Family Influences on Childhood Behavior and Development

Evidence-Based Prevention and Treatment Approaches

Thomas P. Gullotta, Gary M. Blau, Thomas P. Gullotta, Gary M. Blau

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2008
• Print ISBN: 9780415762571
• eBook ISBN: 9781135889852
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Irrespective of theoretical orientation, families matter. Families are the entity in which children are introduced to words, objects, shapes, and colors. Families are the people related in a myriad of conventional and unconventional ways that clothe, bathe, and feed its biological and acquired offspring. Influenced by race, ethnicity, income, and education, families relate not only to each other within the unit but to others in the neighborhood, the community, and beyond.

This book is about families and their children. This book is about those times when the family unit experiences distress. This distress may be found in the serious illness of a child or a parent. It may be the result of a reconfiguration of the family as in divorce and remarriage. Or it may involve the harming of a family member sexually or physically. In this volume, the authors explore what family means today, what functions it serves, and those circumstances that can make family life painful. Importantly, the authors provide readers with clearly written information drawn from the most recent scientific investigations suggesting how the topics in this volume might be addressed to either ease that discomfort (treatment) or prevent its occurrence.

1
How Theory Influences Treatment and Prevention Practice with the Family

THOMAS P. GULLOTTA

INTRODUCTION

Like a serial from a 1930s Saturday matinee, the reader was left in the preface wondering about the meaning of the word family. In this next installment that question is addressed further. To do that, several theories of family behavior are selectively examined to discover an understanding of family. Choosing elements from those theories, a definition of family is fashioned. Later, using family theories again and explanations of individual behavior, their usefulness is explored in establishing interventions that promote health, prevent illness and treat illness to return the child to a healthier state.

FAMILY THEORIES

Social Biology

Times were that the word family was inexorably intertwined with the word marriage:

Marriage was a union, institutionalized and publicly recognized, between a man and a woman. Accompanying this union was a set of traditional societal assumptions that the couple would share economic resources, produce offspring, and stay married, A family provided the structural setting in which these assumptions were carried out. It offered a framework by which married individuals shared a residence and economic resources and reproduced. Further, it was in the family that children were raised, socialized, instilled with values, and protected. (Gullotta, Adams & Alexander, 1986, pp. 5–6)

But long ago before “times were,” another pattern of behavior existed. Living in small groups, where speech was a grunt, the dominant male in this group would impregnate a female. She would bear his child and have responsibility for the child’s upbringing. From a social biological view, this pattern of behavior was both beneficial and problematic. Oh, what is social biology? Social biology understands human behavior to be overwhelmingly influence by our genetic evolution such that instinctual thoughts (unless very consciously controlled) dominant the more recent cognitive thought processing abilities developed over the past 15,000 years (Wilson, 1978). It is the selfish-gene view of life with the carrier of that gene pool (that is you and me) seeking two essential circumstances in life (Dawkins, 1976). First is our self-continuation in the here and now. Next is our self-continuation in the hereafter—no, not heaven in this case but the spreading of our genes by propagation to ensure that we continue through our descendants. So, what is problematic about the dominant male impregnating females? From his perspective, he was increasing the odds that his genes would achieve longevity. The greater the number of offspring with as many females as possible extended his family tree. On the other hand, the female in this relationship was at a decided disadvantage. Whereas his moment till ejaculation lasted minutes, her role in this process lasted months. Unlike most other animals, the offspring of this chance mating required extended care, limiting not only her contribution to the survival of the group but also her ability to conceive another child. Thus, her evolution and the behaviors emanating from that evolution strove to limit the male to fewer mates and to establish a bond among the male, the impregnated female and, ultimately, the child. As this evolutionary pathway benefited the survival of the species, new behaviors like emotional attachment and romantic love developed to coexist with older behaviors like jealousy and physiological arousal. Eventually, this coupling became institutionalized as marriage. But do not mistake this coupling for monogamy (one man and one woman). Many societies permitted polygamy (one man to more than one woman), and some even practiced polyandry (one woman to more than one man) or group marriage (the union of several women to several men).

Structural Functional Theory

Rather than using the gene as the unit of analysis to drive our view of behavior and the family, we might choose the social system and a theory called structural functionalism (Parsons, 1949). Teasing apart those words, structural is understood as a clearly defined element of a pattern or organization in which the general character of the whole emerges and is maintained. Functionalism speaks to the contribution of each element to the development and maintenance of the whole. Thus, “society is made up of a number of structures, each serving a useful function that maintains and/or further develops the whole” (Gullotta et al., 1986, p. 31). From a structural functionalist perspective, the family needs to clothe to the extent weather demands, to shelter and to nourish its members. Now, depending on the complexity of the society in which the family lives, other needs may exist. For example, living alone a family stumbling upon a beehive in a tree hollow may act as freely as the bees permit to remove that sweet nectar. However, that same family acting as freely in a group of people where one individual is a beekeeper will create group turmoil. Their action of honey taking is now considered stealing from another group member. Thus, as the complexity of the surroundings increase about the family, their function enlarges to encompass nonkin group socialization—that is, teaching family members appropriate behaviors for larger group membership, which in turn is an attempt at maintaining group harmony (balance) or, as the structural functionalist would say, homeostasis.

Social Exchange Theory

Another way to conceptualize the family is through an emotional cost–benefit analysis. The word social in this theory implies the interaction of the individual and the group. Exchange is understood to mean the giving of one thing for something else of near equal value. In social exchange theory, life is seen as a marketplace where emotions, relationships and all other behaviors are traded. Here are its four operating principles.

First are rewards. These are the satisfactions, pleasures or attainments resulting from an exchange. To be told, “I love you,” by someone you love is a pleasure. To see your beloved child succeed is a satisfaction. To be surrounded by loved ones in old age is a satisfying, pleasurable attainment.

Next is cost, which represents the actions, feelings or interactions that are either unpleasant or are rewards lost. In a reward lost, the principal is that choice entails loss. For example, to choose pie for desert costs you ice cream. Yes, you can have pie à la mode, but that costs you the cake as a choice and adds 350 additional calories to your already bulging belly. The point is that everything costs something.

The third element to social exchange theory is profit. In the marketplace of life, decisions are made to make one’s life as profitable as possible while limiting life’s losses. To illustrate, social exchange theory is often used to explain the phenomenon of older men marrying much younger women. For the male, it is suggested that the much younger wife is a statement of continued vitality, attractiveness and masculinity at a time when reproductive ability likely is measured in days rather than minutes. For the female, she is thought to be trading her youth for the security the older male brings to the relationship. This security might be emotional or financial or might be found in his maturity. Regardless, if asked, both male and female would express satisfaction at their decision for reasons of love, of course.

Last, there is the norm of reciprocity. This means that over time rewards and costs should roughly equalize in the eyes of givers and takers. As the saying goes, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Sharing among your group is good. Hoarding is bad. Continually taking advantage of others jeopardizes the longevity of the relationship with those others and thereby places your own longevity in question.

DEFINING FAMILY

What can be gleaned from these three schools of thought about the family? From social biology, the primary function of the family is reproduction and continuation. From structural functionalism, the maintenance of the family is dependent on the establishment of rules (i.e., structures) that enable the family to function (i.e., behave successfully) in the circumstances in which the family finds itself. From social exchange theory, those rules or structures over time should balance profit and loss, favoring gain if possible but not at the expense of violating the norm of reciprocity. Now, a nuance from symbolic interaction theory could be added in that family members perform numerous roles like mother, wife, lover, employee, homemaker, den leader and the list goes on, each with its own socially approved behavioral script. Or, from general systems theory, concepts could be added that define the openness of the family to change (i.e., boundaries) or how it achieves change through transformation, cybernetic control and, ultimately, morphogenesis, but for these purposes I think a useful definition of the family can be offered without these. Oh, there is one more factor to consider: This is a book about children in families; thus, the definition of family must include children.

Thus, a family provides a structural setting in which individuals share a residence and economic resources. It is in the family and other institutions that children are raised, socialized, instilled with values and protected. This definition is remarkably similar to the definition at the beginning of this chapter, with three exceptions. The first is the omission of the word marriage. The second is the omission of the word reproduction, and the third is the addition of others in raising children. Let us examine those exceptions more closely against my thinking and that of Gerald Adams and Sharon Alexander more than two decades ago.

Marriage and Its Variations

Consider the ways people might live together. They could cohabitate—that is, two unrelated individuals sharing a common dwelling. Should this male and female remain together for several years, the legal argument could be made that a common-law marriage occurred. The strength of this case would depend on the conditions described earlier like the sharing of economic resources. Or the couple—male and female or, in some states, of the same sex—could pursue a civil union that entitles them to certain legal conditions, for example, coverage under their partner’s health insurance. Last, in the eyes of the state that is the entity issuing a marriage license, the male and female couple can declare an intention to live together till death do they part or to divorce, whichever comes first. Currently, no state issues marriage licenses for same-sex couples. In each of these arrangements children have been reared less or more successfully to adulthood. The success of those experiences was independent of the form the couple relationship took but is dependent on factors such as respect for family members; fairness and consistency; parenting behavior toward offspring; financial, emotional and social resources; and other behaviors discussed in the next chapter.

Reproduction and How the Child Arrives in Its Living Circumstance

Earlier we shared the reality that children arrive in a variety of ways beyond the female (mother) and male (father) mating. A child may be conceived with donated sperm or a donated egg. The fetus may gestate in the womb of a surrogate mother. The child may be adopted or may be placed by a governmental entity in a foster home. Out of these five possibilities, only one is the result of the mother and father mating. Although it was not possible to identify data on sperm and egg donations or surrogate births, the following was discerned. Approximately 4% of children (2.9 million youth in 2002) under the age of 18 in the United States do not live with a parent. The majority (1.3 million youth) live with grandparents, with other relatives (802,000 youth) or in foster-care placements (235,000 youth) (Fields, 2003).

Family

Searching the census records reveals that in 2003, 5.5 million couples reported living together (i.e., cohabitating) as unmarried partners. This is an increase of more than 2 million couples since 1990, and the number may be even higher due to suspected underreporting (Fields, 2004). The number of children living in cohabitating relationships is unknown. Children might find themselves living in a single-parent household with their mother, as 16.5 million did in 2002. Of this number, 1.8 million children lived with their mother and her unmarried partner. Or children might find themselves living with their father, as 3.3 million did in 2002. One third (1.1 million) of these children lived with their father and his unmarried partner. Together, these single-parent family variations accounted for 28% of the housing arrangements for all children under the age of 18. As noted earlier, 4% of all children live with grandparents, other relatives or in foster-care placements. The remaining 68% live in two-parent households. But before celebrating this last remark as pr...

Table of contents

• Contents
• About the Editors
• Contributors
• Introduction
• 1 How Theory Influences Treatment and Prevention Practice with the Family
• 2 Childhood Growth and Development within a Fa mily Context
• 3 Families Matter
• 4 Cultural Influences on Child Development:
• 5 Public Health Principles and Approaches to Systems Interventions to Support Children’s Emotional and Behavioral Health
• 6 Childhood Risks Associated with Adoption
• 7 Divorce and Children
• 8 Stepfamilies and Children*
• 9 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Families and Their Children
• 10 Children in Foster Care:
• 11 Children of Parents with Mental Illnesses
• 12 Physical Abuse in Childhood (Ages 5–13)
• 13 Sexual Abuse in Childhood:
• Epilogue, or Final Credits
• Index