does not destabilize
marriage, but it puts more pressure on marriage
to be SATISFYING to women
 Exchange Theory:
Alternatives

Alternatives to a marriage can undermine

stability
 Exchange Theory:
Alternatives
Alternatives to a marriage can undermine stability

Absence of alternatives can reinforce stability

Low reward, low barrier, but nowhere to go

People with moderate levels of reward, low barriers,
and many alternatives may be more likely to leave

Again, think of the Me Marriage
The Marriage Market?
Market Conditions Do Influence Divorce
rate

Higher divorce rates

Areas with lots of attractive potential
partners

Central cities

Communities with more never married
women
 Alternatives

In a society with fewer married people

there are more alternatives
 ,&*!),&0.!,&1!

FI..$)G!,-.(G-'!;G-GI3A!?RQCSBCC@!
&%(.1!/3!*,.! PQR&
!5,%$,!9.(! '6K69&739926= W2=0M6= #2K0916=&09&>6:393A6= !39926=
(#5!*,.!,%4,.)*!
FCC
(!/3!0#+4,'3! FU
BT
.(*+037W!!M(1! IC G
+*&/'.!*#!*,.! U T
2!$+00.(*'3! VC FE
#!GhY!%(!:;;R!
TB
EC
UB
&00%&4.!0.2'.$*!
BC
N,.(!&)L.1!%(!
.!%)!/.$#9%(4!
C
(!M9.0%$&()! FGVC FGTC FGIC FGGC BCCC BCCI
&
+0-.3!#2!-#*.0)! '0A6/&%86>&FI&3<=&04=69D&'J7O69>&73L&<0A&A0A34&A0&FCCQ&=J6&A0&
%(.!%(!GFTR6! 90J<=2<8D&
+0J916/&?6M&*6>6391;&,6<A69&1341J43A20<>&0S&#616<<234&,6<>J>&3<=&
,%)!$#+(*03!5&)! %769213<&,077J<2AL&+J9K6L&=3A3&
:RY!&40..1! &
(4!#/)#'.*.7S!
 A framework for
understanding divorce
Social Exchange Theory (Levinger 1976)

Attractions - The Me Marriage etc.

Barriers - Social and Practical Factors

Alternatives - Infidelity?
Comparison of Alternatives
You enter marriage with varied expectations for
personal fulfillment (the Capstone vs. the
Stepping stone)

For a certain amount of reward

If you have MODEST expectations you will be
happy

If you have HIGH expectations you will be less
happy
Comparison of Alternatives

THE CRITICAL FACTOR is not the

absolute level of reward/cost, but how
these compare with expectations for the
current relationship

AND the perception of reward-expectation
match in alternative relationships!
 Expectations
In 1950s and 60s, college student surveys indicated
that marriage was valued as a source of

Home, economically secure lifestyle, opportunity to
raise children

Recently, marriage is expected to provide a deep
source of love and emotional fulfillment (Barich &
Bielby, 1996; Buss, Shackelford, Kirkpatrick & Larsen,
2001).
 New York Times, Feb 12, 2012, based on

Measuring Mate Preferences: A Replication and Extension"

by Christine B. Whelan, University of Pittsburgh, and Christie F. Boxer and Mary Noonan, University of Iowa
 A perfect storm?
In a more individualistic time (and a less
institutional time), we may be more likely to
look for alternatives because our present
relationships dont match our expectations.
Marriage itself SEEMS less rewarding

Simultaneously there are more alternatives

And there are fewer barriers to leaving
Why is this important?

It turns out that understanding divorce is

more complicated than understanding
Good Arguments vs. Bad Arguments
 Infidelity

One of the most common and consistent

precipitants of divorce

Not simply an outcome of conflict

May also reflect the Comparison of
Alternatives
 Infidelity
Common or uncommon depending on your
perspective

Lifetime rates among married men and women

25% men and 15% of women report at least
one episode of infidelity (National Survey of
Sexual Behavior, 1994)

Year-to-year incidence is low - between 2-4% of
men & women will stray (Druckerman)
 Revisiting Infidelity

Nearly 3/4 of couples who divorced later

admitted to infidelity around the time the
marriage was breaking up

But high conflict and low conflict couples
had the same rates of infidelity

Infidelity is unrelated to marital conflict

 Dating after Divorce

Consistent with the high rates of infidelity

just prior to break up, about 40% of
divorcing adults report dating someone
new within ONE month of the separation

Again, no difference between high and low
conflict couples
 Does Every Conflict
Always Precede
Divorce?
Or
Is It All About Fighting?
 Does everyone fight?
Only about half of all couples display a pattern
of relationship dysfunction prior to divorce

Amato and Hohmann-Marriott (2007)examined
509 couples who divorced between two time-
points (as part the National Survey of Families
and Households)

Using the same methods described in Alone
Together (our earlier lectures) they identified
two clusters of couples who go on to divorce
 Fighters
The conflict group shows

frequent arguments

physical aggression

thoughts of divorce

little happiness

minimal interaction
 The quiet
Couples who report

Few arguments

Little physical aggression

Few expressed thoughts of divorce

Moderate levels of happiness and
interaction
628 Journal of Marriage and Family

Table 2. Means of Marital Quality Variables by Marriage Type and Gender

(1) High-Distress (2) Low-Distress (3) Continuously Significant

Marital Dimensions Divorced Couples Divorced Couples Married Couples Differences (p , .05)

Marital happiness
Wife !1.32 (1.26) 0.17 (0.75) 0.07 (0.94) 1 , 2; 1 , 3
Husband !1.16 (1.22) 0.30 (0.59) 0.05 (0.96) 1 , 2; 1 , 3; 2 . 3
Interaction
Wife !0.95 (1.21) 0.10 (0.81) 0.05 (0.97) 1 , 2; 1 , 3
Husband !0.71 (1.18) 0.11 (0.81) 0.04 (0.98) 1 , 2; 1 , 3
Conflict
Wife 1.17 (1.29) 0.03 (0.74) !0.07 (0.95) 1 . 2; 1 . 3
Husband 1.17 (1.29) 0.03 (0.74) !0.07 (0.95) 1 . 2; 1 . 3
Violence
Wife 0.95 (1.88) !0.07 (0.66) !0.05 (0.91) 1 . 2; 1 . 3
Husband 0.72 (1.78) !0.05 (0.75) !0.04 (0.93) 1 . 2; 1 . 3
Chance of divorce
Wife 1.77 (1.46) !0.01 (0.83) !0.11 (0.87) 1 . 2; 1 . 3
Husband 1.50 (1.28) !0.21 (0.63) !.08 (0.92) 1 . 2; 1 . 3
n 242 267 3,951
Note: National Survey of Families and Households, N 4,460. Standard deviations are given in parentheses.

0.30, respectively. Similarly, the mean interac- because the marital quality variables defined the
tion scores of wives and husbands in Cluster 2 two clusters in the first place. This result does
 2 FIGURE 1. MARITAL QUALITY INDICATORS
Low-Distress Divorce
BY
1.5 (wife)
Chance of Divorce 1
0.5 Low-Distress Divorce
(husband)
0
2
-0.5 High-Distress Divorce
-1 (wife)
1.5
-1.5
High-Distress Divorce
-2
1 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
(husband)

Years To Divorce
Happiness

0.5
Note: National Survey of Families and Householdshigh distress, n 242; low distress, n 267. All variables are
0
dardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Regression analyses indicate that no slopes were significant, ex
the happiness of high-distress husbands and reported chance of divorce by high-distress wives and husbands.

-0.5
mean square of the correlations for each spouse, bands in marriages that remained continuou
using -1
the following formula: together. For wives, the corresponding corr
q tions were .34, .29, and .31. Across both gend
-1.5
Root mean square r12 1r22 1r32 1r42 1r52 =5: the correlations between life happiness and m
ital quality were lowest in the low-distress gro
-2
The average correlations between the five dimen-
sions of marital quality and life happiness were
Nevertheless, the differences between pairs
correlation coefficients were not significant
.26 for husbands in0-1 2-3 that
high-distress marriages 4-5We observed comparable
p . .10). 6-7 pattern
ended in divorce, .20 for husbands in low-distress results when we used the risk factors (descri
marriages that ended in divorce, and .27 for hus- Years To Divorce above), rather than life happiness, as crite
 2 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
Low-Distress Divorce
1.5
Years To Divorce (wife)

Chance of Divorce
1
0.5 Low-Distress Divorce
(husband)
0
2-0.5 High-Distress Divorce
-1 (wife)
1.5-1.5
High-Distress Divorce
-2
1 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
(husband)

Years To Divorce
0.5
Conflict

Note: National Survey of Families and Householdshigh distress, n 242; low distress, n 267. All variables
0
dardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Regression analyses indicate that no slopes were significa
the happiness of high-distress husbands and reported chance of divorce by high-distress wives and husbands.
-0.5
mean square of the correlations for each spouse, bands in marriages that remained conti
-1 the following formula:
using together. For wives, the corresponding
q
tions were .34, .29, and .31. Across both g
-1.5
Root mean square r12 1r22 1r32 1r42 1r52 =5: the correlations between life happiness a
ital quality were lowest in the low-distres
-2 average correlations between the five dimen- Nevertheless, the differences between
The
sions of marital quality and life happiness were
0-1 2-3
.26 for husbands in high-distress marriages that
4-5
correlation 6-7
coefficients were not signific
p . .10). We observed comparable pat
Years
marriages that ended in divorce, To
and .27 for hus-Divorce
ended in divorce, .20 for husbands in low-distress results when we used the risk factors (de
above), rather than life happiness, as c
BY YEARS
2 FROM INTERVIEW UNTIL DIVORCE. Low-Distress Divorce
1.5 (wife)
Chance of Divorce 1
0.5 Low-Distress Divorce
(husband)
0
2
-0.5 High-Distress Divorce
1.5
-1 (wife)
-1.5
High-Distress Divorce
-2 1 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
(husband)
Interaction

Years To Divorce
0.5
Note: National Survey of Families and Householdshigh distress, n 242; low distress, n 267. All variables are s
0
dardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Regression analyses indicate that no slopes were significant, ex
the happiness of high-distress husbands and reported chance of divorce by high-distress wives and husbands.
-0.5
-1 of the correlations for each spouse,
mean square bands in marriages that remained continuou
using the following formula: together. For wives, the corresponding corre
q
-1.5
Root mean square r12 1r22 1r32 1r42 1r52 =5:
tions were .34, .29, and .31. Across both gend
the correlations between life happiness and m
ital quality were lowest in the low-distress gro
-2 correlations between the five dimen- Nevertheless, the differences between pairs
The average
0-1and life happiness
sions of marital quality 2-3were correlation
4-5coefficients were 6-7 not significant
.26 for husbands in high-distress marriages that p . .10). We observed comparable patterns
Years Toresults
ended in divorce, .20 for husbands in low-distress Divorce
when we used the risk factors (descri
marriages that ended in divorce, and .27 for hus- above), rather than life happiness, as criter
 2 2
1.5
1
Years To Divorce
1
1.5

0.5 0.5

Violence
Conflict
0 0
2
-0.5 -0.5
-1 -1
1.5
-1.5 -1.5
Chance of Divorce

-2 -2
1 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
Years To Divorce Years To Divorce
0.5
2
Low-Distress Divorce
0
1.5 (wife)
Chance of Divorce

1
Low-Distress Divorce
-0.5
0
0.5
(husband)

-1
-0.5
-1
High-Distress Divorce
(wife)

-1.5
-1.5
-2
High-Distress Divorce
(husband)
0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
-2 Years To Divorce
0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7
Note: National Survey of Families and Householdshigh distress, n 242; low distress, n 267. All variables are

Years To Divorce
dardized to have a mean of 0 and a standard deviation of 1. Regression analyses indicate that no slopes were significant, e
the happiness of high-distress husbands and reported chance of divorce by high-distress wives and husbands.
 Fighters
The conflict group shows

frequent arguments

physical aggression

thoughts of divorce

little happiness

minimal interaction
 The quiet
Couples who report

Few arguments

Little physical aggression

Few expressed thoughts of divorce

Moderate levels of happiness and
interaction
 Understanding Divorce
For high distress couples, the traditional measures
of marital quality do a good job of predicting who
will divorce (e.g. Gottmans methods)

For low distress couples, marital quality seems
unrelated to divorce

Both share a higher than average share of being
from divorced parents and prior cohabitation -
about twice as common compared to
continuously married
 Loud Divorce
High conflict couples

Low rewards - low warmth, bad sex, low
intimacy, lack of shared pleasure, no
encouragement

High costs- aggression, hostility

Absence of ATTRACTION (in the theoretical
sense) leads to break up

Spouses find ways to overcome barriers and
even absence of alternatives
 Quiet Divorce
Infrequent fighting, moderate happiness, engage
in pleasurable activities together, sex is ok or
even good

Few perceived problems

Low levels of commitment = low
commitment to IDEA of commitment
HIGH expectations of what marriage should be

Few barriers

Obvious alternatives
 Common risk factors
High and Low conflict divorcing couples share
several risk factors that distinguished them from the
continuously married

Divorced parents

Prior cohabitation with another partner

Permissive family values

Believing in acceptability of divorce

Having alternative partners
 Married Couples
1980 2000

4% 8%

23%

31%

61%
73%

Neither parents divorced

One spouse parents divorced
Both divorced

Amato: Alone Together

 Children of Divorce

Being a child of divorce

Increases risk of your own divorce

Less happiness and more problems in
their own marriage
Children of Divorce

Husband had divorced parents

Wife had divorced parents

Both

Neither
 Marital Problems
Divorce Proneness
0.3

0.2

0.2
Effect Size

0.1

0.0

-0.1

-0.2

-0.2
Neither Husband Wife Both

Amato: Alone Together

 Children of Divorce
Parents who divorce may model poor
communication, problem solving or conflict
resolution skills - risk for LOUD Divorce

Divorce demonstrates to children that
divorce is an acceptable solution to an
unhappy marriage - risk for BOTH Loud
and Quiet divorce

Lower threshold at which adult children
consider divorce when they themselves
encounter problems
Risk Factors Work 2 ways

Creating conflict

Reducing level of commitment to idea of
commitment