Family Sociology and Family Therapy Contributions to

In C.J.Falicov (Ed.), Family Transitions: Continuity and Change Over the Life Cycle. New York: Guilford

Press, 1988

Family Sociology and Family Therapy Contributions to the Family Development Framework: A Comparative Analysis and Thoughts on Future Trends CEllA JAES FALICOV University of California. San Diego Private Practice. San Diego

We have a less satisfying explanation of human psychological development than of the .Iife cycle of the fruit fiy. which has been an object of study for less than a hundred years.-Jerome Kagan (1984)

Models of individual development over the life cycle have been fairly well established through clinical practice and basic research. By contrast, models of family development are in a nascent. rudimentary stage, in terms of both their internal complexity and their articulation with systems-oriented therapies. There are ~ yet no clear answers to questions about what parameters change over time in the family as unit, what impedes family development, and what produces the change observable in family transitions. Current knowledge about family development permits only global description. There are many reasons why we know more about the development of the fruit fIy than about the development of the individual or the family. The most prominent one is the complexity of human social. mental. and emotional development, which presents itself at its maximum proportions in any discussion of the family as a growing system. A well-established French intellectual tradition advises us to straddle at least two disciplines when attempting to understand a complex subject matter. This, of course0nakes the subject malter even more complex. but in the long run it also clarifies many issues that would· otherwise remain untouched through excessive respect for the boundaries among disciplines. The topic of family development provides an ideal arena for this type of practice insofar as human development really should be an inrerdisciplinary area of study. integrating individual, interpersonal. and family systems approaches. Some attempts to reduce the distance among disciplines concerned wirh human developmenr

a e ~ r

are beginning to be made (see Hill & Mattessich, 1979; Lerner & Spanier. 1978). Family 'therapy originally borrowed some aspects of the family development framework described by family sociologists in the late 1940s and early 19505, but a rich body of information, models, and insights about development seldom tapped by family therapists continues to be generated by family sociology and other social sciences. On the other hand, a family systems theory perspective undoubtedly can expand traditional developmental theories, particularly those that focus on the interior of the individual (see Minuchin, 1985). The contributions of family sociologists to a family development framework are discussed in the first major section of this chapter. It focuses on the importance of family stress theory and on the strengths and limitations of integrating the family development framework with systems-oriented therapies. The second section presents a descriptive critical analysis of the use of family life cycle concepts by the major family therapy orientations. Each theory is examined with regard to its position on the importance of considering life cycle issues in theory and practice, its views about family dysfunction and family development, and its theory about the relationship between developmental and therapeutic change. The third section offers concluding thoughts on the future evolution of an integrative and multidirectional systemic family development framework.

The Fami(r Development Framework The developmental approach in family sociology stems from the conceptual work done by Evelyn Duvall and Reuben Hill in the late 1940s (Aldous, 1978; Duvall, 1957; Hill & Rodgers, 1964). Designed to meet the challenges of the growing field of family studies. this approach was, from its inception, an eclectic, integrative framework that brought together concepts from rural sociology, child development, and the sociology of work. It also merged concepts from structure-functionalism and symbolic interactionism, the two main philosophical positions in sociology. Even though the concepts were taken from several disparate viewpoints, the end result was a cogent approach that accounted for regularities in family life over time. Over a decade ago. family therapists adopted the bare outlines of the family development framework. but they have seldom seemed to turn to the sociological sources or to collaborate with family sociologists on this subject matter.

Basic Developmental Concepts The core concept of the developmental framework is the notion that families change in form and function over the life cycle and that they do so in an ordered sequence of developmental stages. Three criteria are used for dividing the life cycle into stages: (1) changes in fami(v size. usua1ly due to additions or losses of family members, which divides family life into five expanding, stable, and contracting stages (stable stage-childless, expanding stage-childbearing, stable stage-child rearing, contracting stage-launching, and stable stage-empty nest); (2) changes in age composition. based on the chronological age of the oldest child from infancy through young adulthood; and (3) changes in work status of the breadwinner(s). A synthesis of these categories results in eight stages of development in Duvall's (1957) scheme. (Seven of these stages appear in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 of this volume.) Those developmental dimensions were added to a structural-functional conception of the family as a system in which the units, or members, occupy two types of role positions: age positions (e.g., child, adolescent) and relatedness positions (e.g., husband-wife, father-daughter). New stages of development occur when there are marked changes in role content resulting from age changes or from additions or losses of members that require rearrangement of roles. The appropriate role changes become the family's developmental tasks. Among the difficulties presented by this predictable picture of a family gliding smoothly from stage to stage are that it leaves out the stresses that often accompany family change and that it disregards psychological aspects such as the construction that the individual or the family makes of the social role demands. In addition, and perhaps most important, the focus is on the processes within stages. with insufficient attention paid to the processes of change between stages (Mederer & Hill, 1983). These deficits appear to have been overcome by the introduction of the family stress theory. Fami(I' Stress Theory The family development framework represented efforts to understand change in families under normal circumstances. Family sociologists also engaged in a parallel effort to understand families under unusual stresses. such as the economic hardships experienced during the Depression of the 19305 (Ange1l. 1936: Cavan & Ranck. 1938) or the separations endured during World War II (Hill. 1949). The notions of coping. adjustment. and adaptation were used to link the developmental framework and family stress theory by arguing that expectable life cycle changes· can be stressful and may require· as much ongoing adjustment as sudden. unexpected events (McCubbin & Figley. 19~3: McCubbin & Patterson. 19831.The best known scheme for the study of family stress and coping is the ABC-X model (Hill. 1949. 1958; McCubbin et al.. 1980: McCubbin & Figley. 19H31. The "X' stands for the stressor event, "B"

represents the family's coping resources, "C" is the interpretation the family gives to the event, and "X" is the outcome or crisis state. Since 1958, this .model has generated a substantial body of research dealing with each of its four aspects. Most recently, the notion of regularities in stresses and strains at different stages in the family life cycle has been developed by Olson (see Chapter 2, this volume). The equation of normative and non normative events proposed by the marriage between the family development framework and family stress theory can be problematic or inaccurate at times, but the integration of concepts related to stress theory, although seldom recognized, proved to be important in a number of ways. First, it introduced an important refinement of the original family life cycle framework. In its early formulation, the family development framework considered stages to be discrete or discontinuous because they required major qualitative reorganization of roles (Hill & Mattessich, 1979). Later on, periods of transition between stages were added, taken primarily from Rapaport's (1963) conception of developmental crises. These became the periods of discontinuity between stages, while the processes of change within st~es were thought to be continuous, since the family had reached relative structural stability. Second, the introduction of a more in-depth picture of the distributions of stresses and strains over the family life cycle increased the clinical relevance of this model. Third. the notion of. a "pile-up of stressors" (Hill, 1949) mirrored more accurately the complex reality most families face-that is, having to cope with several expected and unexpected stresses simultaneously. Fourth, by introducing processes of coping and adaptation, some dynamic elements were added to a model that could appear to be static because of its emphasis on the structural organization of stages. Finally, this addition opened the possibility of seeing family problems or symptoms as unsuccessful efforts at adaptation, a perspective espoused by many family therapists. Fami(v Development and Fami{~'Dysfunction The family development framework and family stress theory were not intended to address clinical issues. Yet, it is possible to make several inferences from these theories about areas of potential difficulty for evolving families that may be helpful to clinicians. One possible source of stress for families is the incompatibility of developmental tasks among family members. Hill (1986) has observed that some families have more compatibility than others in developmental tasks between parents and children, or among siblings, or even between husband and wife. For example, families with children spaced at regular intervals will experience a smoother "meshing" of tasks than those whose members arrive in distinct ··waves." Among the latter are families for whom stage-specific tasks lapse for some time and then need to recur again or

be "recycled," such as when a parent who has already raised children in a first marriage has another child after remarrying. The issue of why some families experience smooth transitions while others go through rough times has been broached by family sociologists (Burr, 1972; Hill. 1986). Hansen and Johnson (1979) believe that smooth transitions result when the family starts to experiment with new patterns gradually, while still retaining the comfort and familiarity of the old pauerns. Rough transitions may occur when the gradual phasing in is not possible, either because the family has a limited repertoire of experimental behaviors and becomes "stuck" in old patterns or because an unexpected and severe stress may be superimposed on a normative transition. A number of refinements can come about from Hansen and Johnson's ideas, such as the possibility of breaking down the transitional period into phases of old versus experimental behavior patterns, and even operationalizing phases of transitions as different ratios of established to new patterns (Mederer & Hill, 1983). The issue of when and how a normal life cycle transition develops into a disorganizing state of crisis that may be accompanied by symptoms is of fundamental importance to family therapists. One basic hypothesis is that difficulties in adapting to the normative transition stem from the overwhelming accumulation of other stresses (Hill, 1949). Boss (1983; Boss & Greenberg, 1984) offers another hypothesis, based on her idea that a period of boundary ambiguity is common during transitions. given the complex role and rule changes and task realignments required. The degree and the duration of the period of boundary ambiguity influence whether life cycle changes produce successful or unsuccessful coping. Joselevich (Chapter 11, this volume) translates models of stress and crisis for the clinical treatment of families facing several simultaneous expected and unexpected changes.

) 1

t

s 1

s I,. j

Yt j "

e ) t "i ) s )s 1a Ye

:. I)

j Ir

Family therapists have assimilated the basic concepts of the family development framework but appear to be less acquainted with efforts by family sociologists to explore the relationship between family development and general systems theory. In 1971. Hill proposed to examine the family life cycle framework in the light of general systems theory. He started by summarizing four clusters of conceptualizations relevant to the family life cycle framework: (1) the family as a social system that is relatively closed. boundary maintaining. equilibrium seeking. purposive. and adaptive: (2) concepts of structure. such as position. role norms. role clusters. and complexes: (3) concepts of goal orientation and direction: and (4) concepts dealing with orderly sequences or sequential regularities such as stages of development. Although it would be interesting to compare the two perspectives on all of the four clusters. it is in the first of the conceptualizations that Hill believes

s~ r.1 sL f , r ,s:} :-l

s;( ce It

e Yr s1 et ,J

1-

the greatest overlap can be found between systems theory and the family developmental framework. There are two areas of similarity and difference in the conceptualization of the family as a social system. The first area of comparison concerns the phenomenon of interdependence of parts. Both perspectives subscribe to the premise of "nonsummativity." which states that the effects of system membership are greater-or sometimes less- than the sum of the behaviors of the individuals composing the system and that change in one part of the system brings about changes in other parts. This assumption is still generally taught as a truism in family therapy training. But systems theorists (Hill cites Buckley (19681 on this issue) have a more complex. less mechanistic view of the interdependence of parts than do family developmentalists. since they do not believe that every part of the system is related to all of its companion parts. so that a change in one will inevitably affect all the others. (This hypothesis may help explain why a recent review of research studies on marital satisfaction over the life cycle failed to lend definite support to the theoretical truism that the marital experience is dependent upon the vicissitudes of the family life cycle (Menaghan. 19831. raising the issue about the partial insulation of other subsystems-parental. sibling. individual- from the life cycle events that the family as a whole is undergoing.) Based on this important difference between systems theory and the family development framework regarding the interdependence of parts. Hill proposed a rewriting of the family life cycle framework to present the interdependence of parts as a variable. changing in degree over the life cycle. low in the beginning of marriage and varying over time afterward. If we were to heed HiII's proposal. the presentation of the family life cycle could take a processoriented form based on one parameter of systems change: the interconnectedness of family members alternating between degrees of closeness and distance (separateness). In addition. future theories would have to consider relatively independent developments in different family subsystems. The second area of comparison concerns the degree of openness and permeability of boundaries of the family as a social system. In its initial formulation. family development theory regarded the family as a "relatively closed system:' changing mostly through the maturation of family members and maintaining equilibrium by warding off incompatible external pressures. This definition of the family as a homeostatic system becomes problematic when one considers that within a developmental perspective. the family is necessarily viewed as a changing structure responsive not only to variance in age. size. and composition but also to societal expectations. Furthermore. the family is anything but static. ideally providing a variety of growth-promoting experiences. How can these two opposite views of the family be reconciled'? Hill believes that systems theory can help resolve this dilemma. Systems theory looks at social systems as relatively open internally and externally. It includes notions of positive feedback (Hoffman. 1971: Maruyama. 1963).

"mapping for variety" (Cadwallader, 1959), and morphogenesis (Speer, 1970). These notions can help explain change processes in the family that the developmental framework cannot account for with its emphasis on homeostasis, and they can help identify processes at work in relation to family growth and adaptation. In short, "a modem systems perspective would emancipate and liberate the family development framework from the shortcomings of the organismic and the mechanical models from which the framework has drawn so many of its analogies" (Hill, 1971, p. 311). As will be discussed later, these ideas within family sociology parallel family therapy theory as it developed over time, moving from an earlier focus on equilibrium-seeking or homeostatic properties of systems to an emphasis on growth and change-promoting processes. Family Sociology and Family Therapy The family life cycle framework has been widely accepted in the social sciences in spite of acknowledged shortcomings. These include its essentially descriptive nature, its emphasis on child over adult development, its focus on nuclear family units, and its tendency, in practice, to appear somewhat oblivious to historical and cultural contexts. Family therapists have incorporated many concepts derived from the traditional family development framework, such as nonnative age and sex roles, family stages. and phase-specific developmental tasks, and also concur with family sociologists on the assumption that change within stages is continuous but that change during transitions is discontinuous (Hill & Mattessich, 1979). Family therapists have also enriched the original family development scheme by including a three-generational perspective and by adding stages and transitions of divorce and remarriage (Carter & McGoldrick, 1980). Other potential contributions of family sociology to family therapy come from the research area. The family development framework has been utilized to study nonnative patterns of marital satisfaction over the family life cycle (Blood & Wolfe, 1960; Klein, Jorgensen, & Miller lcited in Hill & Mattessich; 19791; Lewis & Cole, 1975; Menaghan, 1983; Rollins & Cannon, 1974; Rollins & Feldman, 1970; Spanier,). An example of this type of research is provided by Olson in Chapter 2 of this volume. Family sociologists have had the opportunity to apply the family development framework in conceptually organizing the everyday details of family life in the American nuclear family through the perspective of work, marital, and parenting roles in ways that are applicable to research in nonnal family development. Furthennore, family sociologists have the tools with which to study the constant modifications that the family life cycle undergoes through exposure to sociocultural, economic, and other historical factors and thus to question biased assumptions embedded in the dominant developmental theories. such as Boss and Weiner do in Chapter 9 of this volume. Hill's proposal to integrate the family development framework with sys-

01•

i ,) s ,) s ha

It

y ,e i. I)

d IT is 0 Ir ;t 's 1. If : 1-

r

~sn

I-t

ISo
The concept of "family identity" introduced by Bennett, Wolin, and McAvity (Chapter 8, this volume) provides an interesting avenue to studyingsimultaneous and related processes of continuity and change in a family over the generations through the transmission of family rituals. Some continuities may be adaptive, whereas others may have deleterious effects, such as Montalvo and Gutierrez (Chapter 7, this volume) propose with their concept of "cultural identity" as a societal and individual developmental constraint. . Another promising integration of the concepts of continuity and change is offered by Melitto (1985). Based on the work of Heinz Werner and Jean Piaget, he argues that the relationship between morphostasis and morphogenesis depends on the level of organization of the system. For relatively underdeveloped and underorganized systems, negative and positive feedback occurs singly or in sequence. More advanced forms of adaptation that integrate S.2!!tiouity.and chaog~l!~,t,tpical oLwell-developed and well-organized systems. , This interpretation of developmental change as a higher level of organization and integration suggests that diverse family therapy approaches can directly or indirectly stimulate developmental growth by increasing the level of organization and differentiation within the family. From a Deficit to a Resource Orientation The notion that developmental impasses at one stage can be understood in terms of developmental deficits in completing the tasks of previous stages appears in its strongest form in the psychoanalytic orientations, but to some extent it is a generalized belief for most of the therapeutic approaches. Family sociology and developmental psychology also largely shares this view. Theories that profess a model of the family and of optimal family functioning, particularly in relation to a concept of levels of development (see, Table 1-1), are more likely to adhere to a deficit view of family development and to have a pessimistic outlook regarding the extent to which true change is possible. Other theories are more optimistic about the possibilities for change based on current experiences, even if they adhere to a notion of a hierarchy of stages built one upon another. To obtain a more systemic view ~f the family life cycle, an epistemological shift may be needed here that conceptualizes more clearly the variations in patterns and the resources for change inherent in each stage. One way to do this may be by focusing on the interplay between the different family subsystems (including individual members) in terms of simultaneous or sequential stages and developmental tasks in ways that generate systems variety and new opportunities for change (Falicov, 1984). Although not originally intended to show a resource orientation. Erikson's (1959) cogwheeling effects between the generations. Stierlin's (1974) coincidence of adult and adolescent tasks. and Comorinck-Graham's (1985) life spiral model offer potential in thaI direction.

The Directionality and Durability of Change By definition. the concept of development implies a goal and a direction toward that goal. This uniformity of goals and direction for accomplishing them is being questioned within both developmental psychology (Bronfenbrenner. Kessel. Kessen. & White. 1986) and family therapy. Most family therapists appear to think that the evolution of family forms during the family life cycle and family development has a specifiable. probably normative end point. but the Milan school sets out to avoid imparting a life cycle developmental direction to the family interventions. Although this may be a difficult and perhaps unrealistic stance for the child-oriented therapies. such as structural family therapy. since children have many well-established maturational regularities, the Milan position highlights an area of theoretical importance. Most conceptualizations of the family life cycle are, of necessity, value laden. incorporating not only contents borrowed from the dominant ~culture but also the therapist's own developmental preferences. Seldom considered are families' constructions and values about their own life cycles. Much as they do with regard to other cultural issues. therapists should not assume similar directions and end points among families faced with similar life cycle transitions (Falicov, 1985). Rather. a family life cycle assessment should consider the family's own preferences along with the life cycle templates embedded in the therapist's personal and conceptual views (Liddle & Saba. 1983). Finally. there is the matter of durability of change. Developmental change. by definition. is durable if not permanent, in spite of regressions or impasses. Obtaining a new developmental achievement during the course of therapy is one way of ensuring that therapeutic changes are durable rather than fleeting or temporary; durability can be obtained through continuous or discontinuous change (see Fishman. Chapter 16. this volume!. Life Cycle Interventions Theories of the family life cycle and family development translate into a variegated array of rich applications and interventions. In the second major section of this chapter. these applications were divided into different stages of the therapeutic process: assessment. hypothesis generation. problem definition. intervention techniques. and therapeutic goals. A survey across these aspects of treatment for each theory indicates that regardless of therapeutic orientation. most approaches rely to some extent on the family life cycle as a guide to understanding the family's predicament. to evaluating healthy behavior. and to generating hypotheses about the presenting problem. The stance taken on continuous and discontinuous change determines the choice of therapeutic technique. Therapists who believe that developmental change can come about only through discontinuous change consider paradoxical techniques as ideally suited for developmental impasses.

On the issue of therapeutic goals, the theories vary regarding the extent to which they adhere to the importance of having a model of the family life cycle and to an understanding of spontaneous processes of developmental change as guides for selecting therapeutic goals and appropriate interventions. Structural family therapy shows the greatest interest in such blueprints, whereas the approach of the Milan group and some of the intergenerational approaches, such as that of Bowen, demonstrate the least interest. The therapeutic interventions reviewed previously (see the section Family Life Cycle Concepts in Family Therapy) are used as avenues to normalizing m:esent, past, and even future behavior; to introducing a RhHosophi- . catoreducatioRa..1 outlook; to imparting a specific developmental direction presenting an ambIguous picture about poSSIbilitiesfor development; to stimulating life cycle change and transformation of rules through enactment, direct or indirect directives and tasks, circular and reflexive questioning; or promoting insight, role playing the role of the other, and attending to developmental double binds. As diverse in theoretical underpinnings as these interventions are, they could be dubbed "developmental-systemic," since they all have the common thread of a life cycle construction or theme that provides a context. shaping the nature of the therapy experience for the family and the therapist alike. Life Cycle Events as Markers and Processes In spite of many conceptual differences in theories of dysfunction and theories of change. it appears that in the realm of therapeutic interventions, the various therapeutic orientations utilize the family life cycle approach in surprisingly similar ways. Most family therapists use the family life cycle paradigm as a context for assessment and for creating change by regarding family life cycle events either as markers or processes. "Markers" are signals or indicators of impending, recent, or even past change that alert therapists to the presence of expectable behaviors and possibly the experience of stress. Milestones and turning points are common ways of referring to life cycle markers. "Processes" refer to the same life cycle events through dynamic temporal lenses, that is, as having a time for preparation. some course of duration, and an eventual outcome affecting a number of areas or dimensions of family life. Both markers and processes are conceptual constructs (see Reese and Smyer, 1983) that guide assessments, therapeutic interventions, and treatment plans. They can also be manifested at the level of language contents or constructions of reality shared and coevolved with the family. Examples of markers that are applicable across therapeutic orientations are (I) stages and transitions. which include real or symbolic additions and losses of family members and involve physical or psychological (observable and reported) change in individuals' and subsystems' attributes over time: (2) age-appropriate behal'iors. which focus on the chronological ages of family members (or even the "age" of subsystems. such as years since marriage

0;-

or remarriage); and (3) age as a metaphor for youth, competence, immaturity, and so forth, or for stimulating recollection of parental and grandparentallife cycle experiences. Markers are used most frequently in the initial stages of treatment and enjoy widespread use among family therapists. Useful constructs for addressing life cycle events as developmental processes are (I) the language of proximity or interdependence (the conflict or dialectic between dependence and autonomy. togetherness and separateness, fusion and differentiation-individuation, centrifugal and centripetal processes); (2) the language of hierarchies in interpersonal interactions (the conflict or dialectic between symmetrical and complementary balances, between leader and fol1oweror "master" and "slave" roles) or in social organizations (authoritarian, democratic, or permissive systems); and (3) the language of adaptation (the conflict or dialectic between resistance to or acceptance of change, between flexibility and rigidity, between continuous and discontinuous change). These constructs are likely to be used in the middle and late phases of treatment and are compatible with many orientations. Most family therapists. armed with the concepts of their own therapeutic approaches. detect life cycle instabilities or markers and focus on them explicitly or implicitly in order to facilitate a situation that sets in motion developmental processes toward new balances in the dimensions of family life.

Family therapists appear to have prematurely closed off the complex issues of stability and change and of continuous and discontinuous, qualitative and quantitative, first-order and second-order changes during the family life cycle. The connection between family dysfunction and the family life cycle also needs much more elaboration than has been given to it so far. Most family therapy approaches have rather mechanically endorsed the traditional stage model of the family without examining issues connected with stages and transitions or attempting to delineate the dimensions and processes involved in life cycle change. Future models need to reopen and explore these issues. This can be done within the confines of the various family therapy orientations, creating perhaps a necessary diversity. but also running the risk of a reductionistic approach whereby basic issues of the family life cycle framework become isomorphic to other predictable aspects of those theories. A fresher. more unifying outlook may result from attempts to develop models of the family life cycle that address evolutionary aspects of systems and that focus on the dimensions and processes of change. Several of these new models are developing in family therapy. as well as more complex models that encompass the interface between the family life cycle and other aspects of family development. It is also suggested that when it comes to therapeutic interventions.

divergent schools converge in their utilization of family life cycle events as markers and processes of change. Family therapy has lacked not only a more microscopic look at the issues involved in family development but also the meta perspective for its life cycle models that is enjoyed by other disciplines. Family sociology and developmental psychology are beginning to share common assumptions about life cycle processes and are moving toward interactional and systemic models. Relaxing the boundaries between these disciplines can provide many valuable new paths and supplement incomplete aspects of the family life cycle framework used in family therapy.

Ackerman. N. W. (1959). The psychoanalytic approach to the family. In J. H. Masserman (Ed.l. Individual and familial dynamics. New York: Grune & Stratton. Ackerman. N. W. (19661. Treating the troubled fami(I'. New York: Basic Books. Aldous. J. (1978).·Fami(v careers: Developmental change in the fami(v. New York: Wiley. Ambron. S. R. & Brodzinsky. D. (I9112).life.(pan human del'elopment. New York: Holt. Rinehart & Winston. Angell. R. C. (1930). The fami(I' encounters the Depres'(ion. New York: Charles Scribner. Aponte. H. & VanDeusen. J. (1981). Structural family therapy. In Gurman. A. S. & Kniskern. D. P. (Eds. I. Handbook of fami(l' therapy. New York: Brunner/Maze!. Barnhill. L. & Longo, D. (197M).Fixation and regression in the family life cycle. Fami(I' Pmce.u. 17. 469-478. Blood. R. & Wolfe. D. (1%0). Husbands and wives. Glencoe. IL: Free Press. Boss. P. G. {I9831. The marital relationship: Boundaries and ambiguities. In C. Figley & H. I. McCubbin (Eds.l. Stress and the fami(l' (Vol. 21. New York: Brunner/Maze!. Boss. P. G. & Greenberg. J. (19841. Family boundary ambiguity:'A new variable in family stres.~ theory. Fami(1' Process. 21, 535-546. Boszormenyi-Nagy. I. & Spark. G. (1973). Invisible loyalties: Reciprocity in illlergenerational fami(I' therapy. New York: Harper & Row. Bowen. M. {19781.Fami(I' therapy in clinical practice. New York: Jason Aronson. Breulin. D. C. 119113l.Therapy in stages: A life cycle view. In M. Liddle tEd.l. Clinical implica· tion.( of the fami{I' life cycle. Rockville. MD: Aspen Systems Corporation. Bronfenbrenner. U. {lml. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. America" Psychologist, 24. 513-530. Bronfenbrenner. U.• Kessel. F.• Kessen. W. & White. S. (191161.Toward a critical social history of developmental psychology: A propaedeutic discussion. American P.~I·cholORi(t. 41. 12IlH2.1O. Buckley. W. {Ed.!. {196ll1.Society as a complex adaptive system. In Modem .~l'.uemsresearch for the behal'ioral scientist. Chicab'O: Aldine. Burr. W. 119721. Role transitions: A reformulation of theory. Journal ol,\larriage and the Fami(I·. .14. 407-416. Cadwallader. M. (19591. The cybernetic analysis of change in complex social organizations. American Journal of SocioIOKI·.liS. 154-157. Carter. E. & McGoldrick. M. tEds.l. (l9Ml. The lami(\' lile n'ele: A framework for /ami~I' therapy. New York: Gardner Press. Ca\·an. R. & Ranck. K. 119JXI. The lamill' a"d the Dcpre.u;o". Chicago: University of Chicab'{l Press.

Combrinck-Graham. L (198.1).The family life cycle and families with young children. In H. Liddle lEd.). Clinical implications of the fami{I'life cycle. Rockville: Aspen Systems. Combrinck-Graham. L 11985). A model for family development. Fami{I' Process, 24: 139-150. Coppersmith. E. (1981). Developmental reframing: he's not bad. he's not mad. he's just young. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies. I III. HI. Danish. S.. Smyer. M .• & Nowak. C. 1\980). Developmental intervention: Enhancing life-event processes. In P. Baltes & O.Brim. Jr. tEds.l. Life-span del'elopment and hehal'ior (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press. Dare. C. (1979). Psychoanalysis and systems in family therapy. Journal of Fami{I' Therapy. I. 137-152. Duvall. E. 119571.Fami{1'del·elopment. Philadelphia: Lippincott. Egan. G. & Cowan. M. (1979). People i1lsystems: A model for del·elopmellf in the human systems professions and education. Monterey. CA: BrOOks/Cole. Erikson. E.119591. Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues. I. 1-171. Erikson. E. t 19631.Childhood and society frev. ed.). New York: W. W. Norton. Falicov. C. J. (Ed.1. 119K3). Introduction. Cultural perspectil'es in fami{I' therapy, Rockville: Aspen Systems. Falicov. C. J. 119841. Focus on stages: Commentary to C. Proudfit's developmental analysis of V. Wo.lfs novel To the Lighthouse. Fami{I' Process. 2.1131.329-334. Falicov. C. J. (19851.Cross-cultural marriages. In N. Jacobson & A. Gurman IEds.1. Handbook of marital therapy. New York: Guilford Press. Falicov. C. J. (19881. Learning to think culturally in family therapy training. In H. Liddle. D. Breunlin. & R. Schwartz IEds.l. Fami{1' therapy training: Recent trends. perspectil'es and del·elopments. New York: Guilford Press. Falicov. C. J. & Brudner-White. L (1983). The Shifting family triangle: The issue of cultural and COnlextual relativity. In C. J. Falicov lEd.I. Cultural perspectil'es in lami{I' therapy. Rockville: Aspen Systems. Falicov. C. J. & Karrer. B. (19!lO1.Cultural variations in the family life cycle: the Mexican. American family. In E. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.). The fami{I' life cycle: A frame"'ork forlami~I' therapy. New York: Gardner Press. Fisch. R. (1983). Commentary to L MacKinnon: Contrasting strategic and Milan ther-dpies. Fami~I'Proce.f.f. 22 (4). 43M-440. Fisch. R.. Weakland. J. & Segal. L (19!l2l. The tactic.t of change. San Fr-dncisco: Jossey·Bass. Framo. J. (19!l1l. The integration of marital therapy with sessions with family of origin. In A. Gurman & D. Kniskern IEds.). Handbook offami{I' therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Glansdorff. P. & Prigogine. J. (19711. Thermoo","amic theory olstmctllre. stabilityand/lllctllationf. New York: Wiley. Golan. N. (19Kll. Pauing through tranfitions. New York: The Free Press. Gol1in. E. 119KIl. Development and Plasticity. In E. Gollin lEd.). De •.elopmental plasticity: Behal'ioral and biological aspecu of •.ariatiallS in del'elopment. New York: Academic Press. Gurman. A. t 19!1JI. The virtues and dangers of a life-cycle perspeclive in familythempy. American Journal 0/ Fami{I' Therapy. II (1).67-72. Hadley. T.. Jacob. T.. Milliones. J.. Caplan. J .• & Spitz. D. ( 197·n. The relationship hetween family developmenlal crisis and Ihe appeamnce of symptoms in a family memher. Fami~1'Proceu. 13 (2). 207-214. Haley. J. 119711.A review of the family therapy field. In J. Haley IEd.l. Changing /umilie.f. Ne•••.. York: Grune & Stratton. Haley. 1. (1')731. Vncommoll therapy: The pJychiatric fechniqut's o{ Miltoll H. Ericksol/. New York: W. W. Norton. Haley. 1. f 1')761.Prnhlem·.wll'i1lR therapy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Haley. 1. 1 I1)1\{) I. Lem'ill? nome. New York: McGraw-Hili.

t

/if

/

Hansen. D .• & Johnson. V. (1979). Rethinking family stress theory: Definitional aspects. In W. Burr. R. Hill. F. Nye & I. Reiss IEds.l. Contemporary theories about the fami~I" Vol. J: Research based theories. New York: The Free Press. Hare-Mustin. R. 119871.The gender dichotomy in developmental theory. Nell' Ideas in Psychology. 5 261-267. Hare-Mustin. R.• & Marecek. J. 119861. Autonomy and gender: some questions for therapisls. Psychotherapy 23 121.205-212. Hill. R. 11949). Families under stress: adjustments to the crisis of war. separation and rel/nion. New York: Harper & Row. Hill. R.1I9581. Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework. 49. 139-150. Hill. R. 119711.Modem systems theory and the family: A confrontation. Social Science Information. 10. 7-26. Hill. R. (19861. Life cycle stages for types of single parent families: or family development theory. Fami~I' Relations . .15 (II. 19-30. Hill. R. & Mattessich. P. (19791.Family development theory and life-span development. In P. Baltes & O. Brim. Jr. (Eds.). Life-span del'elopment and behal·ior. New York: Academic Press. Hill. R. & Rodgers. R.II964). The developmental approach. In H. Christensen (Ed.l. Handbook of marriage and the fami(I·. Chicago: Rand McNally. Hoffman. L 119711.Deviation-amplying processes in natural groups. In J. Haley lEd. I. Changing Families. New York: Grune & Stratton. Hoffman. L (1980). The family life cycle and discontinuous change. In E. Caner & M. Mcgoldrick (Eds.l. The fami~I' life cycle: a framework for fami~I' therapy. New York: Gardner Press. Hoffman. L (1981). Foundations of fami~I' therapy. New York: Basic Books. Hughes. S.• Berger. M .• & Wright. L (1978). The family life cycle and clinical intervention. Journal of Marriage and Fami(I' Counseling. 4 141. ~1-40. Hultsch. D. & Plemons. J. (1979). Life events and life-span development. In P. Baltes & O. Brim. Jr. (Eds.l.llfe-span del'elopment and behal·ior. New York: Academic Press. Kagan. J. 119841. The nature of the child. New York: Basic Books. Kantor. D. (1983). The structural'analytic approach to the treatment of family developmental crisis. In H. Liddle IEd.I. Clinical implications of the fami(1' life cycle. Rockville: Aspen Systems. Karpel. M. 119861.Fami(I' Resources. New York: Guilford Press. Keeney. B. (19831. Aesthetics of change. New York: Guilford Press. Kerr. M. (19811. Family systems theory and therapy. In A. Gurman & D. Kniskern IEds.l. Handbook offami(1' therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Kohlberg. L (19731. Stages and aging in moral development-some speculations. Gerolllo/ogift. l.1. 497-502. Krepner. K.. Paulsen. S. & Schuetze. Y. (1982). Infant and family development: From triads to tetrads. Human Del'elopment 25. 373-391. Lerner. R. & Spanier. G. IEds.l. t1971\). Child infll/ences 011 marital alldlami(I' interaction. New York: Academic Press. Levinson. D. with Darrow.C .• Klein. E.. Levinson. M. & McKee. B. 119781.The.feasol/s ofa lIIall\ life. New York: Knopf. Levinson. D. 119861.A conception of adult development. Americall P.~l'chologift41 111.3-13. Lewis.J. M.. Beavers. W. R.. Gossett.J. T. & Phillips. V. A.1197bl. Nosillgle thread: P.f.I-cho/ogical health in fami(I' .~\·stems. New York: Brunner/Maze!. liddle. H. & Saba. G. f19831. Clinical use of the family life cycle. In H. Liddle IEd.l. C!illical implications of the fomi(I' life cycle. Rockville: Aspen Systems. lidz. T. (19681. The per.fOlI: Hif del'elopment throughout the life cycle. New York: Basic Books. MacKinnon. L (198..1).Contrasting strategic and Milan therapies. Fami(\' ProceSJJ'?(4). 425-440. Maruyama. M. (1963). The second cybernetics: Deviation-amplifying mutual causal processes. Americall Scientist. 51. IM-lb9.

m.

V

McCubbin. H.• & Figley. C. (1983). Bridging normative and catastrophic family stress. In H. McCubbin & C. Figley IEds.). Stress and the fami~I': Coping "'ith normative transitions IVol. 1). New York: Brunner/Mazel. McCubbin. H.. Joy. C .• Cauble. B.• Comeau. J.. Pallerson. J. & Needle. R. (1980). Family Stress and coping: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Fami~I'42(4). 855-871. McCubbin. H.• & Pallerson. J. (1983). The family stress process: The double ABCX model of family adjustment and adaptation. In H. McCubbin. M. Sussman. & J. Pallerson IEds.). Ad"ances and de"elopments in fami~,' stress theory and research. New York: Haworth. McGoldrick. M.. & Gerson. R.II985). GenograMS in famil)' assessment. New York: W. W. Norton. Mederer. H. & Hill. R. (1983). Critical transitions over the family life span: theory and research. In H. McCubbin. M. Sussman & J. Pallerson (Eds.I. Social stress and the fami~,': Advances and de,'elopments in fami~v stress theol')' and research. New York: Haworth. Meissner. W. W. (1978). The conceptualization of marital and family dynamics from a psychoanalytic perspective. In T. Paolino & B. McCrady IEds.l. Marriage and fami(,' therapy. New York: Brunner/Maze!. ~elillo. R. (19851. Adaptation in family systems: a developmental perspective. Fami~,· Process 24(1).89-100. Melson. G. (198.31.Family adaptation to environmental demands. In H. McCubbin & C. Figley IEds.l. Stress and the fami~,': Coping with normati"e transitions IVol. II. New York: Brunner/Maze!. Menaghan. E. (1983). Marital stress and family transitions: A panel analysis. Journal of marriage and the fami~,' 45121. 371-386. Minuchin. P. 119851.Families and individual development: Provocations from the field of family therapy. Child De,'elopment. 56. 289-302. VMinuchin. S. (1974). Families and fami~,' therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Minuchin. S.. & Fishman. H. C. 119811.Fami~,' therapy techniques. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Nichols. M.1I984). Fami~l·therapy: Concepts and methods. New York: Gardner Press. O'Connell. P. 119721. Developmental tasks of the family. Smith College Studies in Social Work. 42(3).203-210. Olson. D. H.. Sprenkle. D. H.. & Russell. C. S. 119791.Circumplex model of marital and family systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions. family type and clinical applications. Fami~1'Process. 18. 3-28. Olson. D. H.. Russell. C. S. & Sprenkle. D. H. f 19!131.Circumplex model VI: theoretical update. Fami~1'Process. 22. 69-8..1. P'dU!'N. (1969). The role of mourning and empathy in conjoint marital therapy. In G. Zuk & I. Boszormenyi-Nagy (Eds.l. Fami(,·therapy and disturbed families. Palo Alto: Science and Behavior Books. Penn. P. (19851. Feed forward: future questions. future maps. Fami(,' Process. 24(3).299-.322. Perrota. P. 119861.Leaving home: Later stages of treatment. Fami~1'Process. 25(3).46'1-474. Pincus. L. & Dare. C. t 19781.Secrets in the fami(,~ London: Faber and Faber. Pollack. 0.11(56). Sociological and psychoanalytic concepts in family diagnosis. In B. L. Greene (Ed.l. The psychotherapies of marital disharmony. New York: Free Press. Quinn. W.. Newfield. N.. & Protinsky. H. t 19851. Rites of passage in families with adolescents. Fami(,' Process. 2-1( II. 101-112. Rapaport. R. (196..11.Normal crises. family structure and mental health. Fami(1'Process. 2. 68-80. Reese. H. W. & Smyer. M. A. 1191\31.The dimensionalization of life events. In E. 1. Callahan & K. A. McCluskey IEds.l. Life-span de"elopmental psycholoR": Nonnormati"e life e\"('nu. New York: Academic Press. Reiss. D. t 19811. The fami(1' S constructioll of"reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Rhodes. S. t 19HOI.A developmental approach to the life cycle of the family. In M. Bloom f Ed. I. Life spall del'elof'ml.'nt. ~ew York: Macmillan.

Riegel. K. F. (19751. Adult life crisis: A dialeclic interpretalion of development. In Datan. N. & L Ginsberg (Eds.l. Life-span del'elopmental psychology: Normalive life crisis. New York: Academic Press. Riegel. K. F. (19761. The dialeclics of human developmenl. American Ps)·chologisl. .1/1101. 689-700. Rolland. J. (1987). Chronic illness and the life cycle. Fami(r Process. 26l21. 203-222. Rollins. B. & Cannon. K. (19741.Marilal satisfaclion over the life cycle: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and the Fami(I'. .16. 271-283. Rollins. B. & Feldman. H. (1970). Marilal salisfaclion over the family life cycle. Journal of Marriage and Ihe Fami(r. .12. 20-28. Rosman. B. (19861. Developmenlal perspeclives in family therapy with children. In H. C. Fishman & B. L Rosman (Eds.I. EI'olving models of fami(I' change. New York: Guilford Press. Scherz. F. H. (19711. Maturalional crisis and parenl-child inleraclion. Social Case,,·ork. 362-369. Schlossberg. N. K. (1981I. A model for analyzing human adaplation to lransilion. Counseling Psychologist. 9(21.2-18. Selvini Palazzoli. M .. Cecchin. G.• PraIa. G .. & Boscolo. L. 119781.Paradox and counlerparadox. New York: Jason Aronson. Shilling. S. M. & Gross. E. J. 11979/. Stages of family therapy: A developmenlal model. Clinical Social Work Journal. 7(21. 105-114. Skynner. R. (1981 I. An open syslems. group analylic approach 10 family Iherapy.In A. Gurman & D. Kniskern IEds.l. Handbook of fami(I,therapy. New York: Brunner/Maze\. Solomon. M. (19731. A developmenlal. conceplual premise for family Iherapy. Fami(I'Proce.u. 12. 179-188. Spanier. G .. Lewis. R. & Cole. C. (19751. Marital adjustmenl over the family life cycle: The issue of curvilinearity. Journal of marriage and the fami(I', 37. 263-275. Speer. D. C. (1970). Family systems: morphostasis or morphogenesis. or ishomeoslasis enough'! Fami(I' Process. 9. 259-278. Stanlon. M. D. 119811. Slrategic approaches to family Iherapy. In A. Gurman & D. Kniskern. (Eds.l. Handbook of fami(I' therapy. New York: Brunner/Maze\. Slanlon. M. D. & Todd. T. C. and Associates. f 19821. The fami(I' therapy of dfUn abu.fe :and addiclion. New York: Guilford Press. Steinberg. L. D. f 19811. Changes in family relalions al puberty, In L. D. Sleinberg tEd.I. The life cycle: Readings in human derelopment. New York: Columbia UniversilY Press. Stierlin. H. (19741. Separating parents and adolescents. New York: Quadrangle. Terkelson. K. G. '19801. Toward a Iheory of the family life cycle. In E. Carter & M. McGoldrick (Eds.l. The fami(r life cycle: Aframell'ork for fami(1' therapy. New York: Gardner Press. Tomm. K. One perspective on the Milan systemic approach. ParI 1. Overview of development. theory and practice. Journal of ,"Iaritaland Fami(1' TheraP.... 1984lal W12I. 113-126. Part 11. Description of session formal. interviewing slyle and interventions, Journal of Marital and Fami(I' Therap .•.. 19114lbl. W131.25J-27 I. Tomm. K. 119871. Interventive interviewing: Pan 11.Reflexive queslioning as a means 10 enable self-healing. Fami(r Process. 26121. 167-IM. Urhan. H. B. 119781. The concept of de\'elopmenl from a syslems perspective. In P. B. Balles IEd.I. Life-span derelopment and behal'ior IVo\. 11.New York: Academic Press. Wachle\. E. F. & Wachlel. P. L. 119X61.Fami(I' d.•.namics in indil'idllal psychotherap .•.. New York: Guilford Press. Walsh. F. 119831,The liming of symploms and critical even IS in Ihe family life cycle. In H. Liddle (Ed.l. Clinical implications of the/amill'li/e c.•.cle. Rockville: Aspen Syslems. Walzlawick. PooWeakland. J. & Fisch. R. IIlJ70tI. ChanRe: Principles of problem .formation and problem resolution. New York: Nl'rtl'n. Weakland. J .. Fisch. RooWatzlawick. P. &. Bodin. A. 11lJ741.Brief therapy: Focused prohl.:m resolulion. Fami~I'Process. l.1. loti-16K.

Weeks. G. R. & Wright. 1- 119791.Dialectics of the family life cycle. The American Journal of Fami(I' TherapJ·. 7. 85-91. Whitaker. C. & Keith. 0.11981 I. 5ymbolic-experiential family therapy. In A. Gurman & D. Kniskern IEds.l. Handbook of family therapy. New York: BrunnerlMazel. Williamson. D. 5.11981 I. Personal authority via termination of the intergenerational hierarchical boundary: A "new- stage in the family life cycle. Journal o{Marital and Fami(I' Therapy. 7. 441-452. Williamson. D. 5. 119821. Personal authority in family experience via termination of the intergenerational hierarhical boundary. Pan III: personal authority defined and the power of play in change-process. Journal of Marital and Fami(v Therapy. 8. 309-323. Winnicoll. D. W. (19651. The fami(I' and indMdual development. lDndon: Tavistock Publications. Wood. B. (19851. Proximity and hierarchy: Onhogonal dimensions of family interconnectedness. Fami(1" Process. 24141.487-508. Wood. B. & Talmon. M.119831. Family boundaries in transition: A search for alternatives. Fami(I' Process. 22. 347-357. Worthington. E. L 119871.Treatment of families during life transitions: Matching treatment to family response. Fami(I' Process. 26121. 295-308.