Family Systems and Life-span Development

Kurt Kreppner, Richard M. Lerner

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781134737178
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This interdisciplinary volume presents international research and theories focusing on the development of the individual across the life span. Centering on "family" as the key context influencing, and being influenced by the developing person, the contributors to this volume discuss an array of theoretical models, methodological strategies, and substantive foci linking the study of individual development, the family system, and the broader context of human development. The volume presents continuing empirical research and theories in the realm of individual and family development and features a developmental, contextual view from a process-oriented vantage point.

1	Family Systems and Life-Span Development: Issues and Perspectives

Kurt Kreppner

Max Planck Institute for Human Development and Education

Richard M. Lerner

The Pennsylvania State University

In the Preface to their volume, Child influences on marital and family interaction: A life-span perspective (1978a), Richard M. Lerner and Graham B. Spanier wrote:

There is an emerging synthesis in social science of sociologists, psychologists, and physicians. The family is the central social institution in society and has been the focus of much research and scholarship among, in particular, family sociologists. Additionally, perhaps no topic in the social sciences has received as much attention, particularly from developmental psychologists, as has the behavioral development of the individual. Yet, these two closely related and obviously interdependent topics have not adequately been studied jointly, (p. xv)

The volume by Lerner and Spanier was both a product and a producer of the zeitgeist within social science of the late 1970s, one that sought to understand the individual as embedded in a rich, dynamic, and interactive context. Given this Zeitgeist, the theory and research dynamically linking individual development across life with the changing family system, begun in the 1970s and reflected in the chapters of the Lerner and Spanier (1978a) volume, burgeoned and matured through the 1980s. As such, it is both timely and useful to “take stock,” to see what has been learned, and to clearly formulate the directions of the scholarly tasks that remain before us. This integration is the goal of this volume.

Specifically, the purpose of the book is to bring together the theoretical, methodological, and substantive perspectives of European and American scholars studying the relationships between the developing person and family, and in turn between the changing family and the broader context of human development. Indeed, it is this latter emphasis—between the family and the larger context of human life—that represents one of the major dimensions of difference between the state of the literature at the time of the publication of the Lerner and Spanier (1978a) volume and at the time of this writing, now a decade later.

The Contextualization of Human Development

The latter 1970s and early 1980s can be seen as a period within which there was a contextualization of individual ontogeny (Lerner, 1986; Lerner, Hultsch, & Dixon, 1983). Spurred by work in life-span developmental psychology (Baltes, 1987; Brim & Kagan, 1980; Featherman, 1983; Lerner, 1984) and in the ecological view of human development (Brofenbrenner, 1979), the individual’s development was seen as being propelled by dynamic interactions among biological, psychological, and sociocultural variables, all changing across history. Within the stream of this work, the volume by Lerner and Spanier (1978a) emphasized that across life the person is embedded in a multilevel context, with the most proximal and important instance—for both individual and societal maintenance and perpetuation—being the family.

The study of human development, however, has evolved beyond the point of emphasizing the need to study reciprocal relations between the developing person and the changing family. Throughout the 1980s the family itself has been contextualized and, as such, studied as one component of the larger developmental and contextual system of which it is a part. Thus, as exemplified in several chapters in this volume, the links between the family as a context of individual development and other key contexts—for example, the peer group (see the chapters by Krappmann, by Lerner, and by Parke, MacDonald, Burks, Bhavnagri, Barth, & Beitel), the school (see the chapters by Hwang, Lamb, & Bröberg, and by Lerner), and the parents’ work setting (see the chapter by Schneewind)—have been studied.

Indeed, that these intercontext links have been actually studied—as opposed to being only discussed—represents another important distinction between the state of the field at the time of the Lerner and Spanier (1978a) volume and this one. Simply, today, we have more data than we did a decade ago (for example, compare Lamb, 1978, with Hwang, Lamb, and Broberg, this volume, or the opening chapter by Lerner and Spanier of their 1978 volume with the chapter by Lerner in this volume). Although these data have allowed us to see why and how we should temper the speculations of a decade ago, they have as well resulted in at least two other outcomes. First, the field today is marked by a plethora of issues, perspectives about these issues, and methods to investigate them. Second, although most researchers, at either an implicit or explicit level, would agree with the broadly contextualized view of individual–family relations just outlined, narrower models have been deployed in the service of empirical feasibility (e.g., see Lerner & Lerner, 1987).

As a consequence, the particular issue, perspective, and method involved in a given test of a necessarily narrower model or hypothesis about one substantive topic may not, at first blush, seem to be related to a test made of another topic that has involved the invoking of another issue, perspective, and method. Nevertheless, such integration exists at the superordinate level of the dynamic system of links among the biological, psychological, and sociocultural levels of analysis of which the individual and family are, across life, a part. Chapter 2 (by Lerner) attempts to depict such integration by use of the developmental contextual (Lerner & Kauffman, 1985) perspective about the human life course, a perspective associated with the life-span view of human development (Baltes, 1987; Lerner, 1984, 1986). Lerner attempts also to illustrate the use of this perspective by reference to his own work on the goodness-of-fit model of person–context relations. However, by making reference to the issues and perspectives found in the other chapters of this volume, we seek to present other examples of the integration we believe is present in the field. This discussion is certainly illustrative and not exhaustive. Nevertheless, we hope to give the reader sufficient instances of organizational tools useful in appreciating the commonalities of interest and orientation that do exist in the field; in turn, we seek to point out also those areas of difference and disagreement that remain to be resolved by the work of at least the next decade to come.

An Overview of Current Issues and Perspectives

At least two broad domains of issues exist in the contemporary study of the links among the individual, the family, and the broader context of human development. In a sense, these two domains are implicit when one formulates this tripartite link. First, there are issues that pertain to conceptual and methodological issues that must be addressed to understand and study the relations among individual, family, and broader social context variables. Second, there are issues pertinent to each of these three levels of analysis per se and to their integration. Here, the concern is what level or levels of analysis are needed to understand the relations among individual, family, and the broader context and, if more than one level is needed, how may the different levels be integrated.

Three instances of each of these two general domains of issues are found in the chapters in this volume. In respect to the conceptual and methodological domain, theoretical issues are raised about the role of the family in individual development, on the one hand, and about the role of the family in the individual’s functioning in other contexts, on the other. In turn, issues are raised about key concepts of development pertinent to both individual ontogeny and family change, e.g., concerns about continuity–discontinuity, about plasticity, and about sensitive periods are raised. Finally, methodological issues are raised about measurement, about levels and units of analysis, and about statistical procedures.

In regard to issues pertinent to the levels of analysis domain, issues here pertain, first, to the conceptualization and modeling of biological and/or individual/ontogenetic variation in both familial and broader contextual functioning; for example, in what ways are additive, correlational, and interactive models of biology (or organism)–context relations useful in understanding the tripartite links of present concern (e.g., see the chapters by Plomin, by Dunn & Stocker, by Lerner, and by Brooks-Gunn & Zahaykevich)? Second, issues are raised pertinent to the use of dyadic and other intrafamilial structures in attempting to understand individual–family–broader context relations; for example, a key issue here is whether it is necessary to go beyond the dyadic unit of analysis in attempting to understand the family (e.g., see the chapters by Hinde, by Kreppner, and by von Eye & Kreppner). Different perspectives on this issue include ones that focus on the intrafamilial dyad alone (see Chapter 8, by Hinde) or on intrafamilial polyadic relations (see Chapter 3, by Kreppner); still other perspectives involve the role of interfamilial, social support networks (see Chapter 15 by Antonucci and Chapter 16 by Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg), of intergenerational linkages (see Chapter 17 by Richards, Bengtson, & Miller), and of other long-term, historically textured associations (see Chapters 18 and 19, by Schütze and by Harari & Vinovskis, respectively) on intrafamilial functioning.

Finally, issues are raised about cross-context transitivity; for instance, what are the ways in which the nature of individual functioning in the family relate to individual functioning in the peer group or, at a more molar level, how does the system of relations in the peer group relate to the system of relations found in the family (e.g., see the chapters by Parke, et al., and by Krappmann)?

As implied, in this book no unanimity exists among authors about the perspectives best to take in regard to any issue. For instance, in regard to the domain of conceptual and methodological issues, authors divide in their views about and preferences for the use of naturalistic or home-based observational methods (e.g., see the chapters by Dunn & Stocker, by Parke et al., and by Kreppner), psychometrically developed questionnaire or survey methods (e.g., see the chapters by Brooks-Gunn & Furstenberg, by Powers, and by Olson & Lavee), or laboratory experiments (e.g., see the chapters by Hinde, and by Hwang, Lamb, & Broberg). In turn, with respect to issues pertinent to the levels of analysis domain, authors diverge in their reliance on quantitative genetic methods (e.g., see the chapter by Plomin) or on models of organism–environment fit (e.g., see the chapters by Lerner, and by Brooks-Gunn & Zahaykevich) in attempting to understand the role of biological variation in individual–family–broader context relations.

In our view, however, the differences in perspectives about particular issues that exist among the authors in this volume seem not so much a matter of disagreements involving incompatible positions; rather, they seem more a matter of scientific preferences, of adopting what seems to be the most useful approach for a given substantive focus, and of expressing an informed estimate of what strategy will result in the greatest scientific advances.

In other words, we are struck by the sense of commonality that exists among the authors working in the area of family and life-span development in general, and of topics in this area in particular. In fact, this broad commonality of agreement may perhaps best be illustrated by noting the particular perspectives that never seem to be raised in regard to particular issues. For instance, nowhere in the discussions about theoretical views about the role of the family is either an exclusively pychogenic (e.g., Freud, 1969; Kestenberg, 1967) or sociogenic (e.g., Dannefer, 1984) view taken; instead, dynamic interactional, or transactive, conceptions of different forms are discussed. In turn, nowhere in the discussion of either developmental issues or of the role of biological variation is a biological determinism conception or genetic reductionism interpretation (e.g., Lumsden & Wilson, 1981; Wilson, 1975) presented; alternatively, contrasting developmental models of gene–environment, or organism–context, relationships are discussed. As a final illustration, nowhere is the point argued that one data collection procedure or data analytic technique should have hegemony in the methodological resources of scientists in this field; instead, discussion occurs about what procedures and analytic strategies are best fit to address specific substantive foci.

In sum, then, as we turn now to a more detailed presentation of the specific problems addressed and the perspectives taken in regard to the two general domains of the issues of concern to the authors in this volume, we find an interesting synthesis of commonality and divergence. Whereas authors differ in respect to particular perspectives adopted, they are similarly concerned with understanding how individual, familial, and broader contextual variables dynamically interact to provide the bases of ontogenetic and family change across the life-span. At this point it is useful to turn to a discussion of the several conceptual/methodological issues and levels of analysis issues aforementioned.

Theoretical Issues

A high degree of diversity can be found in conceptions about the essentials for describing families and depicting changes in their interaction during development. Unified conceptions are particularly demanded when attempts are made to link family research and developmental psychology. The question is raised as to how the family as a specific social context influences the course of individual development, and, at the same time, how the developing individual has an impact on changes occurring in the family’s relational network. Different perspectives about how to represent “the family” have evolved that mirror different interests and theoretical backgrounds. Some of these views emphasizing particular facets of family life are manifest in various contributions of this book. For instance, drawn mostly from a classical sociological view of the family, systems-related conceptions prevail in contributions that focus on the analysis of general dimensions of family interaction and that take into account all family members; Olson and Lavee’s chapter (No. 9) is a case in point.

In contrast, the family can also be taken as an aggregation of dyadic relationships resulting from a series of dyadic interactions, a position that seems to be favored in Hinde’s chapter (No. 8). Hinde doubts that it is justified to go beyond the dyadic level when analyzing family relationships. As noted, different views of the units necessary to understand intrafamilial relations are found in the chapter by Kreppner (No. 3) and by Powers (No. 13); in turn, the need to understand intrafamilial relations by understanding the link between the family and the broader social context is stressed in the chapters by Antonucci and by Brooks-Gunn and Furstenberg, who point to the role of social support, by Richards, Bengtson, and Miller, who stress the importance of intergenerational family relations in intrafamilial functioning, and by Schiitze and by Harari and Vinovskis, who emphasize the importance of the historical context in attempting to explicate intrafamilial relations.

In the contribution of Parke et al. (Chapter 4), and that of Krappman (Chapter 5), the family is conceptualized as a specific context characterized by particular qualities. Here the family influences the individual by creating contextual conditions that foster or impede the individual’s moving to other social contexts, such as the peer group.

Related to this concern with the nature...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• 1. Family Systems and Life-Span Development: Issues and Perspectives
• 2. Individual Development and the Family System: A Life-Span Perspective
• 3. Linking Infant Development-in-Context Research to the Investigation of Life-Span Family Development
• 4. Family and Peer Systems: In Search of the Linkages
• 5. Family Relationships and Peer Relationships in Middle Childhood: An Exploratory Study of the Associations Between Children’s Integration into the Social Network of Peers and Family Development
• 6. The Development of Social and Intellectual Competence in Swedish Preschoolers Raised at Home and in Out-of-Home Care Facilities
• 7. Nature and Nurture in the Family
• 8. Reconciling the Family Systems and the Relationships Approaches to Child Development
• 9. Family Systems and Family Stress: A Family Life Cycle Perspective
• 10. Contextual Approaches to Family Systems Research: The Macro-Micro Puzzle
• 11. Parent-Daughter Relationships in Early Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective
• 12. Family Systems and Family Development: The Selection of Analytical Units
• 13. Family Systems Throughout the Life-Span: Interactive Constellations of Development, Meaning, and Behavior
• 14. The Significance of Differences in Siblings’ Experiences Within the Family
• 15. Understanding Adult Social Relationships
• 16. Long-Term Implications of Fertility-Related Behavior and Family Formation on Adolescent Mothers and Their Children
• 17. The “Generation in the Middle”: Perceptions of Changes in Adults’ Intergenerational Relationships
• 18. Adolescents and Their Families
• 19. Rediscovering the Family in the Past
• Author Index
• Subject Index