Two theoretical problems with the family process: Research on the etiology of schizophrenia

1970 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles W. Lachenmeyer
2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 493-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan C. Whiston ◽  
Briana K. Keller

Based on a developmental contextual perspective advocated by Vondracek, Lerner, and Schulenberg, this article provides a comprehensive review of the research published since 1980related to family of origin influences on career developmentandoccupational choice. Because individuals are most likely to seek assistance with career decisions from family members, it is important that counseling psychologists understand how families can have a positive influence and facilitate career development. Influential family contextual factors are identified within four developmentallevels (i.e., children, adolescents, college students/young adults, and adults). Across the lifespan, both family structure variables (e.g., parents’ occupations) and family process variables (e.g., warmth, support, attachment, autonomy) were found to influence a host of career constructs; however, the process by which families influence career development is complex and is affected by many contextual factors such as race, gender, and age. Based on this comprehensivereview, implicationsfor counselingresearch andpracticeare discussed.


1976 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1291-1299 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Krige

The patterns of interaction between the parents and the child in family triads of high-achieving and low-achieving boys and girls and their parents were compared. Forty family triads were studied. The mean age of the children was 12 yr., 1 mo. Fathers of boys and girls did not differ in over-all dominance in the family process. Parents shared dominance but fathers of boys differed from fathers of girls in how this dominance was applied. Fathers' interactional pattern with their wives was flexible, influenced by the sex and achievement level of the children. These factors influenced fathers' interaction with their children and also mothers' interaction with their husbands. Mothers' behaviour toward their children was influenced by sex but much less so by achievement level. The sex of the child significantly influenced his behaviour toward his mother but the achievement level not to the same extent. In essence, the interaction of the parental pair with their children seemed to be the important factor in achievement.


1981 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna E. Kippax

There is a need experienced by most practitioners of family therapy to impose order and structure upon the considerable range of concepts currently used in the family process approach. This paper suggests a possible structure utilizing five phases which characteristically unfold during the treatment process. The structure provides a rationale so that seemingly divergent techniques of therapy may be seen to be appropriate to particular phases of therapy, rather than mutually contradictory or exclusive. The article further attempts to demonstrate that certain conceptual models and the techniques that arise from them, are called into play depending upon the nature of the family in treatment.


1984 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.D. Steinhauer ◽  
J. Santa-Barbara ◽  
H. Skinner

The Process Model of Family Functioning differs from the McMaster Model of Family Functioning and their common source, the Family Categories Schema, by its increased emphasis on the dynamic interaction between the major dimensions of family functioning, and by its stress on the interface between intrapsychic subsystems and the interpersonal dimensions of the family system. A model of family process rather than family structure, it defines six universal criteria of family functioning. It describes the processes involved in each along with the content components and the critical aspects of each. A self-report test developed from the model (FAM-III) is being widely used both as a research tool and as a clinical adjunct. Tests to define its validity and reliability continue.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ali Roghani

This paper's main objective is to understand how thefamily process affects youth's educational outcomes in the U.S.Previous research does not have a conclusive understandingregarding parental influence and educational achievement.Some studies determine that some parental influence isconnected with positive academic achievement, while othersconclude that it is not associated with young adults' academicachievement. Using data from the National Longitudinal Surveyof Youth 1997, an event history analysis was conducted toaddress how family process measures (family routines andparental monitoring) during adolescence change the rates andtiming of the completion of a bachelor's degree. Althoughmothers' monitoring does not have a significant relationship withhaving an academic degree, higher father monitoring waspositively associated with having the degree. Family routinesprovide a complex result. Average family routines are associatedwith a higher likelihood of academic achievements, while low andhigh family routines have the same outcomes. The research'sfindings imply the role of fathers and the multidimensionalnature of the family process, suggesting that the family process isessential in determining rates and timing of academicachievements in the U.S.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-82 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Crane ◽  
James M. Harper ◽  
Roy A. Bean ◽  
Erin Holmes

This study examined the relationship between implicit family process rules and adolescent prosocial and antisocial communication behaviors. Data came from two-parent families in Wave 5 of the Flourishing Families Project which consisted of 322 families (fathers, mothers, and children ages 13–17). Both observational and questionnaire data were used in data collection. Prosocial and antisocial behaviors were assessed using observational codes from the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales. Each of the family members’ perceptions was used to assess constraining family rules and facilitative family rules. Findings showed a direct positive relationship between facilitative family process rules and prosocial communication and a negative relationship with antisocial communication for both girls and boys. Constraining family process rules were also positively related to antisocial communication behaviors in adolescents. Shame was a significant mediator of the relationship between facilitative family rules and prosocial behavior as well as between constraining family rules and antisocial behavior.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document