2 Exploring rElationships and FamiliEs Learning Objectives Science: TranScending PerSOnaL exPerience The Blinders of Personal Experience 1 Demonstrate how scientific knowledge differs from that gained through personal experience. 2 Discuss various theoretical perspectives on families, noting their main contributions and critiques. 3 Describe why rules for research are essential to science. 4 Discuss the most common data-gathering techniques. 5 Describe some ethical principles associated with scientific research. 6 Recognize that social scientists from across the globe research families worldwide. Issues for Thought: Studying Families and Ethnicity Scientific Norms TheOreTicaL PerSPecTiveS On The FamiLy The Family Ecology Perspective The Family Life Course Development Framework The Structure–Functional Perspective The Interaction–Constructionist Perspective A Closer Look at Diversity: Hetero-Gay Families Exchange Theory Family Systems Theory Conflict and Feminist Theory The Biosocial Perspective Attachment Theory Facts About Families: How Family Researchers Study Religion from Various Theoretical Perspectives ▲ DW labs Incorporated/Shutterstock.com The Relationship Between Theory and Research deSigning a ScienTiFic STudy: SOme BaSic PrinciPLeS Cross–Sectional Versus Longitudinal Data Deductive Versus Inductive Reasoning Quantitative Versus Qualitative Research Defining Terms Samples and Generalization Data-Collection Techniques The Ethics of Research on Families 29 Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 30 ● ● ● Chapter 2 Exploring Relationships and Families “What’s happening to the family today?” “What’s a good family?” “How do I make that happen?” In Chapter 1 we said that the best decisions are informed ones made consciously. Throughout this textbook we, your authors, point out many facts that are supported by evidence about relationships and families. We base what we write on published information that we trust is accurate. We provide citations to the sources of our information, then give the complete reference that goes with each citation in the reference section at the back of this book. If you wish, you can find the article or book that we’ve cited, then read it for yourself and see whether you agree with our interpretation. Where does the information in the article or book come from? Mainly, it results from social scientists’ use of theoretical perspectives and research methods designed to explore family life. Family research occurs globally, and for the most part researchers worldwide employ similar theories and methods. In this chapter, though, we will focus on the United States. This chapter invites you into the world of social science so that you can understand and share this way of examining family life. First we’ll discuss how science differs from simply having an opinion or a strongly held belief. Next we will examine various theoretical perspectives used by social scientists. After that we’ll explore some important things to know about scientific research, then discuss various ways that family scientists gather data. Throughout, we need to keep in mind that studying a phenomenon as close to our hearts as family life can be a knotty challenge. The Blinders of Personal experience Although personal experience provides us with information, it may also create blinders. We may assume that our own family is normal or typical. If you grew up in a large family, for example, in which a grandparent or an aunt or uncle shared your home, you probably assumed (for a short time at least) that everyone had a big family. Perceptions like this are usually outgrown at an early age. However, some family styles may be taken for granted or assumed to be universal when they are not. In looking at family customs around the world, we can easily see the error of assuming that all marriage and family practices are like our own. Common American assumptions about family life not only fail to hold true in other places but also frequently don’t even describe our own society well. Lesbian or gay male families; black, Latino, and Asian families; Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Latter-day Saints (Mormon), Islamic, Buddhist, and nonreligious families; upper-class, middle-class, and lower-class families; urban and rural families—all represent differences in family lifestyle. Nevertheless, the tendency to use only our experiential knowledge as a yardstick for measuring things is strong. Therefore, science has developed norms for transcending the blinders of personal experience. The central aim of scientific investigation is to find out what is actually going on as opposed to what we assume is happening. Science can be defined as “a logical system that bases knowledge on . . . systematic observation” and on empirical evidence— facts we verify with our senses (Macionis 2006, p. 15). The central purpose of the scientific method is to overcome The great variation in family forms and the variety of social settings for family life mean that few of us can rely only on firsthand experience when studying families. Although we “know” about the family because we have lived in one, the beliefs we have about the family based on personal experience may not tell the whole story. We may also be misled by media images and common sense—what “everybody knows.” For instance, “everybody knows” that teenagers in families that eat dinner together regularly are happier and less likely to abuse drugs or be otherwise delinquent. But a recent study designed to closely examine this assumption found that this “fact” held true only when the parent-adolescent relationship was strong and positive. When that relationship was weak or fraught with conflict, family dinners were of little benefit (Meier and Musick 2014). What “everybody knows” can actually be a misrepresentation of the facts. Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com Science: TranScending PerSonal exPerience Does this family look like yours? If “yes” or “somewhat yes,” in what ways do these folks look like your family? If not, how does your family look? Researchers work to get actual facts about families, not stereotyped images. Some American families do look like this one, but—as discussed in Chapter 1— they are not the numerical majority. Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 issues for Thought Studying Families and Ethnicity How social scientists go about objectively researching families across a variety of races, ethnicities, and immigrant or nativity statuses becomes an increasingly apparent issue to ponder in the United States today. As men and women from diverse race/ethnic backgrounds have come into the field of family studies, they have pointed out how often limited and sometimes biased our theoretical and research perspectives have been (Lopez 2015). For many years, research on African Americans focused almost exclusively on poor, singleparent households in the inner city and ignored middle-class blacks (Hymowitz 2006). Overlooking many other topics, research on Latinos often investigated Mexican immigrants’ assumed “patriarchal” culture (Baca Zinn and Wells 2007; Taylor 2007). In his book Orientalism (1979), social theorist Professor Edward W. Said noted that European and then American scholars have long presented people from the Middle East in ways that stereotyped Arabs as exotic, mysterious, and dangerous. Following in Said’s footsteps, media scholar Professor Jack Shaheen examined more than 1,000 American studio films depicting Arabs or Arab Americans. He found an unchanging and rigid stereotype that presents an image of “barbarism” and “buffoonery.” In addition, it may be that much of the scholarly marriage and family literature in the United States focusing on Arab families tends to view this ethnically and religiously diverse group as monolithic and through the lens of Euro-American superiority (Beitin, Allen, and Bekheet 2010). Later, following the negative reaction to the earlier, limited portrayal of race/ethnic family differences, researchers began to report on the strengths of families of color, multiracial families, and multi-ethnic families, pointing to strong extended-family support, more egalitarian spousal relationships, and class, regional, and rural–urban diversity (Gottlieb, Pilkauskas, and Garfinkel 2014). For example, a substantial proportion of African American single-mother households contain other adults who take part in raising the children (Taylor 2007). As another example, Annette Lareau (2003a) points to the rich family life of working- and lower-class children whose parents are less focused on educational and achievement goals and activities and hence have considerable time to spend with relatives. Research on extendedfamily ties illuminates the great amount of instrumental help that Hispanic extended families provide to their members. This means that workplace policies that presume only nuclear-family members need the flexibility to provide family care does not take into account the real lives of Hispanic families (Sarkisian, Gerena, and Gerstel 2006). Furthermore, research now using a comparative approach has shown us that the same family phenomenon may have different outcomes in different racial/ethnic settings. For example, communication processes vary by family types, with multiracial and multiethnic families developing unique forms of communication that assist researchers’ blinders or biases. (“Issues for thought: Studying Families and Ethnicity,” addresses race/ethnic bias in research.) Scientific researchers are ever cognizant of the need to gather data that accurately correspond with reality (Babbie 2014; Umberson et al. 2015). “We must be dedicated to finding the truth as it is rather than as we think it should be” (Macionis 2006, p. 18, italics in original). in maintaining solidarity among the family members (Soliz, Thorson, and Rittenour 2009, p. 829). Today’s research on family and ethnicity tends to be more complex and sophisticated than in the past. Concern about family fragility and individual disorganization is balanced by recognition of diversity and of community and family strengths. Multiple influences on race/ethnic families are acknowledged: (1) mainstream culture, (2) ethnic settings, and (3) the negative impact of disadvantaged neighborhoods or family circumstances that can produce behaviors that are inappropriately viewed as a “minority culture” (S. Hill 2004). Structural influences—that is, economic opportunity—are seen as a powerful influence on family relations and behavior. The role of “agency,” or the initiative of families, is recognized: “What happens on a daily basis in family relations and domestic settings also constructs families. . . . Families should be seen as settings in which people are agents and actors, coping with, adapting to, and changing social structures to meet their needs” (Baca Zinn and Wells 2007, p. 426; see also S. Hill 2004). Critical Thinking Does your family heritage or your observation of families make you think of family patterns that seem different from people’s assumptions about families? How might your insights or observations help researchers learn more about families in a variety of family sociocultural situations? Scientific norms To transcend personal biases, scientists follow certain norms (Babbie 2014; Merton 1973 [1942]). Of course, researchers are expected to be honest and to never fabricate results. Scientists are expected to publish their research. Publishers are required to evaluate submissions 31 Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 32 Chapter 2 Exploring Relationships and Families only on merit, never taking into account the researcher’s social characteristics, such as race/ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic class, religion, or institutional affiliation. To accomplish this, publishers have reviewers, or “referees,” who evaluate submissions “blind” (without knowing the name or anything else about the researcher submitting the article for publication). Publishing allows research results to be reviewed and critiqued by others. In this way, science becomes cumulative: Findings from various research projects build on one another. Over time, a particular conclusion will be seen to have more evidence behind it than others (e.g., Amato 2012; Carey 2012; Marks 2012). It is well established, for example, that marriage carries many benefits for the individual, the couple, and their children (Waite and Gallagher 2000; Wilcox et al. 2011; Wilcox Marquardt, Popenoe, and Whitehead 2011). It has also been well established that the arrival of children is associated with at least an initial decline in marital happiness, probably from less leisure time as well as the challenges of child raising and concomitant modifications to the couple’s relationship (Clayton and Perry-Jenkins 2008; Margolis and Myrskylä 2015). This last is a conclusion that is not so pleasing to hear, but an important scientific norm involves having objectivity: “The ideal of objective inquiry is to let the facts speak for themselves and not be colored by the personal values and biases of the researcher” (Macionis 2006, p. 18). To do this, scientists use rigorous methods that follow a carefully designed research plan. We return to a discussion of scientific methods later in this chapter. “In reality, of course, total neutrality is impossible for anyone” (Macionis 2006, p. 18). However, following standard research practices and submitting the results to review by other scientists is likely in the long run to correct the biases of individual researchers. At the same time, there are many visions of the family and relationships; what an observer reads into the data depends partly on his or her theoretical perspective. TheoreTical PerSPecTiveS on The Family Theoretical perspectives are ways of viewing reality. As tools of analysis, they are equivalent to lenses through which observers view, organize, and then interpret what they see. A theoretical perspective leads family researchers to identify those aspects of families and relationships that interest them and suggests possible explanations for why patterns and behaviors are the way they are. There are several different theoretical perspectives on the family. It is useful to think of each as a point of view. As with a physical object such as a building, when we see a family from different angles, we have a better grasp of what it is than if we look at it only from a single fixed position. Often theoretical perspectives on relationships and families complement one another and may appear together in a single piece of research. We’ll point to examples throughout this chapter. In other instances, the perspectives appear contradictory, leading scholars and policy makers into heated debate. In this section, we describe nine theoretical perspectives related to families: 1. family ecology perspective 2. the family life course development framework 3. the structure–functional perspective 4. the interaction–constructionist perspective 5. exchange theory 6. family systems theory 7. conflict and feminist theory 8. the biosocial perspective 9. attachment theory We will see that each perspective illuminates our understanding in its own way. Table 2.1 presents a summary of these theoretical perspectives. (Chapter 10’s Table 10.1 applies several of these theoretical perspectives to the topic of unpaid household labor.) The Family ecology Perspective The family ecology perspective explores how a family is influenced by the surrounding environment. The relationship of work to family life, discussed in Chapter 10, is one example of an ecological focus. Sociologists might look at how nonstandard work schedules, such as working nights or split shifts, or having consistent health insurance benefits affect family relationships, for example (Davis et al. 2008; Lombardi and Coley 2013). We use the family ecology perspective throughout this book when we stress that, although society does not determine family members’ behavior, it does present constraints for families as well as opportunities. The concept of sociological imagination, introduced in Chapter 1, is in line with the family ecology perspective. Families’ lives and choices are affected by economic, educational, religious, and cultural institutions, as well as by historical circumstances such as the development of the Internet, war, recession, and immigration patterns. Every family is embedded in “a set of nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of Russian dolls” (Bronfenbrenner 1979, p. 3). Each “nested structure” includes events, social policies, social characteristics, and culture—structures that exist outside families and influence them. We can think of these various outside influences as radiating outward from the family as follows: (1) the neighborhood; (2) the workplace; (3) the Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Theoretical Perspectives on the Family ta b l E 2 . 1 TheoreTical PersPecTive 33 Theoretical Perspectives on the Family Theme Key concePTs currenT research Family Ecology The ecological context of the family affects family life and children’s outcomes. Natural physical-biological environment Social-cultural environment Effect on families of economic inequality in the United States Race/ethnic and immigration status variations Effect on families of the changing global economy Family policy Neighborhood effects Family Life Course Development Framework Families experience predictable changes over time. Family life course Developmental tasks “On-time” transitions Role sequencing Emerging adulthood Timing of employment, marriage, and parenthood Pathways to family formation Structure– Functional The family performs essential functions for society. Social institution Family structure Family functions Functional alternatives Cross-cultural and historical comparisons Analysis of emerging family structures in regard to their comparative functionality Critique of contemporary family Interaction– Constructionist By means of interaction, humans construct sociocultural meanings. The internal dynamics of a group of interacting individuals construct the family. Interaction Symbol Meaning Role making Social construction of reality Deconstruction Postmodernism Symbolic meaning assigned to domestic work and other family activities Deconstruction of reified categories Exchange Theory The resources that individuals bring to a relationship or family affect the formation, continuation, nature, and power dynamics of a relationship. Social exchanges are compiled to create networks and social capital. Resources Rewards and costs Family power Social networks Social support Family power Entry and exit from marriage Family violence Network-derived social support Systems Theory The family as a whole is more than the sum of its parts. System Equilibrium Boundaries Family therapy Family efficacy and crisis management Family boundaries Feminist Theory Gender is central to the analysis of the family. Male dominance in society and in the family is oppressive of women. Male dominance Power and inequality Work and family Family power Domestic violence Deconstruction of reified gender categories Deconstruction of definition of marriage as necessarily heterosexual Advocacy of women’s issues (Continued) Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 34 Chapter 2 (Continued) ta b l E 2 . 1 TheoreTical PersPecTive Exploring Relationships and Families Theme Key concePTs currenT research Biosocial Perspective Evolution of the human species has put in place certain biological endowments that shape and limit family choices. Evolutionary heritage Genes, hormones, and brain processes Inclusive fitness Connections between biological markers and family behavior Evolutionary heritage explanations for gender differences, sexuality, reproduction, and parenting behaviors Development of research methods that can explore the respective influences of “nature” and “nurture” Attachment Theory Early childhood experience with caregiver(s) shape psychological attachment styles. Secure, insecure/anxious, and avoidant attachment styles Attachment style and mate choice, jealousy, relationship commitment, separation, or divorce community, town, or city; (4) the state, including state laws and policies; (5) the country, including national laws and policies; (6) the world, especially in an era of globalism; and (7) Earth’s physical environment. All parts of the model are interrelated and influence one another (Bubolz and Sontag 1993; and see Figure 2.1). Earth’s physical environment—climate and climate change, soil, plants, animals—provides an essential backdrop against which all family living is played out. Family ecologists stress the interdependence of all the ci Ne ty od Envviron nme enta al influ uen ncess on fam milie es physical environm h’s en World t n t u r o y C State ty, town, i n or mu m Workplace h b o rh o ig Co rt Ea Family Fam F milies es’ in nflue enc ces on n th heir su urround dings F i g U r E 2 . 1 Various outside influences radiate outward from the family, influencing it and being influenced by it. world’s families—not only with one another but also with our planet’s physical environment (Trask 2013). International social scientists have begun to note the phenomenon of environmental migrants or climate refugees as people in some parts of the world move to escape natural disasters of previously unknown proportions or rising sea waters that threaten small ocean islands (Laczko 2010). Although it is crucial, the interaction of families with the physical environment is beyond the scope of this text. Our interest centers on families in their sociocultural environments. The social–cultural ecology of families may be examined historically. Ways that historical periods affect individuals, relationships, and families are explored in Chapter 1. This perspective also analyzes the non–climate-related environments of contemporary families at various levels from the global to the neighborhood (Trask 2013; Yu 2015). On the global level, for instance, changing coffee or sugar prices at your grocery store impact families in coffee- or sugar-growing regions of the world (Alvarez 2010; Valkila, Haaparanta, and Niemi 2010). Closer to home, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States and the subsequent ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have been part of a global conflict affecting American family life in many ways (Lundquist and Xu 2014; Wadsworth and MacDermid 2010). As a second example, the Great Recession that began in late 2007 ended many jobs filled by immigrants, who consequently wrestled with decisions about returning to their home countries (Schuman 2009). More generally, economic globalization—with the increasing outsourcing of jobs to regions with lower labor costs— has affected breadwinning and consumption in many American families (Preston 2015). Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Theoretical Perspectives on the Family Hero Images Inc./Superstock On the national level, American policies and culture emphasize military intervention worldwide but seem unable to adequately care for returning veterans, thus affecting many military families (Finkel 2013; Wadsworth and MacDermid 2012). Minimum wage legislation at the federal, state, and city levels affects everyday family life. For example, as we write, minimumwage breadwinners in many states earn the federally mandated $7.25 per hour. Some states and cities, however, have enacted legislation that has increased the minimum wage, with earners in some regions making as much as $15 per hour (Doyle 2015). Meanwhile, families are impacted by federal Head Start, food assistance, and other programs designed to help those in poverty. The national Social Security program, coupled with Medicare, greatly influences elderly family members’ retirement and housing choices. Sometimes researchers compare the relative effects of various countries’ family environments. One fairly recent study compared how some European countries’ national policies regarding men’s and women’s paid work, as well as financial support for families, have affected couples’ fertility decisions and family households’ division of labor (Billingsley and Ferrarini 2014; Cooke and Baxter 2010). We return to this discussion in Chapters 3 and 10. Furthermore, family ecologists often stress the importance of workplace, town or city, state, and national policies on family living (Kalil et al. 2014). Arizona legislation that focuses on deporting undocumented immigrants has affected many families in that state (Brown 2013; All else being equal, residing in a supportive and helpful neighborhood translates into less family stress than otherwise. Meanwhile, families need to participate in the neighborhood in order to help create a cooperative environment for themselves. This group is planting a community garden. People in this neighborhood join together in activities that benefit families who live there. 35 Simpson 2015). On the community level, the availability of reasonably priced mass transit affects access to work. Community gardens, worked by neighborhood residents and often established in formerly vacant city lots, improve people’s food and nutritional options. Neighborhoods impact family well-being as well (Bowen et al. 2008). Homeless children and those raised in poor neighborhoods are at greater risk for negative social, educational, economic, and health outcomes, as well as early and indiscriminate death from gun violence (Conger, Conger, and Martin 2010; Edin and Kissane 2010; Gültekin 2012). Mothers raising children amid neighborhood poverty express fears about letting them play outdoors (Kimbro and Schachter 2011). Whether in the neighborhood, workplace, community, or broader society, culture can influence families. For example, a review of the literature that examined marital well-being among U.S. couples of Mexican origin concluded that navigating the often contradictory expectations of two cultures—Mexican and Anglo—can produce challenges that may help to explain relatively high divorce rates among Mexican American couples (Helms, Supple, and Proulx 2011). Ecologists have also examined the sociocultural settings of relatively privileged families (Swartz 2008). Examining the kinds of economic and social advantages enjoyed by the middle and upper levels of society is uncommon but needs to be encouraged. It may provide insight into the conditions that would enable all families to succeed. Moreover, elements in the social–cultural environment of upper-socioeconomic-level families—excessive achievement pressure or the isolation of children from busy, accomplishment-oriented parents—can be problematic. For instance, “the silence (in the community and in academia) surrounding domestic violence in affluent communities jeopardizes the health and safety of [affluent, victimized] mothers and their children . . .” (Haselschwerdt 2012, p. F16). The ecology perspective helps to identify factors that are important to societal and community support for all families. Exploring family life through this perspective leads to interest in family policy (the various laws and other regulations and procedures that impact families), which is discussed in Chapter 1. Contributions and Critiques of the Family ecology perspective This perspective first emerged in the late nineteenth century, a period marked by concern about family welfare. The family ecology model resurfaced in the 1960s with the War on Poverty, a federal program directed toward eliminating existing high levels of poverty. The family ecology perspective makes an important contribution today by challenging the idea that family satisfaction or success depends solely on individual effort. Furthermore, the perspective turns our attention to family social policy—what may be done about social issues or problems that affect relationships and families. Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 36 Chapter 2 Exploring Relationships and Families Nikada/E+/Getty Images A possible disadvantage of the family ecology perspective is that it is so broad and inclusive that virtually nothing is left out. One research agenda can hardly account for the family’s sociocultural environment on all levels from the global to the neighborhood. More and more, however, social scientists are exploring family ecology in concrete settings. For example, Canadian researchers Phyllis Johnson and Kathrin Stoll (2008) investigated how Sudanese refugee men continued to enact the African breadwinner role for their families while resettling alone in western Canada. The Family life course development Framework Whereas family ecology analyzes relationships, families, and the broader society as interdependent parts of a whole, the family life course development framework focuses on the family itself as the unit of analysis (Sassler 2010; White and Klein 2008). The concept of the family life course is central here, based on the idea that the family changes in fairly predictable ways over time. Typical stages in the family life course are marked by (1) the addition or subtraction of family members (through birth, death, and leaving home), (2) the various stages that the children go through, and (3) changes in the family’s connections with other social institutions (retirement from work, for example, or a child’s entry into school). Each stage has requisite developmental tasks that must be mastered before family members transition successfully to the next stage. Therefore, this perspective has tended to assume that families perform better when life course stages proceed in orderly fashion. Traditionally, this perspective assumed that families begin with marriage. The newly established couple stage ends when the arrival of the first baby thrusts the couple into the families of preschoolers stage, which is followed later by the families of primary school children stage and the families with adolescents stage (Crosnoe and Cavanagh 2010). Families in the middle years help their offspring enter the adult worlds of employment and their own family formation. Later, parents return to a couple focus with the time and money to pursue leisure activities (if they are fortunate). Still later, aging families must adjust to retirement and perhaps health crises or debilitating chronic illness. The death of a spouse marks the end of the family life course (Aldous 1996). Role sequencing, the order in which major life course transitions take place, is important to this perspective. The normative order hypothesis proposes that the work– marriage–parenthood sequence is thought to be best for mental health and happiness (Jackson 2004; Wilcox, Marquardt et al. 2011a). Then, too, “on-time” transitions— those that occur when they are supposed to, rather than “too early” or “late”—are generally considered most likely to result in successful role performance during According to the family life course development framework, this father is in the families of primary school children stage. Like other family life course stages, this stage has particular tasks that need to be performed—tasks for which previous life course stages, if completed successfully, have helped to prepare him. subsequent life course stages (Booth, Rustenbach, and McHale 2008; Hogan and Astone 1986). The concept of delayed exits and the term boomerang kids imply that young adult children have not left the parental home “on time” or for good (Sandberg-Thoma, Snyder, and Jang 2015). Emerging adulthood is a stage in individual development that precedes and affects entry into the family life course. The concept conveys a sense of ongoing development, a period “when the scope of independent exploration of life’s possibilities is greater for most people than it will be at any other period of the life course” (Arnett 2000, p. 469). Transition to adulthood is now completed more gradually and later than it has been in the past—usually by age 30 (Arnett 2004; Furstenberg 2008). A principal reason for this change: As discussed in Chapter 1, it takes longer today to earn enough to support a family (Gibson-Davis 2009). Emerging adulthood is further explored in Chapters 6 and 7. In addition to examining the transition to adulthood, researchers using the family life course development framework also extensively study the various transitions, or “pathways,” to family formation (Amato et al. 2008). “The scope of research on intimate partnering now includes studies of ‘hooking up,’ Internet dating, visiting relationships, cohabitation, marriage following childbirth, and serial partnering, as well as more traditional research on transitions into marriage” (Sassler 2010, p. 557). In this vein, researchers note “the continued ‘decoupling’ of marriage and childbearing” (Smock and Greenland 2010). Researchers—noting Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Theoretical Perspectives on the Family that “experiences of young people between 18 and 25 who are homeless might not resemble the traditional college students who are often the population studied in emerging adult research”—have combined the family life course with the family ecology perspectives to investigate emerging adulthood among youth living on the street (Williams and Sheehan 2015, p. 129). Other life course researchers have tackled the question of how lifelong childlessness affects well-being (Umberson, Pudrovska, and Reczek 2010). Thus, the family life course development framework meets the postmodern family. Contributions and Critiques of the Family Life Course Development Framework The family life course development framework directs attention to various stages that relationships and families encounter throughout life. Hence, this perspective encourages us to investigate various family behaviors over time. For instance, research consistently finds that women are more likely to work on maintaining family relationships. Building on this research, three Belgian sociologists asked, “Is this true for all life stages?” They found the answer to be yes (Bracke, Christiaens, and Wauterickx 2008). As another example, researchers looked at reasons for calling telephone crisis hotlines across the life course. They found that “issues of loneliness increased with age whereas depression-related calls decreased” (Ingram et al. 2008). Furthermore, this perspective directs our attention to how particular life course transitions affect family interaction. For example, researchers have investigated how transitions to parenthood or from cohabitation to marriage affect the time partners spend on housework (Baxter, Hewitt, and Haynes 2008; Yavorsky, Dush, and Schoppe-Sullivan 2015). This perspective also prompts researchers to look at interactions among family members who are in different life course stages such as a study of ongoing affection between grandparents and young adults (Monserud 2008). Critics note remnants of the traditional tendency within this perspective toward assumptions of life course standardization, possibly suggesting a white, middleclass bias. Moreover, because of economic, ethnic, and cultural differences, two families in the same life cycle stage may be very different. For these reasons, the family development perspective is perhaps somewhat less popular now than it was half a century or more ago, although the perspective is still used. The Structure–Functional Perspective The structure–functional perspective investigates how a given social structure functions to fill basic societal needs. As discussed in Chapter 1, families are principally accountable for three vital family functions: to 37 raise children responsibly, to provide economic support, and to give family members emotional security. Social structure refers to the ways that families are patterned or organized—that is, the form that a family may take. As discussed in Chapter 1, there is no typical American family structure today. Instead, families evidence a variety of forms including same-sex families, cohabitating families, single-parent families, and transnational families whose members bridge and maintain relationships across national borders. The structure–functional perspective encourages researchers to ask how well a particular family structure performs a basic family function. For example, there is considerable research into how well single mothers, cohabitating couples, or unmarried nonresident fathers perform the function of responsible child rearing (Bellamy, Thullen, and Hans 2015; Carlson 2006; Manning and Lamb 2003). Results of this research are explored in Chapters 6, 7, and 14. The structure–functional perspective may encourage a family researcher to think in terms of functional alternatives—alternate structures that might perform a function traditionally assigned to the nuclear family (Nelson 2013). A study among recent immigrants found that fictive kin—relationships “based not on blood or marriage but rather on religious rituals or close friendship ties, that replicates many of the rights and obligations usually associated with family ties”—can serve as a functional alternative to the nuclear family. Results showed that “functions include assuring the spiritual development of the child and thereby reinforcing cultural continuity, exercising social control, providing material support, and assuring socioemotional support” (Ebaugh and Curry 2000, pp. 189, 199). Recent research on black lesbian couples found that in the absence of felt support for their relationship from parents and extended biological kin, the women looked for support among fictive kin in gay and lesbian communities (Glass and Few-Demo 2013). The term dysfunction emerged from the structure– functional perspective (Merton 1968 [1949]) as a focus on social patterns or behaviors that fail to fulfill basic family needs. Obviously, domestic violence is dysfunctional in that it opposes the family function of providing emotional security. Although the term dysfunctional family is often used by laypeople and in counseling psychology, sociologists seldom use the term, which is considered too vague and imprecisely defined. The structure–functional perspective might also encourage one to ask, “Functional for whom?” when examining a particular social structure (Merton 1968 [1949]). For instance, traditional male authority and higher prestige may be functional for fathers—and in some cultures for brothers—but not necessarily for mothers or sisters. Separating may seem to be functional for one or both of the adults involved, but it’s not necessarily so for the children (Amato 2000, 2004). Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 38 Chapter 2 Exploring Relationships and Families Contributions and Critiques of the Structure– Functional perspective Virtually all social scientists agree on the one basic premise underlying structure– functionalism: that families are an important social institution performing essential social functions. The structure–functional perspective encourages us to ask how well various family forms do in filling basic family needs. Furthermore, the perspective can be interpreted as encouraging us to examine ways in which functional alternatives to the heterosexual nuclear family may perform basic family functions. However, as it dominated family sociology in the United States during the 1950s, the structure– functional perspective gave us an unrealistic image of smoothly working families characterized only by shared values. Furthermore, the perspective once argued for the functionality of specialized gender roles: the instrumental husband-father who supports the family economically and wields authority inside and outside the family, and the expressive wife-mother-homemaker whose main function is to enhance emotional relations at home and socialize young children (Parsons and Bales 1955). Then, too, the structure–functional perspective has generally been understood to define the heterosexual nuclear family as the “normal” or “functional” family structure. As a result, many social scientists, particularly feminists, rebuke this perspective (Anderson and Sabatelli 2007; Stacey 2006). The vast majority of family sociologists today rarely reference structure– functionalism directly. The interaction–constructionist Perspective As its name implies, the interaction–constructionist perspective focuses on interaction, the face-to-face encounters and relationships of individuals who act in awareness of one another. Often this perspective explores the daily conversation, gestures, and other behaviors that go on in families (Glass and Few-Demo 2013). By means of these interchanges, something called “family” appears (Berger and Kellner 1970). Family identity, traditions, and commitment emerge through interaction, with the development of relationships and the generation of rituals—recurring practices defined as special and different from the everyday (Byrd 2009; Oswald and Masciadrelli 2008). Sometimes this perspective explores family rolemaking as partners adapt culturally understood roles— for example, uncle, mother-in-law, grandmother, or stepfather—to their own situations and preferences. One study looked at how older Chinese and Korean immigrants remade family roles on immigrating to the United States (Wong, Yoo, and Stewart 2006). A Korean grandmother described remaking her mother-in-law role: Once I immigrated I realized there are cultural differences between the U.S. and Korea especially when it comes to family dynamics. For example, I can’t always say what I would like to say to my daughter-in-law. I follow the American ways and have given up trying to tell her what to do. . . . I would like to tell my daughter-in-law to punish the grandchildren when they misbehave. But in America, us elders do not have the right to say this. I just keep these thoughts to myself. (p. S6) This point of view also examines how family members interact with the outside world in order to manage family (Glass and Few-Demo 2013). An example is a study of interaction strategies used by couples who had chosen to remain childfree. Feeling potentially stigmatized, some claimed that they were biologically unable to have children. Others aggressively asserted the merits of a childfree lifestyle (Park 2002). The couples worked to construct how others would define their not having children. reality as Constructed This approach explores ways that people, by interacting with one another, construct, or create, meanings, symbols, and definitions of events or situations. A respondent in the study of Chinese and Korean immigrants saw family photographs as symbols of her changing (reconstructed) family role: My children got married and started to have a family of their own. . . . We are now no longer the center, but on the peripheries of their families. Even when we take pictures, we don’t stand in the center but on the side. It’s totally different in China. Even when we took pictures, parents would be pictured in the middle. (Wong, Yoo, and Stewart 2006, p. S6) The study of black lesbians mentioned earlier found that biological extended kin sought to “relabel” a lesbian family member as asexual or just going through a phase that she will get over (Glass and FewDemo 2013). As people “put out” or externalize meanings, these meanings come to be reified, or made to seem real. Once a meaning or definition of a situation is reified, people internalize it and take it for granted as “real” rather than viewing it as a human creation (Berger and Luckman 1966). For example, many newlyweds take it for granted that a honeymoon should follow their wedding; they don’t think about the fact that the idea of a honeymoon is socially constructed (Bulcroft et al. 1997). Sociologists James Holstein and Jaber Gubrium (2008) combine this perspective with the family life course development framework to investigate how individuals gradually construct their life course. Unlike structure–functionalism, in which analysis begins with one or more family forms that are understood as given, the interaction–constructionist perspective focuses on the processes through which family forms are constructed and maintained. For instance, we typically think of the “battered woman” as having been abused by a male, thereby maintaining the social construction of domestic life as heterosexual (VanNatta 2005). Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Our values and beliefs about divorce, childbearing outside marriage, and singleparent families can also be understood as socially constructed (Thornton 2009). Exposing the ways that symbols and definitions are constructed is called deconstruction, a process typically identified with postmodern theory. Lawrence Migdale/Photo Researchers, Inc./Science Source Theoretical Perspectives on the Family 39 postmodern theory Postmodern theory can be understood as a special focus within the broader interaction– constructionist perspective (Kools 2008). Having gained recognition in the social sciences since the 1980s, postmodern theory largely analyzes social discourse or narrative (public or private, written or verbal This African American family is celebrating Kwanzaa, created in the statements or stories). The analytic purpose is to demonstrate that a phenome1960s by Ron Karenga and based on African traditions. An estimated non is socially constructed (Gubrium and 10 million black Americans now celebrate Kwanzaa as a ritual of family, Holstein 2009). A principal goal involves roots, and community. The experience of adopting or creating family debunking essentialism—the idea that catrituals fits the interaction–constructionist perspective on the family. egories really do exist in nature and are not simply reifications. Examples include analyses of the concepts of gender and race (see Chapter 1). then what? “If everything is socially constructed, then Formerly taken for granted as essentially “real,” these catwe gain nothing by employing the term. It has become egories are now generally recognized—at least within the a mantra that explains very little” (Stacey 2006, p. 481). social sciences—as social constructions. Chapter 3 further Moreover, it is virtually impossible to conduct tradiexplores the social construction of gender. tional social science research in the absence of agreedWhen applied to relationships, postmodern theory upon social categories (Cockerham 2007). posits that beliefs about what constitutes a “real” family are nothing more than socially fabricated narratives, exchange Theory having been constructed through public discourse (Barton and Bishop 2014). (“A Closer Look at Diversity: Exchange theory applies an economic perspective to Hetero-Gay Families” illustrates the social construction social relationships. A basic premise is that when inof a postmodern family form, along with examples of dividuals are engaged in social exchanges, they prefer relevant discourse, or narrative.) to limit their costs and maximize their rewards. Chapter 1 discusses making informed decisions as a process Contributions and Critiques of the Interaction– of “deciding” rather than “sliding.” According to exConstructionist perspective The interaction– change theory, which also emphasizes decision making, constructionist perspective alerts us to the idea that we choose among options after calculating potential remuch in our environment is neither “given” nor “natuwards against costs and weighing our alternatives. Those ral,” but socially constructed by humans—those in the of us with more resources, such as education or good past and those around us now. In this way, the perspecincomes, have a wider range of options from which to tive can be liberating. If a social structure, definition, choose. This orientation examines how individuals’ pervalue, or belief is oppressive, it can be challenged: Consonal resources, including physical attractiveness and structed by human social interaction, phenomena can personality characteristics, affect the formation and also be changed by such interaction. Social movements continuation of relationships. advocating legalization of same-sex marriage proceed According to this perspective, an individual’s depenfrom this beginning point. At the family level, this perdence on and emotional involvement in a relationship spective leads researchers to focus on family members’ affects her or his relative power in the relationship. interaction patterns, along with emergent definitions, When alternatives to a relationship seem slim, one symbols, rituals, and the consequences thereof. wields less power in the relationship. According to the Critics ask, “Where do we go from here?” (Wasserman principle of least interest, the partner with less commit2009). Once the taken-for-granted is deconstructed, ment to the relationship is the one who has more power Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 a closer look at diversity Hetero-Gay Families Increasingly we inhabit a postmodern world. Three social scientists tell us about a family form that is known in Israel but may sound new to us: the hetero-gay family. In this case, a single heterosexual woman who desires motherhood but not marriage conceives (typically via artificial insemination) one or more children with a gay man. Although they do not reside together, both birth parents actively share financial and parental caregiving responsibilities. Virtually always the children live with their mothers. Researchers Segal-Engelchin, Erera, and Cwikel (2012) interviewed a small sample of ten Israeli women in heterogay families. Seven had one child and three had two children shared with the same father. Although the mothers could have been heterosexually active, none of them happened to be romantically involved at interview time. Five of the study participants’ co-parents were living with an intimate male partner; the other five were single gay men. The children ranged in age from 5 months to 9 years. This path to parenthood is assisted in Israel by the Alternative Parenting Center, a nongovernmental organization established in 1994 for that purpose. The center introduces prospective co-parents and then provides them guidance from their decision to become co-parents through conception, pregnancy, delivery, and the arrival of the newborn into the family unit. The parents negotiate a shared-parenting agreement that determines parental rights and responsibilities, including the child’s primary residence, visitation schedules, and child support. Equally shared co-parenting is foreseen to be lifelong. The study participants’ discourse around constructing this family form involved wanting to start a family and the strong belief that having both a mother and a father was best for a child, but not wanting an ongoing sexual—one woman said “sexually charged”—relationship with a heterosexual male. As one explained, In a relationship between a straight woman and a gay man, it’s an advantage not to have sexual tension. And it’s really easy; it makes the whole thing devoid of emotional baggage, devoid of sexual baggage, I mean, we both know ahead of time that we can’t fall in love; all that’s left is for us to be friends. (p. 397) (Waller 1951). Those with more resources and options can use them to bargain and secure advantages in relationships. People without resources or alternatives to a relationship typically defer to the preferences of the other and are less likely to leave (Sprecher, Schmeeckle, and Felmlee 2006). From this point of view, responses to domestic violence and decisions to separate or divorce are affected by partners’ relative resources. The relative resources of participants shapes power and influence in families and impacts household communication patterns, decision making, and division of labor. Relationships based on exchanges that are equal or equitable (fair, if not actually equal) thrive, whereas those in which the exchange balance feels consistently one-sided are more likely to dissolve or be unhappy. Dating relationships, marriage and other committed The mothers emphasized that children need a “father figure”: The more I thought about going to the sperm bank . . . and asking and checking with women who did do it through the sperm bank, whose kids are a bit older, the more I decided that I wanted a father for my kid. Kids constantly search for a father figure . . . and when it’s the sperm bank and there’s nothing, there’s just one big emptiness! . . . I wanted a dad who’s active, who’ll want his kids. I wanted a father that the kids will also know is their dad. ( p. 395) Equally important, the mothers in this study wanted an explicitly understood and absolutely fair division of childcare labor. They were convinced that marriage would likely limit their personal independence and result in an unfair division of household and childcare responsibilities. Critical Thinking How do hetero-gay families illustrate 1) postmodern thinking, and 2) postmodern family living? What are some advantages of this family form that are pointed out in these women’s narratives? What might be some disadvantages? partnerships, divorce, and even parent-child relationships show signs of being influenced by participants’ relative resources (Nakonezny and Denton 2008). Israeli research combined three theoretical perspectives—family life course, interaction–constructionist, and exchange theory—to examine how adult grandchildren in Israel defined themselves in their grandparents’ social support networks (Even-Zohar and Sharlin 2009). The authors found that the grandchildren constructed caregiving and other supportive expectations for themselves based largely on how much the grandparent had done for the grandchild over the family life course. Social Networks Exchange theory also focuses on how everyday social exchanges between and among individuals accumulate to create social networks. 40 Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Elizabeth drives Juan to the airport, Juan babysits for Maria, Maria proofreads an assignment for Elizabeth, and so forth until a network of social exchanges emerges. The Internet offers opportunities for building social networks ranging from the local to the international level, such as those on Facebook. Among other things, social network theory, a middle-range subcategory within the exchange perspective, examines how social networks provide individuals with social capital, or resources (friendship, people with whom to exchange favors), that result from their social contacts. Social capital is analogous to financial capital, or money, inasmuch as we can “spend” it to acquire rewards, such as a romantic partner, a job, or emotional support (Benkel, Wijk, and Molander 2009; Wejnert 2008). 41 David Young-Wolff/PhotoEdit Theoretical Perspectives on the Family Even before the Great Recession that began in late 2007, delayed marriage, high housing costs, and other serious financial pressures, such as student loan debt, made it more common for young adults to continue living with their parents or to move back home. The recession accelerated this trend. Family systems theory tells us that when an adult child moves back home, the family system changes and the entire Contributions and Critiques of exchange theory The exchange system of family roles need to readjust in order to maintain balance and perspective provides a framework restore equilibrium. from which to draw specific hypotheses about weighing alternatives and making decisions regarding relationships. Furthermore, Furthermore, systems seek equilibrium, or stable balance and symmetry. Change in one of the parts sets in this perspective leads us to recognize that inequality, or motion a process to restore equilibrium. For example, an unfavorable balance of rewards and costs, gradually in the body system, if one hand becomes disabled, the erodes positive feelings in a relationship. The perspecother must adjust to do the work of both. In family dytive also encourages us to recognize the social capital namics, this tendency toward equilibrium puts pressure brought about by membership in social networks. Exon each member to retain his or her fairly predictable change theory is subject to the criticism that it assumes a human nature that is unrealistically rational and even role. A changing family member is subtly encouraged cynical at heart about the roles of love and responsibility. to revert to her or his original behavior within the family system. For change to occur, the family system as a whole must change. Indeed, that is the goal of family Family Systems Theory therapy based on systems theory. The family may see one member as the problem, but if the psychologist Family systems theory views the family as a whole, or draws the whole family into therapy, the family system system, comprising interrelated parts (the family memshould begin to change. bers) and demarcated by boundaries. Originating in Social scientists have moved systems theory beyond natural science, systems theory was applied to the family its therapeutic origins to employ it in a more general first by psychotherapists and was then adopted by family analysis of families. They are especially interested in scholars. how family systems process information, deal with chalA system is a combination of elements or components lenges, respond to crises, and regulate contact with that are interrelated and organized into a whole. Like the outside world. For example, a 2013 study used an organic system (the body, for example), the parts of this perspective to better understand communication a family compose a working system that behaves fairly among participants in family-operated businesses (Von predictably. The ways in which family members respond to one another can show evidence of patterns. For Schlippe and Frank 2013). As another example, reexample, whenever Jose sulks, Oscar tries to think of searchers have looked at how parents’ feelings of comsomething fun for them to do together. petition at work and home affect others in the family Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 42 Chapter 2 Exploring Relationships and Families system—that is, their children (Schneider, Wallsworth, and Gutin 2014). Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, researchers have just recently become interested in the understudied role of sibling relations within a family system (Senguttuvan, Whiteman, and Jensen 2014). Moreover, family systems researchers have elaborated and explored concepts such as family boundaries (ideas about who is in and who is outside the family system). This perspective also prompts researchers to investigate such things as family boundary ambiguity in which it is unclear who is and is not in the family. Stepfamilies have been researched from this point of view: Do children of divorced parents belong to two (or more) families? To what extent are former spouses and their relatives part of the family (Boss 1997; Stewart 2005a)? Finally, sociologist Laura Enriquez (2015) undertook a study that combined family systems theory with the ecological perspective. She examined how undocumented status for some, but not all, family members affected everyone in the mixed-status family system. Undocumented status is an ecological individual characteristic, a result of national law. Contributions and Critiques of Family Systems theory When working with families in therapy, this perspective has proven very useful (Boss 2015). By understanding how their family system operates, individuals can make desired personal or family changes. Systems theory often gives family members insight into the effects of their behavior. It may make visible the hidden motivations behind certain family patterns. For example, doctors were puzzled by the fact that death rates were higher among kidney dialysis patients with supportive families. Family systems theorists attributed the higher rates to the unspoken desire of the patients to lift the burden of care from the close-knit family they loved (Reiss, Gonzalez, and Kramer 1986). Envisioning the family as a system can be a creative perspective for research. Rather than seeing only the influence of parents on children, for example, system theorists are sensitized to the fact that this is not a one-way relationship and have explored children’s influence on family dynamics (Crouter and Booth 2003). A criticism of systems theory is that it does not sufficiently consider a family’s economic opportunities, race/ethnic and gender stratification, and other features of the larger society that influence internal family relations. When used by therapists, systems theory has been criticized as tending to diffuse responsibility for conflict by attributing dysfunction to the entire system rather than to culpable family members within the system. This situation can lead to “blaming the victim,” as well as making it difficult to extend social support to victimized family members while establishing legal accountability for others, as in situations involving incest or domestic violence (Stewart 1984). conflict and Feminist Theory We like to think of families as beneficial for all members. For decades, sociologists ignored the politics of gender and differentials of power and privilege within relationships and families. Beginning in the 1960s, conflict and feminist theorizing and activism began to change that oversight as issues of latent conflict and inequality were brought into the open. A first way of thinking about the conflict perspective is that it is the opposite of structure–functional theory. Not all of a family’s practices are good; not all family behaviors contribute to family well-being. Family interaction can include domestic violence as well as holiday rituals—sometimes both on the same day. Conflict theory calls attention to power—more specifically, unequal power. It explains behavior patterns such as the unequal division of household labor in terms of the distribution of power between husbands and wives. Because power within the family derives from power outside it, conflict theorists are keenly interested in the political and economic organization of the larger society. The conflict perspective traces its intellectual roots to Karl Marx, who analyzed class conflict. Applied to the family by Marx’s colleague, Friedrich Engels (1942 [1884]), the conflict perspective attributed family and marital problems to class inequality in capitalist society. In Engels’s view, a culture of competition inherent in capitalist society encourages harmful spousal and family competition. In the 1960s, a renewed interest in Marxism sparked the application of the conflict perspective to families in a different way. Although Marx and Engels had focused on economic classes, the emerging feminist movement applied conflict theory to the sex/gender system—that is, to relationships and power differentials between men and women in the larger society and in the family. Although there are many variations, the central focus of the feminist theory is on gender issues. A unifying theme is that male dominance in the culture, society, families, and relationships is oppressive to women. Patriarchy, the idea that males dominate females in virtually all cultures and societies, is a central concept (HesseBiber 2007). Unlike the perspectives described earlier, which were developed primarily by scholars, feminist theories emerged from political and social movements over the past fifty years. As such, the mission of feminist theory is to use knowledge to actively confront and end the oppression of women and related patterns of subordination based on social class, race/ethnicity, age, gender identity, or sexual identity/orientation. The feminist perspective has contributed to political action regarding gender and race discrimination in wages, sexual harassment, divorce laws that disadvantage women, rape and other sexual and physical violence Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Theoretical Perspectives on the Family against women and children, and reproductive issues, such as abortion rights and the inclusion of contraception in health insurance. Feminist perspectives promote recognition of women’s unpaid work, the greater involvement of men in housework and childcare, efforts to fund quality day care and paid parental leaves, and transformations in family therapy so that counselors recognize the reality of gender inequality in family life and treat women’s concerns with respect (Few-Demo 2014). The feminist perspective has combined with the family life course development framework to analyze aging and gender issues (Ross-Sheriff 2008). Since the publication of Naomi Wolf’s 1991 classic, The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women, feminist theory has given considerable attention to eating disorders and body image issues (Latham 2008). For example, a study that combines the feminist with the interaction–constructionist perspective investigated the process through which a young woman internalizes an identity as a “fat girl” and thereby socially “unfit,” or unacceptable for romantic relationships (Rice 2007). Feminist scholars also consider whether a decision to have cosmetic surgery evidences a woman’s agency or the unrecognized influence of a patriarchal construct of feminine beauty (Tiefer 2008). In recent years, feminist theory has embraced postmodern analyses, deconstructing formerly takenfor-granted concepts such as gender dichotomy (the idea that there are naturally two very distinct genders) or the idea that marriage must naturally be heterosexual (Dreger and Herndon 2009). Having co-opted a pejorative term from the popular culture, some feminists refer to this kind of analysis as queer theory (Eaklor 2008; Stacey 2006). From the feminist perspective, championing the traditional heterosexual nuclear family at the cost of both heterosexual and lesbian women’s equality and well-being is unconscionable (Harding 2007). Contributions and Critiques of Feminist theoretical perspectives By calling attention to women’s experiences, feminist theory has encouraged us to see things about relationships and family life that had been overlooked before the 1960s. Women’s domestic work was largely invisible in social science until the feminist perspective began to treat household labor as work that has economic value. The feminist perspective brought to light issues of wife abuse, marital rape, child abuse, and other forms of domestic violence. According to some social scientists, feminist theory is too political, value laden, or adversarial to be considered a valid academic approach (Landau 2008; Lloyd, Few, and Allen 2007). The concept of patriarchy has been criticized as being unscientifically vague and ahistorical. Posited to exist in virtually all societies, patriarchy loses meaning as an analytic category when it minimizes differences between America in the twenty-first century 43 and ancient Rome, where husbands allegedly had lifeand-death power over women. Moreover, inasmuch as some feminist theory embraces postmodernism, it is subject to the same criticisms as postmodernism, which were described previously. The Biosocial Perspective The biosocial perspective is characterized by “concepts linking psychosocial factors to physiology, genetics, and evolution” (Booth, Carver, and Granger 2000, p. 1018). This perspective argues that human physiology, genetics, and hormones predispose individuals to certain behaviors (Bearman 2008). In other words, biology interacts with the social environment to affect much of human behavior and, more specifically, many familyrelated behaviors (Salvatore and Dick 2015). “[Q]uantitative genetic studies have increasingly . . . found major interplay between genetic and nongenetic [environmental] factors, such that the outcomes cannot sensibly be attributed just to one or the other, because they depend on both” (Rutter 2002, pp. 1–2). According to the biosocial (or evolutionary psychology) perspective, much of contemporary human behavior evolved in ways that enable survival and continuation of the human species. Successful behavior patterns are encoded in the genes, and this evolutionary heritage is transmitted to succeeding generations. The survival of one’s genetic material into future generations is paramount. Hence human behavior has biologically evolved to be oriented to the survival and reproduction of all close kin who carry those genes (D’Onofrio and Lahey 2010). Evolutionary explanations are offered for many contemporary family patterns. For instance, research suggests that children are more likely to be abused by nonbiologically related parents or caregivers than by biological parents. Nonbiological parent figures are less likely to invest money and time in their children’s development and future prospects (Case, Lin, and McLanahan 2000; Wilcox, Marquardt, et al. 2011). The biosocial perspective explains this by arguing that parents “naturally” protect the carriers of their genetic material. Accordingly, although he acknowledged that there were many successful stepfamilies and adoptions, sociologist David Popenoe (1994) found that these family forms were not supported by our evolutionary heritage. He concluded that “we as a society should be doing more to halt the growth of stepfamilies” (p. 21). From its early days, some proponents of the biosocial perspective have held that certain human behaviors, because they evolved for the purpose of human survival, were both “natural” and difficult to change. It has been asserted, for example, that traditional gender roles evolved from patterns shared with our mammalian ancestors that were useful in early hunter–gatherer societies. Gender differences—males allegedly more Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Chapter 2 Exploring Relationships and Families aggressive than females, and mothers more likely than fathers to be primarily responsible for childcare—are seen as anchored in hereditary biology (Rossi 1984; Udry 1994, 2000). However, biosociologists emphasize that biological predisposition does not mean that a person’s behavior cannot be influenced or changed by social structure (Bearman 2008; Salvatore and Dick 2015). “Nature” (genetics, hormones) and “nurture” (culture and social relations), they argue, interact to produce human attitudes and behavior (Horwitz and Neiderhiser 2011). As an example, research on testosterone levels in married couples found high levels of the husbands’ testosterone to be associated with poorer marital quality when their role overload was high but with better marital quality when role overload was low. In other words, “testosterone enables positive behavior in some instances and negative behavior in others” (Booth, Johnson, and Granger 2005, p. 483; see also Booth et al. 2006). John Moore/Getty Images 44 These individuals are waiting for dental care in a temporary neighborhood clinic. How might scholars from different theoretical orientations see this photograph? Family ecologists might remark on the quality of the facilities—or speculate about the families’ homes and neighborhood—and how these factors affect family health and relations. They might compare this temporary clinic, set up for two weeks in an elementary school, with better equipped offices that provide dental care to more privileged Americans. Scholars from the family life course development framework would likely Contributions and Critiques of the note that some of these parents are in the child-raising stage of the Biosocial perspective This perspective family life cycle. Structure–functionalists would be quick to note the encourages scientists to investigate rehealth-related function(s) that this clinic is performing for society. search questions regarding relationships Interaction–constructionists might explore the body language of the and families that would otherwise be overlooked: Is there a genetic basis for human people awaiting attention: What are they indicating nonverbally? family and relationship behaviors and What might the features of this temporary dental clinic symbolize to attitudes (Moore and Neiderhiser 2014)? If them? Exchange theorists might speculate about these individuals’ so, to what extent can those attitudes and personal power and resources relative to others in the United behaviors be changed? To what degree do States. Family system theorists might point out that most of these social forces (nurture) and biological prepersons are part of a family system: Should one person leave or dispositions (nature) interact to result in become seriously and chronically ill, for example, the roles and human behavior and attitudes? relationships among all members of the family would change and Over the past twenty-five years, the adapt as a result. Feminist theorists might point out that typically it is biosocial perspective has emerged as a mothers, not fathers, who are primarily responsible for their children’s significant theoretical perspective on the health—and ask why. The answer from a biosocial perspective (not family (Schlomer et al. 2015). Researchuniversally accepted in social science) might be that women have ers have employed this point of view to examine such phenomena as gender difevolved a stronger nurturing capacity that is partly hormonally based. ferences, sexual bonding, mate selection, Attachment theorists might ask whether these parents are interacting jealousy, parenting behaviors, marital stawith children in a way that promotes a secure, insecure/anxious, or bility, and male aggression against women avoidant attachment style. How would you interpret this photo? (D’Onofrio and Lahey 2010; Dorius et al. 2011; Wright et al. 2012). In the words of two of the perspective’s proponents, “Genetically informed studies that have examined famperspective was once used to justify gender inequality as ily relations have been critical to advancing our unbiologically based and hence “natural.” More recently, derstanding of gene-environment interplay” (Horwitz evolutionary perspectives have been the basis for critiand Neiderhiser 2011, p. 804; Moore and Neiderhiser cism of nonreproductive sexual relationships and the 2014; Samek, Koh, and Rueter 2013). However, this employment of mothers as contrary to nature (Daly and Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Designing a Scientific Study: Some Basic Principles Wilson 2000). It is therefore not surprising that many distrust this perspective or that it has been politically and academically controversial. We explore and appraise the biosocial approach, or evolutionary psychology, when discussing gender (Chapter 3), extramarital sex (Chapter 4), childcare (Chapter 10), and children’s well-being in stepfamilies (Chapter 15). attachment Theory Counseling psychologists often analyze individuals’ relationship choices in terms of attachment style. Attachment theory posits that during infancy and childhood a young person develops a general style of attaching to others (Ainsworth et al. 1978; Bowlby 1988; Pittman 2012). Once a youngster’s attachment style is established, she or he unconsciously applies that style, or “state of mind,” to later adult relationships (Mikulincer and Shaver 2012). A child’s primary caretakers (usually parents and most often the mother) evoke a style of attachment in him or her. The three basic attachment styles are secure, insecure/anxious, and avoidant. Children who can trust that a caretaker will be there to attend to their practical and emotional needs develop a secure attachment style. Children who feel uncared for or abandoned develop either an insecure/ anxious or an avoidant attachment style (Crespo 2012). In adulthood, a secure attachment style involves trust that the relationship will provide ongoing emotional and social support. An insecure/anxious attachment style entails concern that the beloved will disappear, a situation often characterized as “fear of abandonment.” Someone with an avoidant attachment style dodges emotional closeness either by avoiding relationships altogether or demonstrating ambivalence, seeming preoccupied, or otherwise establishing distance in intimate situations (Knudson-Martin 2012; Rauer and Volling 2007). Attachment theory has grown in importance and prominence in family studies over the past several decades (Bell 2012; Pittman 2012). Some researchers combine this perspective with the family life course development framework to look at stability or variability of attachment styles throughout an individual’s life (Klohnen and Bera 1998). Attachment theory is also used by counseling psychologists. The assumption is that if a client learns to recognize a problematic attachment style, he or she can change that style (Ravitz, Maunder, and McBride 2008; Weissman, Markowitz, and Klerman 2007). Contributions and Critiques of attachmenttheory This perspective prompts us to look at how personality impacts relationship choices from their initiation to their maintenance. Attachment theory also encourages us to ask what kind of parenting best encourages a secure attachment style. These are important research questions. Critics argue that an attachment style might depend on the situation in which a person finds him- or herself rather than on a consistent personality 45 characteristic (Fleeson and Noftle 2008; and see Knudson-Martin 2012). Of course, when therapists employ this point of view, they recognize that even if it is a relatively stable personality characteristic, one’s attachment style can be changed over time. The relationship Between Theory and research Theory and research are closely integrated, ideally at least (Fagan 2014). Theory should be used to help direct research questions and to suggest useful concepts. Often when designing their research, scientists employ one or more theoretical perspectives from which to generate a hypothesis or “educated guess” about the way things are. Scientists then test these hypotheses by gathering data. At other times, to interpret data that have already been gathered, scientists ask themselves what theoretical perspective best explains the facts (Lareau 2012). Over time, our understanding of family phenomena may change as social scientists undertake new research and modify theoretical perspectives. Even when theory is not directly spelled out in a study, it is likely that the research fits into one or more of the theoretical perspectives previously described. “Facts About Families: How Family Researchers Study Religion from Various Theoretical Perspectives” illustrates ways in which researchers have used these theoretical perspectives when studying the broad topic of religion and family. We’ll turn our attention now to various methods that researchers use to gather information, or data, on family life. Students take entire courses on research methods, and obviously we can’t cover the details of such methods here. However, we do want to explore some major principles so that you can think critically about published research discussed in this text or in the popular press. As the subtitle of one textbook says, research methods provide “a tool for life” (Beins 2008). We invite you to think this way as well. deSigning a ScienTiFic STudy: Some BaSic PrinciPleS At the onset of a scientific study, researchers carefully design a detailed research plan. Some research is designed to gather historical data. Professor Steven Ruggles (2011) at the University of Minnesota analyzed nineteenth-century U.S. population statistics back to 1850 to examine intergenerational households. He was curious to see whether the majority of intergenerational households formed in order to care for elderly family members or whether, on the other hand, the households evidenced a reciprocal relationship—one in which each generation participated to help take care of the other. He found that nineteenth-century U.S. Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Facts about Families How Family Researchers Study Religion from Various Theoretical Perspectives Research topics can be studied from different points of view. Here we see how the topic religion and family life has been investigated with different theoretical perspectives and by the use of various research methods. was functional in enhancing children’s health, social skills, and overall behavior. The Family Ecology Perspective Hirsch (2008) used naturalistic observation to understand how young, actively Catholic women in Mexico creatively interpret their religion’s proscription against birth control while choosing to use it. As one “grassroots theologian” explained, “[E]ven in the bible it says ‘help yourself, so I can help you’; even the priests tell you that” (pp. 98–99). Researchers perceived religion as one component in families’ sociocultural environment in Turkey, a largely Muslim country. Based on secondary analysis of data from Turks in the World Values Survey, the researchers found that highly religious parents in their sample were more likely to foster obedience and good manners in their children and less likely to expect intellectual independence or imagination (Acevedo, Ellison, and Yilmaz 2015). The Family Life Course Development Framework Pearce (2002) analyzed longitudinal data from a Detroit survey of white mothers and children to find that early childhood religious exposure later influenced childbearing attitudes during transition to adulthood. Young adults with Catholic mothers or mothers who frequently attended religious services were especially likely to resist the idea of not having children. The Structure–Functional Perspective Schottenbauer, Spernak, and Hellstron (2007) found that parents’ use and modeling of religiously based coping skills, along with family attendance at religious or spiritual programs, consequently to greater marital satisfaction (David and Stafford 2015). Feminist Theory The Interaction– Constructionist Perspective Feminist social historians Carr and Van Leuven (1996) edited a cross-cultural anthology whose works examine the implications of religion for female family members of various religious cultures. Overall, the book argues that women’s oppression originates not in religion itself but in the exploitation of religion as a subjugation tool by patriarchal religio-cultural systems. The Biosocial Perspective Exchange/Network Theory Christian Smith (2003) used secondary analysis of the national Survey of Parents and Youth to find that participation in religious congregations increases the likelihood that family members will benefit from sharing a network that includes parents, their children, their children’s friends and teachers, and their children’s friends’ parents. Family Systems Theory Lambert and Dollahite (2008) conducted qualitative research with fiftyseven religious couples and concluded that these respondents saw God as a third partner in an otherwise dyadic family system—a third system member whose presence enhanced their marital commitment. Surveying 342 heterosexually married U.S. couples, David and Stafford found that one’s having “an individual relationship with God” was related to more couple forgiveness and communication about religion—and Wright (1994) argued that humans have evolved as “the moral animal,” a situation that facilitates our species’ cooperation toward the goal of survival. Arbel, Rodriguez, and Margolin (2015) researched the role that the hormone cortisol plays during family conflict, a study discussed further in Chapter 11. Attachment Theory Reinert (2005) surveyed seventy-five Catholic seminarians, presenting them with “Awareness of God” and “Attachment to Mother” scales. He found that a seminarian’s early childhood attachment to his mother is a key influence in the degree of his attachment to a personal God. Critical Thinking Think of a family-related topic and consider how you might study it. What theoretical perspective would you use to help frame your research questions? What research methods and datagathering techniques would you use? 46 Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Designing a Scientific Study: Some Basic Principles intergenerational households were mainly reciprocal. Historical studies of marriage and divorce in the United States portray a picture of the past that, contrary to common belief, was not necessarily stable or harmonious (Cott 2000; Hartog 2000). Although family history is an important area of research, this textbook does not allow space for us to fully explore it. Research designs can also be cross-cultural, comparing one or more aspects of family life among different societies. A study described in Chapter 5, which asked students in ten different countries whether it’s necessary to be in love with the person you marry, is an example of cross-cultural research (Levine et al. 1995). Scientists consider many questions when designing their research: Will the study be cross-sectional or longitudinal? Deductive, inductive, or a combination of the two? Will the study be mainly quantitative or qualitative? Will the sample be random and the data generalizable? Because the goal of all research is to transcend our personal blinders or biases, as was discussed at the beginning of this chapter, scientists must meticulously define their terms and take care not to overgeneralize. This section looks briefly at these considerations. cross–Sectional versus longitudinal data When designing a study, researchers must decide whether to gather cross-sectional or longitudinal data. Crosssectional studies gather data just once, giving us a snapshotlike, one-time view of behaviors or attitudes. Longitudinal studies provide long–term information as researchers continue to gather data over an extended period of time. For example, to understand how psychotherapy can modify attachment insecurity over the life course, researchers designed longitudinal studies that followed respondents’ attachment styles over thirty years from childhood into adulthood (Klohnen and Bera 1998). Other researchers monitored nonresident fathers’ involvement with their children for three years and found finances and relations with their children’s mothers to be significant causes for changes over time (Ryan, Kalil, and Ziol-Guest 2008). A difficulty encountered in longitudinal studies, besides cost, is the frequent loss of subjects to death, relocation, or loss of interest. Social change occurring over a long period of time may make it difficult to ascertain what precisely has influenced family change (Larzelere and Cox 2013). Yet cross-sectional data (one-time comparison of different groups) cannot show change in the same individuals over time. 47 point of view. “Reasoning down” from the abstract to the concrete, a researcher designs a data-gathering strategy to test whether the hypothesis can be supported by observed facts. Researchers who use inductive reasoning observe detailed facts and then induce, or “reason up,” to arrive at generalizations grounded in the observed data. Inductive studies do not begin with a preconceived hypothesis. Instead, researchers begin their observations with open minds about what they’ll see and find. Typically, deductive reasoning is associated with quantitative research and inductive reasoning with qualitative research. Quantitative versus Qualitative research In quantitative research, the scientist gathers, analyzes, and reports data that can be quantified or understood in numbers. Quantitative research finds numerical incidences in a population—for example, the average size of a family household or what percent of Americans are currently cohabitating. Statistical facts and findings, such as those in Chapter 1’s “Facts About Families” boxes, are examples of quantitative data. Quantitative research also uses computer-assisted statistical analysis to test for relationships between phenomena. For instance, quantitative analysis has found a statistically demonstrated correlation between being raised by a single parent and teen pregnancy (Albrecht and Teachman 2003). When performing qualitative research, the scientist gathers, analyzes, and reports data primarily in words or stories (Matthews 2012; Sharp et al. 2014). For example, social scientists interviewed eight mothers in three rural trailer parks who described their lives in detail (Notter, MacTavish, and Shamah 2008). In their subsequently published article, the researchers quote the women in their own words: I pay attention to how my mother raised me and I try to do it different. I try to teach him [her son] how to take care of himself. He knows how to do chores and how to cook. I had to learn all of that on my own. I try to teach him how to state his opinion. My mother never taught me to do that. . . . (p. 619) As a second example, sociologist Gina Miranda Samuels (2009) conducted qualitative research with black adults who had been raised by white parents. Samuels’s findings are reported in narrative using respondents’ own words (p. 89): deductive versus inductive reasoning But I remember there was one girl named Ebony and she could not BELIEVE I had been adopted by white people. She was like, “WOW! You were adopted by white people?! Are they nice to you? Do they treat you well?” And that was a shock to me because that was the first time I realized that black people might not get treated well by white people. . . . (Justine, 28) Deductive reasoning in research begins with a hypothesis that has been derived (i.e., deduced) from a theoretical I was in my salon and I didn’t even know what a hot comb was. That was my giveaway! And he [the stylist] was like, Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 48 Chapter 2 Exploring Relationships and Families “Were you raised by white people?” And then, he was like, “OH. I was able to tell that by the way you talked and by the way you carried yourself.” (Crystal, 24) A final example of qualitative data comes in the explanation by a young woman who had not wanted to get pregnant but did: [The patch] left a burn mark so I remember taking it off and I was supposed to be starting a different method. . . . I was going to go with the depo shot . . . but I was like, “I’m kind of scared to get that” and he just didn’t want to wear a condom. (Reed et al. 2014, p. 255) The aim of qualitative research is to gain in-depth understandings of people’s experiences, as well as the processes they go through when defining, adapting to, and making decisions about their situations. Qualitative research typically employs the interaction–constructionist theoretical perspective described previously. When designing studies, researchers must also carefully define their terms: What precisely is being studied, and how exactly will it be measured (Bickman and Rog 2009)? defining Terms Researchers scrupulously define the concepts that they intend to investigate, then report those definitions in their published studies so that readers know precisely what was investigated and how. For example, researchers once considered all (heterosexual) cohabitators as fitting one general definition. They found cohabitation before marriage to be statistically related to divorce later (Dush, Cohan, and Amato 2003). However, as definitions of cohabitation were further refined to differentiate serial from one-time cohabitators, results began to show that cohabitating only with your future marriage partner was not more likely to end in divorce (Coontz 2015; Lichter and Qian 2008). In a second example, researchers at Brigham Young University looked at the relationship between maintaining a cluttered home and parenting behaviors. The social scientists felt that, although popular media preaches the negative effects of “home clutter,” whether or how “home organization and tidiness” affect family functioning have not been well researched (Thornock et al. 2013, p. 785). The researchers gathered quantitative data from 177 mothers of children between ages 3 and 5. The researchers found that having considerable home clutter was statistically related to a child’s fussing and frequent crying. The fussing and crying, in turn, added to the mother’s tenseness, a situation that negatively affected her parenting. Whether the clutter caused the crying and tenseness or vice versa cannot be deduced from this study. All we know is that a relationship was found among home clutter, young children’s fussiness, and a mother’s tenseness. How did the researchers define home clutter? They used four quantitative survey questions or statements that the parent was asked to answer on a scale from 1 (never) to 5 (very often): (1) “It is often hard to find things when you need them in our household.” (2) “We are generally pretty sloppy around the house.” (3) “Family members make sure their rooms are neat.” (4) “Dishes are usually done immediately after eating.” You may or may not agree that these four questions capture the concept of home clutter. In any case, the researchers have told you exactly how they measured the concept so that you can decide for yourself what you think of their conclusions. Samples and generalization You may have noticed that in the study of women in trailer parks mentioned previously, the researchers interviewed only eight mothers. We cannot expect the situations of these few respondents to correspond with all American women living in trailer parks. For one thing, all eight mothers were white (Notter, MacTavish, and Shamah 2008). We cannot possibly conclude from this research that all women who live in trailer parks are white. Rather than a nationwide demographic portrayal, the purpose of interviewing these eight women was to learn about the experiences and processes that mothers can go through when residing in trailer parks. To gather data that can be generalized (applied to a population of people other than those directly questioned), a researcher must draw a sample that accurately reflects or represents that population in important characteristics such as age, race, gender, and marital status. Results from a survey in which all respondents are college students, for example, cannot be interpreted as representative of Americans in general. Gallup polls are examples of research that uses random samples that reflect the national adult population. When a Gallup poll reports that most Americans would be unwilling to forgive an unfaithful spouse, we know that the findings from their sample can be generalized to the whole national population with only a small probability of error (Jones 2008). To draw a random sample of a population, everyone in that population must have an equal chance to be selected. The best way to accomplish this is to have a list of every individual in the population and then randomly choose from the list (see Babbie 2014). A national random sample of approximately 1,500 people may validly represent the U.S. population. Sometimes there are no complete lists of members of a population. For instance, researchers were interested in the ramifications of living with a compulsive hoarder (one who continuously acquires yet fails to discard large numbers of possessions). They located 665 respondents who reported having a family member or friend with hoarding behaviors (Tolin et al. 2008). How did they accomplish this? The researchers had made several national media appearances about hoarding. As a result, more than 8,000 people had contacted them for guidance or information. Drawing from this group, Copyright 2018 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203 Designing a Scientific Study: Some Basic Principles 49 Rayes/Riser/Getty Images the researchers e-mailed potential participants, inviting them to take part in the study and asking them to forward the invitation to others in similar situations. Ultimately, these researchers found that living with the clutter associated with hoarding often causes depression and isolation, partly because one is embarrassed to invite friends home. Although the findings were based on a fairly large sample, they cannot be generalized to all people who live with a compulsive hoarder because the sample was not random: Not everyone who lives with a compulsive hoarder had the same chance of being chosen for the study. It is reasonable to argue that those who contacted the researchers for guidance A research team plans data collection and analysis for a survey of how or information were more distraught families spend their time together. than those who didn’t. As a result, the findings may show greater difficulty in telephone. Gallup polls use telephone surveys. Alternaliving with a compulsive hoarder than is generally experitively, a researcher may distribute paper-and-pencil or enced by all those in this population. Nevertheless, this is Web-based questionnaires that respondents complete valuable research inasmuch as it lends insight into what by themselves. Increasingly viewed as comparable in liv...
Purchase answer to see full attachment