AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF OBSERVATION

ON FAMILY INTERACTION

by

R0N7ULD EDWIN ALLEN, B.A.

A DISSERTATION

IN

PSYCHOLOGY

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Approved

May, 1973

ha SOI T3 1973 t ^ o . l ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The present study was supported by the Psychology

Service, Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo Alto,

California. Some equipment was loaned by the Mental

Research Institute, Palo Alto, California.

At various times during the conduct of the experi­

ment, useful help was received from the following

individuals: Frank Chilton, Ph.D., Melvin Deardorff, Ph.D.,

Harold Dickman, Ph.D., Antonio Ferreira, M.D., Donald

Lim, Ph.D., Rudolf Moos, Ph.D., Leo Ussleman, Tom Vesecky,

and William Winter, Ph.D. I am especially grateful for

the generous assistance given by Nancy Ebbert, Jay Mann,

Ph.D., and Sheldon Starr, Ph.D.

I am deeply indebted to Professor Clay George for

his direction of this dissertation and to the other

members of my comTiittee, Professors Robert P. Anderson

and Bruce Mattson, for their helpful criticism. I would

also like to express my heartfelt appreciation to

Professor Anderson for his encouragement and thoughtfulness

throughout the course of my graduate work.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

I. INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Scope

Review of Related Research . . . .

Theories of Family Interaction

Theories of the

Bateson Group

Summary

Family Research in General . .

Problems in Family

Interaction Research . .

Unit Size

Nature of the Task . . Method of Accumulating the Data

The Effect of Observation . .

Observation Defined . . .

Clinical Reports

Research on Observation

Statement of the Problem

II. METHODS AND PROCEDURES Subjects

Procedure

11

vi

1

1

4

4

11

13

20

24

25

26

28

33

38

39

43

^

111

Questionnaire Construction . . . . 47

Family Interaction Counter . . . . 48

Dependent Variable Scoring . . . . 51

Sequence of Speeches 51

Simultaneous Communication . . 52

Decision Time 52

Spontaneous Agreement . . . . 52

Positive Choice

Fulfillment 53

III. RESULTS 54

Unrevealed Differences Task

Questionnaire 55

Sequence of Speakers 58

Simultaneous Communication 67

Decision Time 72

Debriefing Questionnaire 74

IV. DISCUSSION 79

The Sample 80

Problems in Family Research 81

The Effect of Observation 83

Family Decision-Making 86

Unrevealed Differences

Task Questionnaire 87

Sequence of Speakers 90

Simultaneous Communication . . . . 96

Decision Time 98

Implications for Future Research . . . 98 iv

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 101

Conclusions 103

REFERENCES 105

APPENDIX 115

A. FAMILY FACT SHEET 116

B. CONSENT FORM 117

C. INSTRUCTIONS TO FAMILIES 118

D. UNREVEALED DIFFERENCES TASK QUESTIONNAIRE 122

E. DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE 135

V

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Summary of Experimental Design 39

2. Sample Description 41

3. URDT Questionnaire Responses 56

4. Choice Fulfillment and Observation Compared 58

5. Individuals' Choice Fulfillment

Compared 59

6. Sequential Interactions (Frequency) . . . . 61

7. Sequential Interactions in Percentages 64

8. Symmetrical Dyadic Interactions in Percentages 65

9. Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-Ranks Test: Effect of Observation on Dyads 67

10. Simultaneous Communication (Seconds) . . . . 69

11. Analysis of Variance: Total Simultaneous Communication 70

12. Analysis of Variance: Dyadic and

Triadic Simultaneous Communications . . . 71

13. Task Decision Time in Seconds 72

14. Analysis of Variance: Decision Time . . . . 73

15. Debriefing Questionnaire Responses 75

16. Total Symmetrical Dyadic Interactions in Percentages Compared 93

VI

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Purpose and Scope

The present study represented an examination of the

effects of observation on functional and dysfunctional

family triads (i.e., father, mother, and one child) in a

laboratory setting while they performed an interactional

task designed for use in assessing family groups. By

definition, a normal or functional family is one " . . . in

which no member has come to the attention of the legal,

psychiatric, or educational community for reasons of

deviance from normal age expectations (Sorrells & Ford,

1969, p. 155)." For purposes of the present study, a

dysfunctional family was defined as one in which the father

was a psychiatric patient. Various methods of observation

have been used to monitor families while they participate

in research projects, and in conjoint family therapy.

However, the effect of observation itself on family inter­

action has been given only slight attention by researchers.

In view of the widespread use of such monitoring devices as

one-way mirrors and audio tape recorders, it appeared

important to examine their affect on the way a family

interacts.

Research using whole families as the unit of

investigation is relatively new. Within the last ten to

fifteen years investigators have focused on the role of

the family as an interacting social system in the develop­

ment of psychopathology (Ackerman, 1958; Bateson, Jackson,

Haley & Weakland, 1956; Mishier & Waxier, 1965). Tradi­

tionally, the unit of study in psychology has been the

individual. Psychoanalytic theorizing, for example, has

been based on personal data provided by individuals which

have included retrospective accounts of childhood and adult

experiences by patients as v/ell as the psychoanalyst him­

self. As a result, early learning and traumatic experiences

were thought to be important influences on the development

of personality as well as psychopathology. Psychologists

of various theoretical persuasions have always recognized

the impact of early learning within the family on a child.

Psychologists disagreed, however, about v/hat these influences

were, how they operated, and the unit of study (i.e., the

individual versus the family). The present investigator

assumed that the family was the most fruitful unit for study.

The interest in family systems paralleled attempts

to treat disturbed individuals by conducting psychotherapy

with all family members present for each session. It was

named conjoint family therapy by Jackson (1959) and others

(Beels & Ferber, 1969; Haley & Hoffman, 1967; Satir, 1967a).

Conjoint family therapy represented a departure

from traditional psychotherapeutic methods which focused

on treating the individual. One difference was the

replacement of the traditional seclusion of therapist and

patient with peer and supervisor observation of therapy

sessions. The Mental Research Institute (MRI) and the

Veterans Administration Hospital Family Study Unit, both

located in Palo Alto, California, have relied heavily on

the use of audiotapes, videotapes, and observers monitoring

conjoint family therapy sessions from behind a one-way

mirror in order to maximize therapeutic effectiveness by

providing feedback for the family and the therapist-in-

training. A common practice involved an observer who

commented on the second track of a stereo tape recorder

while he was watching a therapy session from behind a one­

way mirror. On replay, the therapist-in-training was able

to hear the therapy session and the observer's comments

simultaneously. However, in spite of the assumed benefits

of such intervention technicjues, their efficacy has not

been demonstrated (Bailey & Sowder, 1970). It should be

noted that innovations in family therapy would have been

difficult to implement without the use of some type of

observational technique.

The remainder of the chapter contains a survey of

theoretical concepts and formal research pertaining to

family interaction. In addition, the literature on the

effect of observation on individual and group behavior is

reviewed. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the

research problem and a statement of the hypotheses.

Review of Related Research

Theories of Family Interaction

Interest in family interaction resulted from

efforts by investigators to gain a clearer understanding

of the etiology of schizophrenia. More recently, however,

it appeared that investigators were looking at families

other than those which contained a schizophrenic member.

The most influential schizophrenia research groups were

led by Gregory Bateson, Theodore Lidz and Lyman Wynne

(Mishler & Waxier, 1965). Mishler and Waxier (1965) pro­

vided an in-depth survey and comparison of the theories

associated with Bateson and with Lidz and Wynne. Only

Bateson's ideas v/ill be considered here.

Theories of the Bateson Group

The discussion which follows was based on the

writings of the Bateson group and others associated with

them. The Bateson group's work was important for several

reasons, the main one being their challenge to some of the

traditional notions of dynamic psychiatry. Another reason

was that their work provided the theoretical basis for the

present study.

In 1954, Gregory Bateson, an anthrop>ologist,

gathered together a group of scientists which included

Don Jackson, J^y Haley, and John Weakland at the Veterans

Administration Hospital in Menlo Park, California, to

delve into the various aspects of families who have a

family member diagnosed as schizophrenic. They began by

requesting to see the schizophrenic patient in his home

environment. Consequently, they saw the patient and his

family together for interviews. Several patterns of

behavior which these researchers discovered will be

described later in this chapter. In addition, the lessons

learned from their preliminary research interviews with

families led to the group's advocacy, along with others,

of conjoint family therapy.

The Bateson schizophrenia project terminated in

the early 1960's. However, before it ended, the MRI was

established in Palo Alto, California, in 1959 to explore

the relationship between an individual's behavior and the

system (cf von Bertalanffy, 1968) in which he operated.

The MRI contained all the members of the Bateson project

except for Bateson himself.

The MRI staff developed several synopses of family

systems theory (Satir, 1967b; Watzlawick, 1964; Watzlawick,

Beavin & Jackson, 1967). However, the synopsis by Sorrells

and Ford (1969) was the most concise and complete. The

Sorrells and Ford paper provided the substance for the

discussion which follows. Other authors will be cited

when pertinent. The best place to start is to outline

what happens when two strangers meet, and to proceed

from that point (Haley, 1959b; Jackson, 1965b).

When two people meet for the first time, an

enormous range of behavior is possible. The very first

statement made by one of the parties begins a train of

communications which serves to define the nature and

limits of the relationship (Haley, 1959a). Each new

message either affirms the relationship as it stands, or

bids for changes, which are then subject to negotiation.

The way a message is received by another depends on how

it is deciphered. Decoding takes into account the verbal

message itself, the context of the message, vocal patterns,

and body movements. Clear communications exhibit congruence

between the words, context, and body language. When incon­

gruence exists, the message is qualified. The person who

Ts spoken to must make a decision whether to accept,

reject, or qualify the first communication. The iterative

process obviously goes on ad infinitum so long as the

relationship continues between the two people. It can

become exceedingly complex to describe when three or more

persons are gathered together. The complexity is reduced

som.ev;hat by the establishment of rules which serve as

guidelines for subsequent interaction.

Satir (1967b) pointed out that disqualified or

double-level messages are not in themselves pathological.

They happen every day. They are pathological, however,

when the receiver does not comment on or acknowledge them

in some way. If the receiver comments or meta-communicates,

the sender is required to clarify his message. Failure

to meta-communicate is especially critical for children.

The less a child can comment on messages, the more likely

he is to distort and misinterpret what is going on around

him and how he is viewed by others.

Another kind of disqualification is the double-

bind (Bateson, et al., 1956). The term evolved when the

investigators tried to answer the question: What kinds

of interactions are likely to induce behavior which carries

the clinical label of schizophrenia (Watzlawick, et al,.,

1967)? Watzlawick and his colleagues (1967) described

the essential ingredients of a double bind:

(1) Two or more persons are involved in an intense relationship that has a high degree of physical and/or psychological survival value for one, several, or all of them. . . . (2) In such a context, a message is given which is so structured that (a) it asserts something, (b) it asserts something about its own assertion and (c) these two assertions are mutually exclusive. . . . (3) Finally, the recipient of the message is prevented from stepping outside the frame set by this message, either by

"Meta-," as used in meta-communication (or meta­rules) is derived from the Greek word "about." "The meaning of the term meta-communication is thus 'communica­tion about communication' (Watzlawick, 1964, p. 4)."

8

meta-communicating (commenting) about it or by withdrawing /pp. 212-213/.

Some psychologists have misinterpreted the double-bind

theory to mean that there is a binder and a victim;

actually, there are two binder-victims (Jackson, 1965a),

because there are only two responses to a double-bind:

(1) escape the relationship, or (2) give an equally

paradoxical message in response.

The family is viewed as a rule-governed system

whose tone and pattern are set by the parents, and,

specifically, by the nature of their relationship. By

means of their interaction with the parents, the children

develop their own self-concepts and modes for solving the

"self-other dilemma" (Sorrells & Ford, 1969, p. 152).

The self-other dilemma represents the typical method by

which a person provides for his own needs and wants as

well as the other person's whenever they are engaged in an

interactional relationship. Four solutions to the self-

other dilemma have been identified: "1. I count myself

out; 2. I count you out; 3. Let's count us both out;

4. I count myself in but will try to make room for you

(Sorrells & Ford, 1969, p. 152)." The fourth alternative

was considered to be the most constructive resolution to

the dilemma. In sum, family members tend to interact in

a patterned and organized manner which repeats itself.

There are many rules which develop within the

family as the result of communication between the parties.

One of these rules is the "marital quid pro quo" (Jackson,

1965b, p. 590) wherein the couple define the way they will

behave toward each other in the relationship. The quid

pro quo is especially important since the parents set the

tone for the entire family.

Family rules tend to be preserved according to the

principle of homeostasis (Jackson, 1957). The principle

states that whenever family rules are violated, meta-rules

appear which attempt to reinstate the old rules (i.e.,

the nature of the relationship). An example of homeostasis

can be found in Laing's (1970) book Knots:

They are playing a game. They are playing at not playing a game. If I show them I see they are, I shall break the rules and they will punish me. I must play their game, of not seeing I see the game /p. 1/.

Homeostasis can also be seen when one patient improves as

a result of individual psychotherapy, and then a dis­

turbance erupts in another family member (Hurvitz, 1967;

Jackson & Weakland, 1961). Consequently, the argument

was advanced that it does no good to just treat one patient

in the family (Ackerman, 1962; Haley, 1962a; Hurvitz, 1967),

Systems-oriented family therapists attempt to correct the

entire family system by providing new rules for solving

problems which the system, by its very nature, cannot

generate for itself (Watzlawick, ejt aJ., 1967).

The phenomena of one spouse improving with psycho­

therapy at the expense of the other (Hurvitz, 1967) is not

10

a widely accepted view among psychoanalysts, who primarily

treat individuals. Based on questionnaire responses by

seventy-nine psychoanalysts, Sager, Grundrach, Kramer,

Lanz and Royce (1968) reported no evidence for concluding

that as one marital partner improved, the other got worse.

When a family comes for treatment it is charac­

terized as dysfunctional. These families have an identified

patient (IP), one who exhibits psychiatric symptoms because

he has not been able to adequately fulfill his wants and

needs. A normal, or functional family, on the other hand,

is usually considered to be one which has not come to the

attention of professionals v/ithin the community. The

functional family has its difficulties, of course, but

they are not beyond the problem-solving capacity of the

system.

Dysfunctional families have certain characteristics

which differentiate them from functional families (Sorrells

& Ford, 1969). First, they attempt to preserve the status

quo when life changes occur which require new relationship

rules (i.e., the first child, et cetera). Second, dys­

functional families tend to minimize differences so that

individual strengths and assets are played down. They

prefer to consider their interests to be homogeneous.

Third, in dysfunctional families, there is frequent blame

placed on outside circumstances for one's ov/n feelings

and spokesmanship (i.e., one family member speaks for the

11

others). Functional families, conversely, promote an

atmosphere in which individual members speak for them­

selves and accept responsibility for their own feelings

and behavior. Fourth, co.-nmunication is further hampered

in dysfunctional families by denial, distortion, oblitera­

tion or disqualification of interpersonal perception.

Finally, communications among dysfunctional family members

are noticeably lacking in directness, clarity, and

congruence.

Summary

Taken as a whole, papers written by Bateson and

his colleagues were not clear as to which part of their

theorizing applied to functional families, and which part

applied to dysfunctional families. Beyond recognizing

that the double-bind seemed to be more pervasive in the

interactions of schizophrenogenic families (Bateson,

et aJL., 1956) , the investigator was not sure how schizophrenic

families differed from other families which contain, for

example, neurotic or psychopathic members. The answer to

this question was oblique.

The usual psychiatric terminology is inadequate for our purposes. Psychiatric theory either confines itself to what is happening inside a patient or describes the individual rather than his interaction with other people /Haley, 1960, p. 461/.

12

While this might have been a valid critique of psychiatric

nomenclature, there was not much to replace it. The

rescue pattern, the coalition pattern, and the lethal

pattern mentioned earlier represented the only attempt at

such a classification. It was easy for Jackson (1967) to

state:

We view symptoms, defenses, character structure, and personality as terms describing the individual's typical interactions which occur in response to a particular interpersonal context /p. 140/.

However, the etiology of personality in family interaction

terms remained to be explained. The group had made some

important steps toward changing psychological thinking.

But the most that could be said was that behavior repre­

sented the interaction between the individual and the

particular environment in which he found himself. The

individual is affected by other family members, just as he

affects them. Hence, the concept of linear causality in

behavior has been replaced by circular causality, or

cybernetic feedback loops (Watzlawick, et ajL., 1967). The

identified patient served to stabilize a dysfunctional

family system. The symptoms often seen in dysfunctional

families (excessive silence, rigidity, restricted communi­

cation, lack of agreement among family members) can be

viewed as the only response which can be made to a

bizarre communicational context. Given a change of context,

the behavior can change. Consequently, normality and

13

abnormality tend to be relative terms (Watzlawick, et al.,

1967).

Family Research in General

On surveying the literature reviews regarding the

manner and nature of familial influence on psychopathology

(Bodin, 1968; Fontana, 1966; Frank, 1965; Haley, 1972a;

Handel, 1965; Rabkin, 1965) it was striking to note how

recently such studies have begun to proliferate. Given

this context, it was not surprising that Frank (1965)

concluded, " . . . the assumption that the family is the

factor in the development of personality has not been

validated /p. 201/."

Frank (1965) reviewed the previous forty years of

research concerning familial influences on psychopathology.

It was generally assumed by psychologists that childhood

experiences and, in particular, the mother's influence,

had a great deal of influence on the development of psycho­

pathology. Research evidence did not support those clinical

assumptions. In fact, as of Frank's (1965) review, the

research provided no factors in the parent-child interaction

which could distinguish neurotics or schizophrenics from

normal controls.

In the same year, Handel (1965) reviewed the

literature dealing with whole families, focusing especially

on research conceived by psychologists. He concluded that.

14

as a group, psychologists had paid little attention to the

study of the family as a functioning unit. Most of the

research was directed at intrafamilial events. Neglecting

to put the family unit under the microscope may be one

factor which explains why research findings up to that

time were inconclusive. Several authors (Bodin, 1968;

Fontana, 1966; Jackson, 1967; Rabkin, 1965), unwilling to

give up the notion of farailial influence on family members,

questioned the existing research methodologies as possible

sources of error.

Fontana (1966) was struck by Frank's (1965) failure

to find family etiological factors which could contribute

to psychopathology. Therefore, he decided to examine, as

methods and in terms of empirical results, the three

major research approaches being used: (1) clinical obser­

vation, (2) retrospective accounts of child-rearing by

questionnaires, interviews, et cetera, and (3) family

interaction patterns. The problem with clinical observa­

tion studies lay with the confounding effect the psycho­

therapist' s theoretical orientation had on the way he

collected and interpreted his data. All too often, the

patient gave the therapist the kind of information he sought,

and no more. Fontana therefore considered clinical observa­

tion studies unscientific. Retrospective studies were found

to be unreliable. Also, insofar as questionnaires are con­

cerned, there have yet to be shown high correlations between

15

behavior and how a person marked his ansv/ers on a sheet

of paper. Haley (1972a) even questioned the willingness

and ability of family members to report accurately on

family interactions. The main approach remaining was

family interaction studies.

According to Fontana (1966), family interaction

studies made several assumptions which any person doing

research in that area must recognize. First, the way a

family interacts has etiological significance for schizo­

phrenia (or neurosis, et cetera). Weakland (1962)

supported this assumption but added that there must be an

examination of the communication patterns in these families,

Second, the interaction patterns have stability over time.

In other words, the family interacts the same today as it

did before the identified patient developed symptoms. It

is further assumed that even the onset of symptoms in one

family member does not alter the family s typical modes of

interacting. Third, the experimental task does not alter

the characteristic communication patterns of the family.

The experimenter can exert a degree of control here. As

it will be shown later, providing the family with real-life

tasks to perform during an experiment has not been a simple

task. Fourth, the family interacts the same when some

members are absent as when they are present.

From the previous discussion it appeared that even

though Handel (1965) could not find an established

16

methodology for studying families, direct observation of

family interaction appeared to be the most viable

alternative.

Problems in Family Interaction Research

Three problems come to the forefront in the direct

study of families. They are the size of the unit, the

nature of the task, and the method of accumulating and

scoring the data.

Unit Size

The size of the unit or the number of family members

to be studied at a given time has serious implications

related to the degree of generalizability of the findings.

Obviously, families vary widely as to the number of children

they contain. Unless it can be assumed that there would be

a similarity of family behavior when less than the entire

family was present, researchers \>rc>uld be forced to examine,

in a set of identical experimental conditions, families

with one child, families with two children, et cetera, until

families with nine or even eleven children present at one

time were examined. Even if that many different types of

families could be gathered, the number of possible inter­

actions increases geometrically each time another child is

added. For this reason, most researchers confined themselves

to observing the family triad (father, mother, and one child)

17

or the family tetrad (father, mother, and two children).

Consequently, a great deal of effort had gone into the

nature of the experimental task in family research.

Nature of the Task

The kinds of tasks used to get family members

interacting covered a wide range. Loveland, Wynne and

Singer (1963) proposed a Family Rorschach as a method

for studying family interaction. In spite of severe

questioning of the Rorschach's validity by Mischel (1968)

and others, it continues to be used. Willi (1969) used

the Rorschach with couples, giving the test individually

and then jointly. Generally speaking, projective tests

are still used quite often to assess family interaction.

Among other methods used to study family interaction

were: collaborative family portraits (Bing, 1960), family

story telling tasks (Friedman & Friedman, 1970; Kadushin,

Cutler, Waxenberg & Sager, 1969), descriptions of common

objects (Feinsilver, 1970), structured family interview

(Riskin & Faunce, 1970; Watzlawick, 1966; Watzlawick,

Beavin & Sikorski, 1970), family TAT stories (Ferreira,

Winter & Poindexter, 1966; Werner, Stabenau & Polin, 1970;

Winter & Ferreira, 1969; Winter, Ferreira & Olson, 1965,

1966). Most of the preceding family interaction-generating

tasks were merely adaptations of tests used to tap the

psychodynamies of individuals. Both Jackson (1967)

18

and Bodin (1968) expressed concern with much of the inter­

action research being done. They considered studies

using standard psychological testing methods on individual

family members to be in no sense interactional in nature,

regardless of what the authors might have said about the

tests.

At this point it seems relevant to question whether

family interaction in the laboratory approximates typical

family behavior as it might be found in a natural setting.

The use of an absorbing task was one of the ways researchers

tried to make family behavior more realistic. Goodrich

and Boomer (1963) used color-matching tasks in which family

dyads had to match a series of color swatches to a criterion,

The ensuing discussion became vigorous, and perhaps the

presence of the observers was ignored. Bodin (1968) argued

that this task was probably a test of reaction to new

situations, rather than a measure of daily behavior.

Another way to mazimize the relation between

laboratory behavior and more customary interaction patterns

had been the use of Strodtbeck's (1951, 1954) Revealed

Difference Technique (RDT). The RDT required each family

member to answer a questionnaire about certain situations

by choosing one of two alternative solutions to each

problem presented. Choices which represented disagreements

among the family members were used by the experimenter to

form the basis for family discussion, which was rated on

19

a number of variables. The RDT has been used to study

schizogenic families (Mishler & Waxier, 1968) and

neurotogenic families (Gassner & Murray, 1969).

Ferreira (1963) revised Strodtbeck's method and

renamed it the Unrevealed Differences Technique (URDT).

In his version, Ferreira also asked his subjects to fill

out questionnaires as individuals and again as a family

group. However, he did not reveal individuals' original

choices to the other family members. Coe, Curry and

Kessler (1969) found dysfunctional families extremely

reluctant to admit to problems. Even when there was

direct evidence of disagreement with a spouse, the indi­

vidual would not admit it verbally. If this were so, then

the URDT represented one of the most naturalistic family

tasks available. The URDT has been used on family triads

(Ferreira, 1963; Ferreira & Winter, 1965) and tetrads

(Ferreira & Winter, 1968a). The variables exhibited a high

degree of stability (Ferreira & Winter, 1966), and the

variables have been cross-validated by other investigators

(Murrell, 1971; Murrell & Stachowiak, 1967). However,

some of the variables (i.e., total talking time, silent

time, and number of clear units of information exchanged)

required the use of a tape recording of the conversation.

The method devised by Haley (1964; 1967b), and the revised

scoring suggested by Waxier and Mishler (1970) , v/hich did

20

not depend on a tape recording, were more suitable for the

present study.

Method of Accumulating the Data

Haley's method of observing interacting families

(i.e., measuring who speaks first and who speaks second

during a conversation among three or more persons) leads

to the third problem: the mode of recording and scoring

the data. Most studies tapped the ongoing process of

interaction by means of raters (Mishler St Waxier, 1968,

et cetera) . However, as had been pointed out by Reid

(1970), unless raters were continually monitored for

accuracy, marked variations in scoring appeared. Therefore,

high agreement between raters may not necessarily mean

similar high agreement with the coding system. Uncertainty

regarding rater judgment led researchers such as Haley

(1964; 1967b) to seek more objective means of scoring

family interaction. Some studies, such as those conceived

by Ferreira and Winter (1968b), attempted to achieve greater

objectivity by focusing primarily upon the outcome of the

interaction; i.e., decision time, silent time, choice

fulfillment, et cetera. In virtually all studies, the

data, regardless of the method of acquisition, consisted

of aggregate scores of behavior occurring over a period of

time, which were then used to differentiate families on

various dimensions. Only one study (Rausch, 1965) used

21

the sequence of behavior as the dependent variable.

Rausch's (1965) approach relied heavily upon the technique

of Multivariate Informational Analysis (MIA) (Attneave,

1959). MIA was one scoring method suggested by Waxier and

Mishler (1970) for sequential family interaction data.

Haley (1964) developed a non-inferential method

for recording sequential family interactions. Haley was

primarily interested in the question of who speaks first

and who speaks second in an ongoing interaction. Hence,

his method counted the number of interactions between all

possible dyadic combinations, while a family triad inter­

acted on URDT tasks and TAT stories. Parenthetically, he

used the same subjects as Ferreira and Winter (1965).

Given a father (F), a mother (M), and a child (C), there

are six possible combinations: FM, FC, MF, MC, CF and CM.

These combinations were electronically recorded by counting

who followed whom, and thus excluded the possibility of

one person's following himself. Given six categories, it

could be expected that random behavior would result in

16.7 per cent for FM, 16.7 per cent for FC, et cetera.

Using the deviation from randomness that he found experi­

mentally, Haley formed what he called an R deviation score

(i.e., deviation from randomness) for each family. Based

on the premise that organization meant limitation, and that

dysfunctional family members were less free to speak (more

organized), he was able to differentiate functional and

22

dysfunctional families, it should be noted that the URDT

discriminated better than the TAT stories. However, in a

later study using parents and two children (Haley, 1967b),

Haley was not able to replicate his earlier results. Waxier

and Mishler (1970) suggested that the fault lay in the use

of the R deviation score itself, since this score did not

correct for inequalities in overall participation of each

family member. They proposed an alternate method of

scoring the data (MIA or Chi Square), that takes into

account overall participation.

During pilot work using electronic apparatus con­

structed to give the same outputs as Haley's device, the

present investigator noted that simultaneous communication

between family members posed a scoring problem. Whenever

family members spoke in an ordered fashion, the apparatus

discriminated readily between the speakers. However, when

simultaneous communication occurred, the event recorder

pens literally went wild until such time as the individuals

regained an ordered speech pattern. In an effort to

discover if he had experienced the same problem, Haley

was consulted. According to Haley (1972b), his electronic

apparatus v/as so designed that simultaneous communication

was not recorded; the electronic circuitry simply waited

until it ceased before proceeding with the recording. In

viev/ of the frequency of simultaneous communication in the

23

pilot work, it was decided to retain it as a dependent

variable in the present study.

References to simultaneous communication within

the literature on family interaction were sparse. Contra­

dictory findings had been reported, depending on whether

frequency of occurrence or time was used as the basis for

data collection. Ferreira, Winter and Poindexter (1966b)

used a stopwatch to measure the cumulative overlap when­

ever two or more persons spoke at the same time. Although

they could not statistically differentiate functional and

dysfunctional families, they recommended further investi­

gation of the variable.

Poon, Winter and Ferreira (1971) used data obtained

from an earlier and unspecified Ferreira and Winter study.

The average time of overlapping communication found for

the family traids were: schizophrenic, 308 seconds;

delinquent, 304 seconds; maladjusted, 284 seconds; normal,

197 seconds. The study previously cited (Poon, et_ al.,

1971) did not specify the use of any statistical test to

differentiate among the diagnostic groups on this variable.

However, since the data were gathered from a total of

110 family triads, of v/hich 42 were normal, it is safe to

conclude that normal families engaged in much less overlap

than any of the dysfunctional family groups.

Riskin and Faunce (1970) obtained contradictory

results using the number of interruptions as the dependent

24

variable. An interrupted speech was said to occur whenever

one individual interrupted another's speech. These authors

used an adaptation of Watzlawick's (1966) structured inter­

view. Their analysis of a typescript of four to five

minutes of family interaction revealed a statistically

weak difference (p<0.10) between normal families and con­

stricted families. Normal families in their sample made

the most interruptions.

In their monograph, Mishler and Waxier (1968)

defined simultaneous communication more broadly than other

experimenters. Calling it communication disruptions, they

included such behaviors as laughter, pauses, stuttering,

incomplete sentences, incomplete phrases, et cetera, as

part of the act of one person interrupting another. They

found these behaviors were more likely to occur in normal

families. According to Mishler and Waxier, communication

disruptions permitted more spontaneity and greater flexi­

bility during the family s interaction. Schizophrenic

families, on the other hand, exhibited rigid, ordered

communication patterns. In conclusion, it seemed that

simultaneous communication was a variable worthy of further

consideration.

The Effect of Observation

Generally, family interaction research has been

carried out without determining the effects of observation.

25

There were few studies of observer effects on family inter­

action and recommendations for compensating for such effects.

Most of the literature consisted of clinical reports which

attempted to determine the effect of various modes of

observation on the behavior of patients undergoing individual

or group psychotherapy. There were some research reports

published in the psychological literature.

Observation Defined

For purposes of the present review, observation

has been defined as any condition where the behavior of

an individual, or a group of individuals, was monitored

in some manner by others. Observers can, for example,

situate themselves in the same room as the participants,

or watch them from behind a one-way mirror. Observation

can also occur whenever an audiotape or videotape recording

of the subjects' behavior is made. The sophisticated

nature of electronic instruments available could easily

permit any researcher to monitor behavior without the

subject ever becoming aware of it. According to an opinion

survey conducted by Burchard (1957), political scientists

and sociologists would not hesitate to use concealed

devices for the purpose of social science research.

Psychologists, on the other hand, are specifically enjoined

against the use of deceptive research methodologies

(American Psychological Association, 1963, 1967). The

26

establishment and continuance of a trusting relationship

between client or research subject and the psychologist

is considered more important than any immediate gains

which might be achieved by deceptive methods (Tyler, 1965).

Clinical Reports

The use of observational techniques has been

advocated for psychotherapy by several authors (David,

1970; Freed, 1948; Reivich & Geertsma, 1969; Rogers, 1942a;

Rosner, 1944; Snow & Rickels, 1965; Will & Cohen, 1953).

In general, the use of observation has kept pace with

advancements in audio and video technology. For example,

Symonds (1939), Rogers (1942a), Freed (1948) and others

suggested uses for audio-recorded interviews. Later,

Geertsma and Reivich (1965) discussed the use of videotape

playback in psychotherapy. The question which has remained

in the minds of many clinicians has been: What are the

effects of observational techniques on the process of

psychotherapy?

Freud (1963) maintained that the presence of an

observer would repress certain aspects of the therapy

process which he considered vital to its success. Con­

sequently, he opposed any form of observation during

psychoanalysis. Adler, on the other hand, often conducted

interviews which were open to the public or to professional

groups. Of course, neither Freud or Adler has access to

27

the sophisticated and relatively inexpensive electronic

observational media which are currently available.

Redlich, Dollard and Newman (1950) described

patient and therapist responses to the process of high

fidelity recording of a psychotherapy session. They

reported that when the recordings were well organized and

not too obvious, both patient and therapist soon became

unaware of the recording process. Provided the therapist

was not uncomfortable with the recording process himself,

any negative reaction on the part of the patient soon

subsided. The influence of the therapist's own feelings

about the recording process on the patient was also

recognized by Roose (1960). Bellak and Smith (1956)

reported that recording had no significant influence on

the psychoanalysis of two different patients. Patients

studied by Watson and Kanter (1956) and Roose (1960)

experienced some negative reactions to the recording

process. However, the reactions could have been attributed,

in some measure, to therapist anxiety elicited by the

procedure. The cases reported above involved therapy in

which only two persons interacted. Bloom and Dobie (1969)

reported no influence on group process when group psycho­

therapy was observed by persons located within the same

room. However, they went through some elaborate prepara­

tions of the group, apparently to diminish observer effects.

28

Habituation to observation was mentioned by several

authors (Deutsch, 1949; Geertsma & Reivich, 1965; Purcell

& Brady, 1966). These clinicians noted a period of

adjustment, after which observation effects diminish to

some extent. The research literature was more clear with

regard to habituation, as well as other effects of

observation.

Research on Observation

Among the first research projects using recording

devices reported in the literature were a group of studies

carried out by graduate students at Ohio State University

under the supervision of Carl Rogers. The studies (cf

Covner, 1942a, 1942b, 1944a, 1944b; Curran, 1944; Gump,

1944; Porter, 1941, 1942a, 1942b) were apparently part of

a programmatic research project aimed at investigating

the parameters of psychotherapy (Rogers, 1942b, 1945).

One of the studies (Covner, 1942a) contained information

on the therapist and patient reactions to audio-recording.

The therapists in Covner's (1942a) study were aware that

the sessions might be recorded; the patients were told of

the recording only if they discovered, and asked about,

a concealed microphone. Covner (1942a) categorized

therapist responses to recording along two dimensions:

(1) therapist experience level, and (2) desirability

versus undesirability of the response. Some of the

29

inexperienced counselors exhibited undesirable reactions

to recording. However, their adverse reactions tended

to diminish as they gained experience. The interviews

were adversely effected when two of the four subjects

discovering the microphones were told of the recording.

Lamb and Mahl (1956) conducted the first study

aimed specifically at the effect of recording on inter­

views. Thirty-five psychiatric patients were interviewed

under standard conditions. With overt patient comments

about the recording procedure as the dependent variable,

they found no disturbance in 60 per cent of their sample.

After a short period, another 20 per cent of those inter­

viewed ceased to be concerned with the recording. As a

whole, the interviews were considered to be productive

for all but two patients. Anxiety and hostility manifested

by the patients were rated by three observers. A non­

significant trend was noted between overt disturbance to

the recording and level of anxiety and hostility exhibited

by the patients. Interestingly, as a part of the study,

a questionnaire was sent to Yale Psychiatry Department

staff members regarding their views about recorded inter­

views. The results of the questionnaire supported clinical

impressions mentioned earlier that therapist disturbance

effects the patient. Lamb and Mahl (1956) concluded that

a therapist may project his negative feelings toward

recording onto the patient.

f^mmm

30

Several investigators examined the effect of overt

and covert recording, m one study (Sauer & Marcuse,

1957), the subject was deceived. In another study

(Roberts & Renzaglia, 1965), both patient and therapist

were duped. Deception took the form of leading the

participant(s) to believe that recording was not taking

place when, in actuality, the opposite was true.

Sauer and Marcuse (1957) examined 105 non-clinic

college freshmen using the Thematic Apperception Test

(TAT) . The subjects (Ss) were dichotomized by sex, and

on the basis of high or low scores on the Taylor Manifest

Anxiety Scale (MAS) . The MAS was apparently given to all

entering freshmen at that particular college. During

overt recording, the high anxiety Ss responded more quickly

with a greater number of words, and talked faster than

they did during covert recording. Except for total number

of words spoken, low anxiety Ss responded similarly to

overt recording. Overall, the effect of recording was a

more important variable than the S's level of anxiety.

Furthermore, over 25 per cent of the Ss reported greater

phenomenological difficulty responding when they knew

they were being recorded.

The study reported by Roberts and Renzaglia (1965)

differed from the previously reported one in two major

aspects: (1) the clients were being counseled, rather

than merely tested as a part of an experiment, and

31

(2) both client and counselor were unaware of the covert

recording condition. Contrary to the findings of Sauer

and Marcuse (1957), the amount of talk and the ratio of

speeches by client and counselor did not vary as a function

of overt versus covert recording. Qualitatively, however,

the clients spoke of themselves more favorably when they

knew the session was being recorded. The implication here

was that the clients were probably more genuine when they

assumed that they were not being monitored. Parenthetically,

the counselors were judged freer when they felt they were

not being recorded. Since the counselors saw their clients

on three different occasions, the experimental conditions,

rather than habituation effects, appeared to account for

the results.

Some experimenters have taken their investigations

out of the clinic and into more natural settings. Student

reactions to visible observers in the classroom have been

studied by Gussow (1964) and Masling and Stern (1969).

Gussow (1964) found that the students adapted to the

observer's presence in a manner which paralleled the

relationship that existed between themselves and their

teacher. Masling and Stern (1969) were unable to find

consistent patterns of behavior change when they compared

early and later ratings of student behavior. Still other

authors have attempted to place more distance between

32

the observer and the observed person, while retaining the

natural setting.

Purcell and Brady (1966) had 26 residential school

children wear wireless FM radio transmitters for two

weeks. Attention to the device declined by the third

day. Moos (1968) had adult psychiatric inpatients wear

wireless microphones. He found the effects of wearing

such a divice, mainly an increase in purposeful behavior,

to be very small. The reaction of individual patients to

the microphones appeared to vary as a function of the

intensity of their pathology. Hence, some evidence exists

for assuming that observation effects can vary as a

function of psychopathology.

The behavior of family members in the home was

studied by Gerald Patterson and his colleagues at the

University of Oregon. Patterson and Harris (1968)

analyzed rate of interaction as the criterion to determine

the effect of an observer on the unstructured interaction

of fathers and their children in the home. The rate of

interaction was determined by observers who used a coding

system, and represented the combined score of several

variables. By dividing the families into high interactors

and low interactors on the basis of the first few sessions

of interaction, they found that the rate of interaction

of both groups displayed a regression to the mean after

exposure to observers over a period of time. In a similar

33

study, Harris (1970) again found that the rate of inter­

action between fathers and children exhibited a regression

to the mean. When mothers of the families did covert

observing, no such regression effects were exhibited.

Harris also found that the behavior between fathers and

children became more unpredictable when outside observers

were introduced. Regardless of whether mothers (covert

observation) or outside observers (overt observation) were

used, a certain amount of event sampling time was required

before the social interaction estimates became stable.

The presence of outside observers considerably lengthened

the time required to attain stability relative to that

attained when mothers did the recording. Thus, family

members can be said to exhibit a reactive effect to outside

observers.

Statement of the Problem

It appeared that a necessary first step toward

investigating interpersonal, as well as videotape, inter­

vention techniques was to explore the effects of observa­

tion itself on family interaction. A review of the

literature suggested two variables which tended to distort

the typical kinds of interactions found in families:

(1) the experimental task, and (2) the effect of observa­

tion. The setting, a third variable which remained to be

34

investigated comparatively, may also influence family

interaction.

The present experiment was based on the premise

that " . . . organization requires limitation (Haley, 1964,

p. 50)." Expressed in operational terms, this means that,

while interacting as a unit, dysfunctional families are

more limited (or rigid) and less efficient when compared

with functional families. Measurement of these charac­

teristics could be accomplished in a number of ways.

However, since this project included an observed as well

as an "unobserved" phase, certain methodological and

ethical restrictions had to be satisfied.

The experimental task chosen, the URDT, had been

used frequently, and appeared to have face validity as a

task which families might reasonably engage in during

their everyday life. It also afforded the opportunity for

equal participation by all family members.

To be absolutely correct, the term unobserved, as

used in this study, is a misnomer. It should have been

called minimal observation, since it would, obviously,

be impossible to collect data if all forms of monitoring

were excluded. An alternative would be to inform families

that they were not being observed when, in fact, they were

monitored via a concealed microphone or a hidden TV camera.

Ethical considerations, however, prohibited such gross

deception in psychological research.

35

In_the_pr£sent study, the absence of observation

meant that speech content and kinesics (i.e., facial

expressions and body movements) were not monitored. In

their place, structural aspects of the family interaction

which did not rely upon an audio recording or observer

viewing were used as dependent variables in both the

observed and the unobserved phases of the experiment.

These variables were sequence of speakers, decision time,

and amount of simultaneous communication. The data were

collected electronically and displayed by an event recorder.

Although there was a paucity of data, it seemed

that observation changed the behavioral outputs of a

family (Patterson & Harris, 1968). It was assumed that

these behavioral effects would be relatively more pro­

nounced in dysfunctional families. Given that observed

persons tended to engage in more socially desirable

behavior (Roberts & Renzaglia, 1965), it was theorized

that, when observed, dysfunctional families would appear

more like functional families. There was some support

for this idea, since Haley (1964) found dysfunctional

family behavior to be more predictable than functional

family behavior, and Harris' (1970) data suggested that

observer presence tended to increase the unpredictability

of family behavior. Harris also found that stabilization

of behavior took longer when families were observed.

Translating the other dependent variables into interactional

"ir—P^IPP

36

terms, it was assumed that observation would produce

shorter decision times and less simultaneous communication.

In their family interaction studies, Ferreira and Winter

(1965, 1968a) consistently found that functional families

performed tasks more quickly than dysfunctional families.

Also, Poon, Winter and Ferreira (1971) found less simul­

taneous communication in functional families.

On the basis of these assumptions, the following

hypotheses were explored:

1. The sequence of who speaks first and who speaks

second is less predictable for functional families than

for dysfunctional families.

2. In the observed condition, the sequence of who

speaks first and who speaks second in functional families

will be less predictable than v/hen they are in the

unobserved condition.

3. In the observed condition, the sequence of who

speaks first and who speaks second in dysfunctional

families will be less predictable than when they are in

the unobserved condition.

4. Functional families will make decisions more

rapidly than dysfunctional families.

5. In the observed condition, functional families

will make decisions more rapidly than when they are

unobserved.

37

6. In the observed condition, dysfunctional

families will make decisions more rapidly than when they

are unobserved.

7. Functional families will engage in less

simultaneous communication than dysfunctional families.

8. In the observed condition, functional families

will engage in less simultaneous communication than they

do when unobserved.

9. In the observed condition, dysfunctional

families will engage in less simultaneous communication

than they do when unobserved.

CHAPTER I I

MErrnoDs AND PROCEDURES

The experiment was conducted at the Family Study

Unit, Veterans Administration Hospital, Palo Alto,

California. The experimental procedure for each family

consisted of one session which lasted approximately one

and one-half hours. Twenty-four family triads filled

out the same Unrevealed Differences Task (URDT) question­

naire as individuals and again as a family. When they

were gathered together as a unit, the family members

filled out one-half of the URDT questionnaire they had

completed as individuals, while being audiotape recorded

and observed from behind a one-way mirror (i.e., observed

phase) . They completed the other half of the URDT

questionnaire without being observed or tape recorded

(i.e., unobserved phase). However, during both phases

each family member wore a throat microphone which was

connected to a voice-operated relay, an electronic logic

circuitry device and thence to an event recorder. The

event recorder graphically displayed the sequence of

interaction (i.e., who spoke first and who spoke second),

as well as the occurrence of simultaneous communication.

Decision time (DT) for each phase of family interaction

was measured with a stop watch.

38

39

A summary of the experimental design is contained

in Table 1. Families were randomly assigned a family

number which determined the sequence of events which

would occur when they filled out the questionnaire as a

family unit. As noted in Table 1, the families were

counterbalanced for order of presentation of the URDT

questionnaire halves as well as the sequence of the observed

and unobserved phases. Following the experimental procedure,

each family was debriefed. This chapter contains a detailed

explication of the above procedures and a description of

the electronic apparatus which was used.

TABLE 1

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

F or D Part 1 Part 2

Family 1-3 OA NB

Family 4-6 OB NA

Family 7-9 NA OB

Family 10-12 NB OA

Note: OA = Observed phase, URDT Form A; NB = Unobserved phase, URDT Form B

Subjects

Twenty-four families were selected for the study.

Each family had at least one child living at home between

40

the ages of 9 and 18 years. It was important for the

child to have the necessary reading skills to fill out the

URDT questionnaire but, at the same time, not be so old

as to have left the family unit. Whenever there were two

or more children within the family whose ages fell within

the 9 to 18 range, the parents chose one child to partici­

pate in the study.

Descriptive information for the groups is given

in Table 2. Functional fathers and mothers were younger

but had received m.ore formal education than their dys­

functional counterparts. Functional children were also

younger than the dysfunctional children.

The first group, dysfunctional families (D),

consisted of 12 family triads in which the father was a

psychiatric patient on an inpatient or outpatient status

at the V.A. Hospital, Palo Alto, California. With the

exception of persons having chronic organic brain syndrome

as one of their diagnoses, the nature of the psychiatric

diagnosis was not a limiting factor. Families were

solicited from among the referrals made to the Family

Study Unit.

The second group, functional families (F), was

comprised of 12 family triads solicited from the community

by a newspaper advertisement or through friends. Notices

displayed on supermarket bulletin boards did not elicit

any inquiries. A display advertisement which ran for

41

Variable

Age

Father X s.d. t test

Mother X s.d. t test

Child X s.d. t test

Education (years)

Father X s.d. t test

Mother X s.d. t test

Child's Sex (N)

Boys Girls

Number of Children

X s.d. t test

TABLE 2

SAMPLE DESCRIPTION

in Family

Functional

43.08 7.87

- 1.52

40.00 6.25

- 2.23*

11.25 1.81

- 1.94

17.08 1.78 3.76***

14.83 2.17 2.57**

8 4

2.42 1.00

- 1.52

Dysfunctional

47.75 6.51

46.33 7.06

12.75 1.81

13.50 2.61

12.83 1.40

5 7

3.58 2.35

*p<0.05, two-tailed **p<0.02, two-tailed

***p 0.002, tv?o-tailed

42

two days was placed on page two of the Palo Alto Times,

a local daily newspaper. The advertisement read:

FAMILIES NEEDED

by federally-funded team of social scientists to participate in research project. Father, mother and one child age 9-18 to spend one two-hour session on family decision-making task. Absolute anonymity guaranteed. Report of results at end of study. For further details phone 493-5000 ext. 5573 between BAM and 4:30PM weekdays or 961-9431 after 6PM.

Of 11 inquiries to the advertisement, only two families

met the criteria for the study and were subsequently

included in the sample. The remaining F families were

obtained through friends of the experimenter. It should

be noted that families in which the father or mother

was a mental health professional were excluded from

participation in the study. With respect to the present

study, functional families were operationally defined

as those in which there was no known emotional problem

in any family member, no family member had been recommended

for or had undergone psychotherapy for the preceding five

years, and the children were at the appropriate grade

level (or beyond) for their age. The functional families

were asked about the above points, but no attempt was

made to check the authenticity of their answers.

Originally, this study was designed to include

control group families in which the father was a medical

patient being treated for an acute but curable illness

43

on the general medical and surgical wards of the V.A.

Hospital. However, several initially unrecognized

factors weighed against their inclusion in this study.

It was found that most medical patients who met other

criteria for participation in the study also carried

secondary diagnoses of a psychiatric nature, especially

alcoholism. Even when the medical patient and his family

did meet all the criteria, the family home was often too

distant to permit the wife and child to participate in

the study.

The only inducement offered to the experimental

families was the promise of a written report of the

experimental findings which would be mailed to them upon

completion of the study. There is some reason to believe

that the number of volunteers needed would have been

more easily obtained if they could have been paid for

their time.

Procedure

The study s focus was the assessment of observa­

tional effects on family decision-making, or, more broadly,

family interaction. The setting chosen was an actual

psychotherapy treatment room equipped with microphones,

TV cameras and a large one-way mirror. In order to control

for random variation as much as possible, it was decided

to have the families interact using a standard task

44

rather than to monitor them while they were undergoing

conjoint family therapy. Indeed, the nature of the

interview would have been biased by differing demand

characteristics on the interviewees of the F and D family

groups.

Several methods were used to control random

variation (see Table 1). As discussed in Chapter I, a

number of widely different tasks have been used to generate

family interaction. However the URDT, originally designed

by Ferreira (1963), was chosen because it contained items

which represent decisions any family was likely to make

during the course of their everyday life. In addition,

with the possible exception of Strodtbeck's (1951, 1954)

RDT, the URDT appeared to have been subjected to more

experimental scrutiny as a family interaction generator

than any other test.

The conduct of the experiment required two

experimenters, the author (E^) and another person (E2)

who was unfamiliar with the study' s hypotheses. E-^

operated the electronic apparatus and conducted the

debriefing in all but one case. E2 instructed the families

on the experimental procedure. Two males and four females

served as E2- The males instructed 8 families and the

females instructed 16 families. The E2's were either

nurses, psychology graduate students, or medical students

whose participation in the study at a particular

45

time was based solely on availability. Before instructing

a family, each prospective E2 was thoroughly briefed

by E^ and saw an actual research family go through the

experimental procedure.

The experimental procedure was identical for each

family. E2 greeted the family and asked them to fill out

a Family Data Sheet (Appendix A) and a Consent Form

(Appendix B). E2 then read Instructions to the Families

(Appendix C) which outlined the experimental procedure

in detail.

Briefly, family members completed identical URDT

questionnaires (Appendix D) as individuals. Next, the

family group gathered around a table in the family treat­

ment room for the remainder of the experimental session.

Four table microphones, capable of being disconnected

at their respective wall outlets, relayed the conversation

to a speaker and taps recorder in the next room. Shortly

after entering the room, each family member was fitted

with a throat microphone connected to the Family Interaction

Counter. The Counter recorded the sequence of speakers,

not what was being said. During this time, Ej was in the

adjacent room which contained the Family Interaction

Counter and tape recording equipment. E^ and E2 communi­

cated via telephone to ensure that the throat microphones

were properly activating the Counter. The microphone

check and the preliminary instructions given about the

46

room and the assigned task allowed about ten minutes

for the individuals to become accustomed to the throat

microphones. The families then proceeded with the group

URDT.

As mentioned earlier, the number randomly

assigned to each family determined the order of events

which would occur when the family members were gathered

together as a group. The URDT questionnaire (Appendix D)

was divided into two, five-question halves. The first

five questions were designated Form A, and the remaining

questions were called Form B. The families were counter­

balanced for order of presentation of the forms as well

as the presence or absence of observation. For example,

one family might complete Form B while observed and

then fill out Form A while unobserved. Similarly, another

family might fill out Form A while unobserved and then

go on to complete Form B while observed, et cetera.

When the family finished one form it signalled Ej, who

reentered the room with instructions for the completion

of the second form. For purposes of the present study,

observation consisted of E2 introducing E^ who, they were

told, would be observing them from behind a one-way

mirror, and making comments about what he saw and heard

on the second track of a stereo tape. The other tape

track was recording the family s conversation. For the

unobserved phase, curtains were drawn across the one-way

47

mirror and the table microphones cords were unplugged

from the wall. The throat microphones transmitted the

sequence of speakers.

Questionnaire Construction

The URDT provided a standard stimulus for family

interaction as well as a source of data about the sample.

A copy of the latest version of the URDT was given to the

experimenter by Antonio Ferreira. Ferreira (1971)

suggested that the experimenter should consider modifying

some of the items based upon his knowledge of the sample

to be studied. Some content changes were made, but on

the whole, the questionnaire remained much the same as

Ferreira's. It was felt that radical changes would

nullify the cjuestionnaire's usefulness as a cross-

validating device with Ferreira and Winter's work. As

an example, Ferreira's version contained a question

which asked how one would like to spend the last evening

of a month's vacation in Moscow, and it listed several

prominant places in that city. The experimenter changed

the city to New York and altered the landmarks accordingly.

Ferreira's questionnaire contained 16 different questions.

A modified version of the questionnaire was given to a

few ad hoc groups of individuals. Since answering the

16 questions took over an hour to complete, it was decided

to shorten the URDT to 10 items, while at the same time

48

recognizing that the decision could adversely influence

the questionnaire's reliability. In this manner the

entire session including the important debriefing was

held to about two hours.

The Debriefing Questionnaire (Appendix E) con­

sisted of several open-ended questions designed to tap

the family's subjective reaction to the experiment. The

most important question, from the experimenter's point

of view, asked the family whether the two parts (i.e.,

observed and unobserved) produced any noticeable change

in their behavior. Other questions recjuested the family

to compare its behavior during the experimental session

with their behavior at home, and probed their concept of

the nature of the experiment. Suggestions were solicited

for future modification of the experiment. Whenever

statements made during the debriefing were not clear,

E2 attempted to obtain a clarification without asking

leading questions.

Family Interaction Counter

The Family Interaction Counter was designed to

provide objective information about the process of family

interaction which could be gathered in both the observed

and unobserved portions of the experiment. A similar

counter was used by Haley (1964, 1967b) in his investiga­

tion of the structure of family interaction. The Counter

"•'mmmmm

49

used in the present experiment was designed by Leo

Ussleman, a biomedical engineer with the V.A.'s Western

Research Support Center (WRSC) located at Sepulveda,

California. Detailed plans for the instrument are con­

tained in WRSC Task No. 2007. Mr. Ussleman designed a

Counter which would place a family triad's stream of

conversation into a series of counts which recorded who

spoke first and who spoke second. The logic circuitry

of this Counter excluded the possibility of one person

following himself. For example, if father talked,

paused for fifteen seconds, and then continued talking,

the logic circuitry considered this as one speech.

In order to obtain the above data, each family

member wore a Grason-Stadler Model E7300M magnetic throat

microphone. Each throat microphone was connected to its

own Hunter Model 320S Silenced Noise-Operated Relay.

The Relays provided an electronic output whenever someone

spoke. One of the obvious weaknesses of such a system

was that the Relay could not discriminate between a

spoken word and a cough. However, this limitation did

not appear serious in practice. The actual speech

sequencing was done by Heathkit logic circuitry.

The Heathkit logic circuitry was composed of the

following interconnected units: one EU-800-RB Two-Module

Cabinet, one EU-801-11 Digital Power Module, one EU-801-14

Auxiliary Module, two EU-800-JC NAND Gate Cards, and one

50

EU-800-JD Relay Card. Thus, father (F) , mother (M), and

child (C) inputs emerged from the logic circuitry as

m , FC, MF, MC, CF, and CM which were displayed on graph

paper by an Esterline Angus Model A620X Event Recorder.

The Event Recorder had one pen which marked the

beginning and end of each session, and a pen for each

of the six sequence pairs. The Noise-Operated Relays,

the logic circuitry and the Event Recorder were inter­

connected by means of a junction box. The junction box

also contained push-button and toggle switches which

allowed operational checks of every component within the

electrical system before the Ss were allowed to proceed

with the group decision-making. The microphones were

individually checked by observing a light located on the

Relay which lit up whenever a sound was uttered by the

mike wearer. Seven pushbuttons enabled the Event Recorder

pens to be individually checked. Finally, three toggle

switches disconnected the logic circuitry from the Relays.

When in the disconnect mode, F, M, and C push-buttons

checked the logic circuitry by simulating family

interaction.

Chart speed was set to run at 12 inches per

minute. Therefore, the distance between each vertical

printed line on the graph paper represented 0.5 seconds.

The graph and the fast chart speed proved important when

simultaneous communication was scored. (Haley's Counter

51

ignored simultaneous communication.) The scoring procedure

is described in the next section.

Dependent Variable Scoring

The dependent variables directly related to the

research hypotheses were sequence of speeches, simultaneous

communication (SC) and decision time (DT). In addition,

the URDT questionnaires were scored according to the

method of Ferreira and Winter (1965) to obtain spontaneous

agreement (SA) and positive choice fulfillment (PP)

coefficients for each family. Each term is defined below.

Secruence of Speeches

The sequence of speeches was graphically displayed.

There was a pen for each sequence (e.g., FM, FC, r4F, MC,

CF, and CM). Unless simultaneous communication occurred,

at any given moment only one pen was activated to the

"on" position. The pen reset itself upon completion of

an interaction. Scoring involved counting the number of

times each pen was activated. To aid scoring, a ruler

was moved across the chart perpendicular to the pen lines.

Simultaneous communications were recorded at the same time

as the sequences.

52

Simultaneous Communication

Simultaneous communication occurred whenever two

or more pens operated within at least the same 0.5 second

interval on the graph. Separate records, accurate to

0.5 seconds, were kept for the following combinations:

father and mother, father and child, mother and child,

and all persons speaking at the same time. For example,

if the FM and MF pans were simultaneously activated, the

time was measured and recorded as a father plus mother SC.

However, the activation of two unsymmetrical pens (e.g.,

FM and CF, MF and CM) was interpreted to mean that all

persons were speaking at the same time. Finally, F, M,

and C were considered to be speaking simultaneously when­

ever three or more pens were activated. These differen­

tiations v/ere not difficult to make in practice.

Decision Time

DT was recorded for each family decision-making

phase with a stopwatch. The watch was started when E;

closed the door signalling his/her departure from the

experimental room. It was stopped upon signal from the

family that they had completed the questionnaire.

Spontaneous Agreement

SA was scored by comparing the URDT questionnaires

completed individually by each family member. The

53

questionnaire contained ten possible responses to each

URDT situation. The individual was directed to indicate

his three most preferred (i.e., positive) and his three

least preferred (i.e., negative) choices. Theoretically,

scores ranging from 0 to 180 were possible for each

family. The SA and PP scores have previously been found

to discriminate between F and D families (Ferreira &

Winter, 1965).

Positive Choice Fulfillment

PP was scored by comparing the positive choices

marked on each individual URDT with the positive choices

agreed upon by the family triad. Theoretically, scores

ranging between 0 and 90 were possible.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Several measures (e.g., sequence of speakers,

amount of simultaneous coirununication, and task decision

time) were used to examine the effect of observation on

functional and dysfunctional family triads. Statistical

analyses of these measures as they relate to the original

research hypotheses are contained in the present chapter.

In addition, several post hoc analyses were conducted in

order to further explore the parameters of family

interaction.

Dysfunctional families who completed the Unrevealed

Differences Task questionnaire (URDT) in previous studies

(Haley, 1964, 1967b; Ferreira & Winter, 1965, 1968a) con­

tained a child as the identified patient who exhibited

various psychiatric symptoms. In the present study, the

father was being treated as a psychiatric patient. Hence,

the present research afforded an opportunity to cross-

validate some of the dependent variables used in the other

studies. Haley examined the variable who speaks first

and who speaks second (i.e., sequence of speakers).

Ferreira and Winter investigated other variables among

which were task decision time, simultaneous communication

(Poon, Winter & Ferreira, 1971), and the questionnaire

54

55

related measures called spontaneous agreement (SA) and

positive preference, or positive choice fulfillment (PP).

SA and PP will be defined and discussed in the following

section devoted to the URDT.

Unrevealed Differences Task Questionnaire

Both functional and dysfunctional family triads

completed the URDT questionnaire as individuals and again

as a family group. The choices marked on the group URDT

qeustionnaire represented the opinion of all family members.

The manner by which they were to reach agreement was not

specified to them. During the observed phase, it was noted

that, in most families, the father transcribed his family s

decisions on the questionnaire. However, in a few func­

tional families, the questionnaire form was handed around

after each question. In these cases, it was usual for a

family member to act as recorder for one question and then

pass the form on to another person. Information about

who filled out the questionnaire during the unobserved

phase was obtained during the debriefing. All families

followed the same pattern which occurred during the observed

phase.

As it was mentioned earlier, family members filled

out the URDT first as individuals. By comparing the

positive and negative responses made by each dyad, it vras

possible to obtain a total score called spontaneous

56

agreement (SA) for each family. These scores are summarized

in Table 3. Due to improper questionnaire completion by

a few individuals, SA scores for only 11 functional families

and 10 dysfunctional families were obtained. As shown in

Table 3, there was a significant difference between the

groups; functional families demonstrated greater initial

agreement.

TABLE 3

URDT QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

Variable

Family

Functional N X s.d.

Dysfunctional N X s.d,

t test

Spontaneous Agreement (SA) 11 83.45 19.35 10 68.50 12.10 2.00

Choice Fulfillment (PP) 12 53.75 6.90 10 50.80 6.12 1.00

*p<0.05, one-tailed

Families completed one-half of the URDT question­

naire while observed and the other half when there was no

observation. By comparing the questionnaire initially

filled out by each family member with both parts of the

questionnaire filled out by the family triad, it was

possible to calculate a positive choice-fulfillment (PP)

57

score for each family, m other words, individual positive

preferences became family positive preferences. Because

only positive choices were involved, it was possible to

calculate PP for all 12 functional families, and 10 dys­

functional families. PP was a measure of efficiency of

family functioning in that it demonstrated how well the

unit took individual members' opinions into account

(Ferreira & Winter, 1965). As shown in Table 3, the PP

variable did not discriminate between the two family groups.

A post hoc analysis was undertaken to determine

whether observation had an effect on the choice-fulfillment

scores. If observation did influence the scores, the

effect could be explained in terms of the family s

efficiency. Family PP scores obtained during the observed

and unobserved phases of the experiment were compared

using the t test. All possible pairs of scores were

examined. A summary of these t tests is listed in

Table 4. The comparisons between dysfunctional family

observed and dysfunctional unobserved, and functional

observed and dysfunctional unobserved are marginally

significant. The other tests did not even approach this

very low level of statistical significance.

Additional post hoc analyses sought to determine

the relative contribution of individuals' positive choices

to family PP scores. The comparisons are summarized in

Table 5. Functional mothers v/ere significantly more

58

TABLE 4

CHOICE FULFILLMENT AND OBSERVATION COMPARED

Phase

Observed Unobserved

Observed Unobserved

Family PP

Functional N X s.d.

Dysfunctional N X s.d,

12 2 7 . 0 8 3 . 6 8 12 26 .67 4 .07

12 2 7 . 0 8 3 . 6 8 10 2 4 . 5 0 4 . 2 2

*p<0.1, one-tailed t correlated t test

t test

0.41t

Observed Unobserved

Observed Observed

Unobserved Unobserved

12

12

27.08

26.67

3.68

4.07

10 10

10

10

26.30 24.50

26.30

24.50

2.53 4.22

2.58

4.22

1.68*t

0.54

1.16

1.46*

Unobserved 12 26.67 4.07 Observed 10 26.30 2.58 0.23

influential than either functional children or dys­

functional children.

Sequence of Speakers

The stream of family triad communication was

electronically broken into sequences of who spoke first

59

TABLE 5

INDIVIDUALS' CHOICE FULFILLMENT COMPARED

Individual

Father Mother

Father Child

Mother Child

Father Mother

Father Child

Mother Child

Father Father

Father Mother

Father Child

Mother Father

Fami

Functional N X s.d.

12 12

12 12

12 12

12

12

12

12

18.00 19.33

18.00 16.42

19.33 16.42

18.00

18.00

18.00

19.33

3.49 2.93

3.49 3.32

2.93 3.32

3.49

3.49

3.49

2.93

-ly

Dy N

10 10

10 10

10 10

10

10

10

10

•

sfunctional X s.d.

-

16.50 17.60

16.50 16.70

17.60 16.70

16.50

17.60

16.70

16.50

•

3.92 3.24

3.92 2.58

3.24 2.58

3.92

3.24

2.58

3.92

t test

-1.46t

• 1.14t

2.19**t

-0.81t

-O.llt

0.95t

0.95

0.26

0.93

1.85*

60

TABLE 5—Continued

Individual

Mother Mother

•

Mother Child

Mother Child

Child Child

Fami

Functional N X s.d.

12

12

12

12

19.33

19.33

16.42

16.42

2.93

2.93

3.32

3.32

ly

Dysfunctional N X s.d.

10

10

10

10

17.60 3.24

16.70 2.58

17.60 3.24

16.70 2.58

t test

1.26

2.11**

0.80

-0.21

*p < 0.1, two-tailed **p<0.05, two-tailed t correlated t test

and who spoke second, and recorded on graph paper by six

event recorder pens (i.e., one for each possible dyad).

The observed and unobserved phases of the experiment were

recorded separately. These data, expressed as frecjuencies,

are summarized in Table 6. The observed and unobserved

sequences for each family were summed to obtain a total

score.

For most sequences, observation appeared to increase

the number of interactions. Both functional and dys­

functional family sequential interactions exhibited wide

61

EH

CN

II 2

(0 0)

-H

e

(0 c o

• H -M CJ C

P4

to

o

u

y

r* in vo o • *

CN O ro H

vo r* • • H O "^ CN

in fH t^ in • •

0> 00 vO ro

ro vO ro in • •

O CN in CN

04 CN a\ CN • *

r-- CN -'d' CN

ro rH ro O • •

CJ 00 vO ro

O VD in in • •

in ro t^ in CM

r- ro vo CO • •

a\ vo ro H

o in in 00 • •

^ VD in rH

f-i 00 • •

O 00 in 00 • .

CJ ro ro r-i

O r-i in 00 • •

VD O in CM

I-- r-i VD cr» • • o o in CN

r^ ro r-i o • •

r-i in '«;r r-i

0) w fd ,c cu

TJ 0) TJ >IX • u w (U m ^ O

TJ OJ > JH TJ olX • en w

.Q 0 C t3

o EH

CM r-i 1 2 w (U rH •H e d Cn

iH fd

0 •H -M U C :^ MH W > Q

P4 U

^

§

O P4

Q) W fd

PL.

27

4.0

8

126.1

6

31.8

3 2

6.3

4 5

0.2

5 4

0.4

2 3

6.2

5 2

5.8

8

51.0

0 28

.18

53

.33

42

.50

51

.42

29

.17

23

3.1

7

91.4

7 31

.25

30

.45

38

.08

19.5

9 3

4.4

2 31

.01

45

.00

25

.20

39

.67

23

.26

44

.75

26

.07

>IX • U W (U

w

O

(U > u ^ (ulx •

o

62

c •H 4J C o o I I

vo

9 EH

o

fd -M O

EH

<0 4J O EH

u

U

• * in r 0 ro vo H

ro CTk ro 0 • •

H in CO ro

in 00 CM ^ • •

CN ""t r-i

0 r-in r-• •

•^ vO (T\ ro

CM ro J* CN • •

r* ro 00 ro

ro r-00 rH • •

in rH CN in

in CJ CM ro • •

0 r-in H

CO r-i 0 in • •

ro ro vo in

ro ro ro ro • t

ro ro 00 in

VD 0 • •

0 ro r- in

0 en 0 a\ • •

VD r

0 CN 0 in • •

ro C^ cr» in

ro in 00 o> t •

r^ m a\ en

\> r-rH rH • •

VD H cr> i n

CM

>1 rH •H £ fd UA

^^ CN rH II z V_X

rH fd

c 0 TJ •HlX • 4J W U d 13 CM

II 25 *—'

iH fd C 0 •H 4J U CI :3 MH W >1 Q

X

63

variability. Because of the large variation, and to take

into account a family's relative participation rate, the

sequential interactions for each family were converted

to percentages before proceeding with the data analysis.

These data are summarized in Table 7.

After converting the sequences into percentages,

the relationships between the dyads appeared in sharper

focus: the means of symmetrical sequence pairs were

virtually identical. For example, within observed func­

tional families, the mean for FC was 20.28, and the mean

for CF was 20.21. The same symmetry existed whether or

not the families were observed. The existence of this

basic symmetry indicates that there was no imbalance

within the dyads' order of speeches. It was sufficient

to learn which pairs of speakers interacted more or less

than the others. Symmetrical dyadic interactions are

summarized in Table 8.

The first three research hypotheses sought to

discriminate functional and dysfunctional families and

their respective responses to observation on the basis

of the dependent variable who speaks first and who speaks

second in the stream of conversation. On the basis of

the research data, it appeared that the variable, as

defined, was not necessary. A more appropriate variable

was the relative responsiveness of dyads, irregardless

of their order of speech. The data were analyzed with the

64

TABLE 7

SEQUENTIAL INTERACTIONS IN PERCENTAGES

F u n c t i o n a l F a m i l i e s (N=12)

Phase

Observed X s.d.

Unobserved X s.d.

Phase

Observed X s.d.

Unobserved X s.d.

Family

Functional X s.d.

Dysfunctional X s.d.

FM

15.49 4.57

14.89 4.18

FM

20.43 10.32

20.05 8.53

FM

15.20 4.07

20.24 8.93

FC

20.28 5.39

20.33 5.68

MF

14.67 5.32

14.47 4.42

Dvsfunctional

FC

17.76 8.84

17.43 7.57

MF

20.04 10.37

20.33 8.73

MC

15.89 7.70

16.00 6.35

CF

20.31 5.40

19.71 4.35

Families (N=12

M3

13.56 9.78

13.30 9.25

CF

16.64 8.32

17.19 6.66

Total (both phases)

FC

20.31 4.94

17.60 7.99

MF

14.57 4.64

19.35 10.19

MC

15.95 6.57

13.43 8.94

CF

20.01 4.16

16.92 7.15

CM

13.35 7.87

14.60 6.29

1 CM

11.57 9.20

11.56 8.39

CM

13.98 6.55

11.57 8.28

TABLE 8

SYMMETRICAL DYADIC INTERACTIONS IN PERCENTAGES

65

Phase

Observed X s.d.

Unobserved X s.d.

Phase

Observed X s.d.

Unobserved X s.d.

Family

Functional X s.d.

Dysfunctional X s.d.

F+M

30.16 9.81

29.36 7.92

F+M

40.47 20.43

40.38 16.87

F+M

29.09 8.60

40.43 17.91

Functional Families

Dvsfunct

Total

F+C

40.59 10.64

40.04 9.63

ional Families

F+C

34.40 17.11

34.62 14.02

(both phases)

F+C

39.27 9.25

34.51 15.06

M+C

29.24 15.17

30.60 12.27

M+C

25.13 18.76

25.01 17.73

M+C

31.64 13.33

25.07 17.25

66

modified dependent variable as outlined above and listed

in Table 8.

The Chi-square (Siegal, 1956) test was used to

make comparisons between families. Since the relative

participation rates of families were taken into account

by converting the raw scores to percentages, the secjuential

data scoring method suggested by Waxier and Mishler (1970),

calculating the Chi-scjuare expected value directly from

the data, was not necessary. The expected value was set

at 33.33 per cent, which assumed that members of each

dyad had an ecjual chance of speaking with one another. The

Chi-scjuare test between the means of functional and dys­

functional families for the total of both phases was mar­

ginally significant (Chi-square = 5.79, df = 2, p<0.1).

The father-child dyad appeared more active in the functional

families. Within dysfunctional families, the father-mother

dyad predominated at the expense of the mother-child dyad.

Comparisons within families were made using the

Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test (Siegal, 1956).

The comparisons are summarized in Table 9. None of the

comparisons reached significance. Therefore, observation

did not have an effect on the participation rates of the

dyads.

In summary, a borderline significant difference

existed between family groups on the symmetrical dyad

67

TABLE 9

WIL£:0X0N MATCHED-PAIRS SIGNED-RANKS TEST EFFECT OF OBSERVATION ON DYADS

Family Comparison Dyad

Functional

Functional

Functional

Observed : Unobserved

Observed

Observed

Dysfunctional Observed

Dysfunctional Observed

Dysfunctional Observed

Unobserved

Unobserved

Unobserved

Unobserved

Unobserved M+C

F+M 36.5 n.s.

F+C 37.5 n.s

M+C 30.0 n.s

F+M 39.0 n.s,

F+C 39.0 n.s

38.0 n.s

interaction variable. The variable, however, did not

vary as a function of observation.

Simultaneous Communication

Individuals talking with one another in a group

not only speak in sequence, they also speak simultaneously.

In the present study, simultaneous communication occurred

whenever two or more persons spoke at the same time. The

Event Recorder graph paper displayed the identity of the

persons who spoke simultaneously as well as the duration

of their overlapping conversation.

Simultaneous communication data were collected for

the following speaker dyads or triads: father (F) +

mother (M) , father (F) + child (C), M + C, and F + M + C

68

(i.e., all three persons were speaking simultaneously).

These data are displayed in Table 10. Inspection of the

table shows that, with one exception, functional family

dyads and triads engaged in more simultaneous-communication

than their dysfunctional family counterparts. The exception

was the F + M dyad in the unobserved phase where the dys­

functional mean was greater than the functional mean.

The variability exhibited by both family groups was

considerable.

It was predicted that functional families would

engage in less simultaneous communication than dysfunctional

families. Table 10 shows the functional families engaged

in relatively more simultaneous communication. Since the

design called for repeated measures of the same family

(i.e., observed and unobserved phases), a Split Plot

Factorial 2.2 Analysis of Variance design (Kirk, 1968)

was used to test the hypothesis.

The Analysis of Variance, summarized in Table 11,

failed to discriminate between the families on the basis

of total time spent in simultaneous coiTununication. The

Analysis of Variance also failed to support the predictions

that the family types would engage in less simultaneous

communication when they were observed than when they were

not observed. In summary, functional and dysfunctional

families appeared to engage in the same amount of

TABLE 10

SIMULTANEOUS COMMUNICATION (Seconds)

69

Phase

Observed X s.d.

Unobserved X s.d.

Phase

Observed X s.d.

Unobserved X s.d.

Family

Functional X s.d.

Dysfunctional X s.d.

t test

*p<0.1 **p<;0.05

F+M

39.29 17.95

28.00 18.15

F+xM

29.71 20.54

30.79 28.38

F+M

60.29 33.44

60.50 46.09

- 0.01

Functional Families (N=12)

F+C

31.79 27.49

33.67 22.22

Dvsfunct

F+C

27.04 20.59

23.33 20.03

Tot

F+C

65.46 45.08

50.37 34.39

0.88

M+C

30.08 18.92

31.00 17.27

F+M+C

18.96 10.89

18.87 10.44

ional Families (N=

M+C

18.87 11.82

19.79 16.03

F+M+C

11.58 9.44

13.37 11.98

al (both phases)

M+C

61.08 33.20

38.67 26.05

1.76**

F+M+C

37.83 16.44

24.96 20.24

1.64*

Total

113.12 55.67

111.54 55.39

12)

Total

87.21 49.10

87.29 69.04

Total

224.67 96.29

174.50 108.16

1.15*

70

simultaneous communication, regardless of whether they were

observed or unobserved.

TABLE 11

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: TOTAL SIMULTANEOUS COMMUNICATION

Source df MS F Probability

Families (A) 1 7550.08 1.440 n.s.

Observation (B) 1 6.75 0.005 n.s.

A X B 1 8.33 0.006 n.s.

Closer inspection of Table 10 revealed some

interesting patterns among the dyadic and triadic inter­

actions. Functional family dyadic means were all clustered

around 30 seconds in both the observed and the unobserved

phases. Their triadic simultaneous communications occurred

less than within dyads, but did not vary as a result of

observation. Triadic simultaneous communication also

occurred less often than dyadic speeches within dys­

functional families. But the dysfunctional M + C dyad

spoke together less than within functional families.

Because of the differences in communication patterns

mentioned above, especially between dyads, it was decided

to statistically compare the differences between means.

A Split Plot Factorial 2,4.2 Analysis of Variance

design (Kirk, 1968) was used to analyze the dyadic and

71

triadic simultaneous connmunications. Table 12 contains

a summary of the Analysis of Variance. The comparison

between families was marginally significant. Observation

effects and the various interactions were not singificant.

The dyadic and triadic simultaneous communications were

significantly different.

TABLE 12

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: DYADIC AND TRIADIC SIMULTANEOUS COMMUNICATIONS

Source

Families (A)

Communication

Observation

A X B

A X C

B X C

A X B X C

(B)

(C)

df

1

3

1

3

1

3

3

MS

1893.80

2061.17

1.51

266.71

1.88

19.72

62.65

F

3.399

3.700

0.012

0.479

0.015

0.157

0.497

Probability

0.065

0.015

n. s.

n. s.

n. s.

n.s.

n. s.

An independent t test was used to examine the

differences between means. The M + C dyad interacted

significantly less in dysfunctional families. Hov\ ever,

this difference was in the opposite direction from that

predicted in the research hypotheses. This result was

similar, however, to the Chi-square test described in the

72

previous section where the mother-child symmetrical dyad

interacted less within dysfunctional families.

Decision Time

Decision time (DT) represented the total time in

seconds required by a family triad to complete each phase

of the family decision-making portion of the experiment.

The DT for both phases was calculated by summing the

observed phase DT and the unobserved phase DT for each

family. These data are presented in Table 13.

TABLE 13

TASK DECISION TIME IN SECONDS

Family Phase N s.d.

Func.

Func.

Obsv.

UnobsV,

12

12

1099.33

872.17

389.96

231.57

Dysf.

Dysf.

Func.

Dysf.

Obsv.

UnobsV

Both

Both

12

12

12

12

1079.42

980.83

549.40

358.93

1971.50

2060.25

579.06

755.21

-0.3094

Dysfunctional family DT scores exhibited more

variability than functional family DT scores. Both

family groups responded more rapidly when they were not

73

observed. The t test and analysis of variance were used

to test the research hypotheses.

It was hypothesized that functional family groups

would require significantly less overall time to finish

the questionnaire. The t test (Table 13) failed to support

this hypothesis. It was further hypothesized that both

family groups would complete the questionnaire more rapidly

when they were observed than when they were not observed.

Since the experimental design contained repeated measures

of the same group, a Split Plot Factorial 2.2 Analysis of

Variance design (Kirk, 1968) was used to test these

hypotheses. Table 14 contains a summary of the Analysis

of Variance. The prediction of shorter observed decision

times for each group was not supported. There were no

significant F tests for the main effects or for the first-

order interaction.

TABLE 14

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE: DECISION TIME

Source df MS F Probability

Families (A) 1 23629.69 0.116 n.s.

Observation (B) 1 318339.19 2.786 0.11

A X B 1 49601.02 0.434 n.s.

74

Debriefing Questionnaire

The Debriefing Questionnaire (Appendix E) solicited

family members' subjective impressions about the experi­

mental procedure and its effect on their behavior.

Responses to the first six questions are summarized by

family type in Table 15. The statements of each family

member for each of the first five questions was rated as

yes, unscoreable (?), or no by the experimenter. The

experimenter also condensed replies to question six into

several post hoc defined categories. Replies to the last

three debriefing questions were presented in this

section in narrative form since they were relatively

difficult to classify numerically.

The first two cjuestions asked family members to

compare their behavior at home with their behavior during

the family decision-making phase of the experiment.

Regardless of type, most family members rated home and

experimental behavior as similar. (Question two provided

an opportunity to amend or amplify individual responses

to the first cjuestion. A "no" response to cjuestion two

meant that the individual still felt home and experimental

family behaviors were alike. Almost half the individuals

commented upon some behavioral difference. Most of those

who mentioned a difference stated that the family appeared

more cooperative with each other during the experimental

75

TABLE 15

DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

Question Functional Dysfunctional (N=36) (N=36)

Yes ? No Yes ? No

1. Was the way your family acted here today similar to the way they usually act at home?

24 8 20 10

2. Was the way your family acted here today different than the way they usually act at home?

3. When you were gathered together as a family there were two parts to the session. Did either of the parts produce any difference in the way you acted?

4. Was there anything pleasant or amusing about the experience?

5. Was there anything unpleasant about the experience?

14 20 16 15

6. What do you think we were trying to do here today? •'•

a. Examine observation effects

b. Examine family decision-making

c. Personalized comment about family decision process

d. No idea

30

1

13

17

0 27

31

24

0

9

19

8

28

25

•'•Responses represent post hoc categorization of S's statements.

76

session. Perhaps some of the families were responding in

what they felt was a more socially desirable way. In the

absence of more objective measures of social desirability,

such speculation must remain tentative.

Question three was the key item related to the

thrust of the present study. Without specifically using

the term observation, individuals were asked to remark

upon any family behavioral differences they noticed during

the observed and unobserved phases of the experiment.

About three-quarters of the individuals reported no

difference between the two phases. This finding agrees

with the objective measures of family interaction mentioned

earlier in the chapter. The remaining individuals reported

an awareness of being watched or of the recording process.

It seemed reasonable to ask whether the participants

found the study enjoyable or if they experienced it as

aversive. The answers to cjuestions four and five indicate

that the vast majority of subjects enjoyed participating

in the experiment. These questions also provided another

opportunity to comment on the effect of the observation

process. No one commented here about being observed.

However, three children reported annoyance with the tape

recjuired to hold the throat microphones against their

larynx. The tape was necessary for some mothers and

children whose necks were not large enough to afford

proper activation of the throat microphones.

77

During the research procedure, most subjects form

impressions about the nature of the study and the variables

the experimenter is manipulating, it was assumed that if

the subjects were consciously aware of observation, they

would report its investigation as one of the study's

purposes. Based on a post hoc categorization of the Ss'

statements, only one individual specifically mentioned

observation. In spite of the fact that curtains were

drawn across the one-way mirror, microphones were unplugged,

and so forth, in a manner which directly implied the

observation variable, the majority of Ss considered the

study to be focused exclusively on the process of family

decision-making. Most of the family members who had no

idea about the study's purpose were children.

The responses to cjuestion seven were difficult

to categorize. This cjuestion solicited suggestions for

improving the study. Most dysfunctional family members

saw no need for change. Functional families, especially

the fathers, eagerly supplied recommendations which they

felt would improve the study. Perhaps their greater degree

of criticalness was due, in part, to higher educational

attainment than their dysfunctional counterparts. No

statement was made which referred to the observation

process either directly or indirectly. Most of the

comments included v/ays to make the unrevealed differences

tasks more realistic. Apparently, there was some feeling

78

among the functional parents that the tasks were too

trivial.

The eighth cjuestion asked if they learned anything

about themselves or their family as a result of the

experiment. The functional families said they either

learned nothing new or it confirmed what they already

knew. Dysfunctional family members, on the other hand,

seemed encouraged by the fact that they could indeed sit

down and make decisions as a family unit. Bearing in mind

that these families were selected from among patient

referrals for family therapy, the procedure apparently

provided a reinforcement of their hope for change.

The ninth cjuestion merely solicited any further

comments or cjuestions about the study. Due to the rela­

tively exhaustive range of questions in the debriefing,

only a few responses were made to this question. They

were not germaine to the present discussion.

In summary, the debriefing sessions provided

subjective confirmation of the objective data which

failed to show an effect due to observation.

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

The present chapter contains a discussion of the

experimental results and comparisons with previous research

in the area of family interaction. The results of the

study demonstrated no differences in family behavior due

to observation. However, some theoretically important

differences between family groups were noted, and they

will be discussed in the chapter.

The present study attempted to determine whether

observation influenced family behavior in a laboratory

setting. From a strict methodological standpoint, one

of the conditions should have been completely unobserved.

However, given the ethical considerations which govern

the conduct of psychological research, it was impossible

to conceive an experim.ent in which the subjects were

deceptively led to believe they were not observed by any

means during one of the experimental phases. It seemed,

therefore, that the more critical, and at the same time,

researchable question was whether different conditions of

observation differentially affect family interaction.

As discussed in Chapter I, a variety of methods

have been used to explore the parameters of family

interaction. However, the vast majority of methodologies

79

80

depended on some form of human observation which might

also be coupled with audio or video tape-recordings.

Indeed, Riskin and Faunce (1972) maintained it was

virtually impossible to conduct family research without

some form of observation.

The dependent variables utilized in the present

study were selected as being minimally intrusive to

collect, and also as objective as could be acquired under

the circumstances. It was not known whether these variables

were sensitive enough to detect subtle changes in family

performance which might result from manipulation of the

experimental environment (i.e., observation). However,

they appeared to be among the only variables previously

used which were also appropriate for the present

study. However, before proceeding with a discussion of

the results, a few comments about the nature of the sample

are appropriate.

The Sample

The dysfunctional families represented a rather

select group compared with other patients at the Palo

Alto V.A. Hospital. As mentioned earlier, dysfunctional

families contained fathers who were psychiatric patients.

Several staff members of the V.A. Hospital Family Study

Unit have noted that most male patients who were still

living with their wives and children (as required for

81

participation in the present study) were not schizophrenic.

indeed, there were no psychotic fathers in the present

sample. Hence, the results do not apply to families in

which the father is schizophrenic.

The present study was also one of the first which

used dysfunctional families in which all the identified

patients were fathers of school-age children. Within

most studies reported in the literature, the majority of

families contained a problem child. For example, 34 of

the 40 "TOonormal" families utilized jointly by Haley (1964)

and Ferreira and Winter (1965) contained a child who was

the identified patient. JXist how family interaction

might vary as a function of the identity of the parent

patient is not known. Family interaction differences

comparing parental interaction with a schizophrenic child,

and with one of their children who was normal, have been

investigated (Mishler & Waxier, 1968). Because of the

limited amount of behavior sampled (approximately one-half

hour for each of the two family decision-making phases)

and the small number of families studied, the results

of this study need to be considered tentative and subject

to replication.

Problems in Family Research

In their review of family interaction research,

Riskin and Faunce (1972) noted that possible sources of

82

experimental bias were not usually openly discussed in the

literature. The present researcher will try to become an

exception to that generalization.

It is doubtful that bias can be entirely eliminated

from any psychological study. This study was no exception

to that generalization. However, whenever possible,

sources of bias were controlled.

Based on the clinical observation that some

families flatly refused to undergo conjoint family therapy

if observed by mental health professionals situated behind

a one-way mirror, the researcher expected that families

would display some performance differences when observed.

It was assumed that families would engage in more socially

desirable behavior when observed than when unobserved.

The researcher thought that functional families might

flaunt their normality (Bodin, 1968) when observed,

and that observed dysfunctional families might try to

perform more like their apprehensions of good family

behavior.

Certain steps were taken to minimize and/or control

the effect of the experimenter's bias on the families

as V7ell as the persons who served as research assistants.

The experimenter had no contact with the families prior

to the debriefing, except for a brief introduction in

preparation for the observed phase of family decision­

making. The research assistants included both males and

83

females who were unaware of the literature on family

interaction as well as the study's hypotheses. Their

participation in the study was based solely on their

availability at a particular time.

The experimenter did, however, conduct all but

one of the debriefings, and rated the content of the

debriefing questionnaires. The debriefings were conducted

in such a manner that every effort was made to avoid

asking so-called leading questions.

The Effect of Observation

Nine hypotheses regarding family interaction were

advanced at the end of Chapter I. Three hypotheses

(i.e., numbers 1, 4, and 7) were related to differences

between functional and dysfunctional families. The

remaining six suppositions (i.e., numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 8,

and 9) concerned the effect of observation within each

family type. The effect of observation within families

will be discussed in this section; a later section

entitled "Family Decision-Making" will explore the

differences found between family groups.

In their reviev/ of family research, Riskin and

Faunce (1972) concluded, "The element of observation is

a necessity, whether the research be in the home or in

the laboratory. Therefore, the implications of what

kinds of observations must be evaluated /p. 14/." They

84

go on to say later in their review, "Even such apparently

trivial details as . . . ; whether the families know they

are being observed and recorded; whether they meet the

observers—all these factors have some impact on

performance /p. 16/." In the present study, the influence

of those factors was either too subtle for measurement by

the dependent variables being used, or nonexistent.

To briefly recapitulate the results described

within Chapter III, statistical analyses were unable to

determine significant performance differences within

families related to the presence or.absence of observation

for the dependent variables called sequential interactions,

total simultaneous communication, decision time, and

positive choice-fulfillment. Accordingly, hypotheses 2,

3, 5, 6, 8, and 9 were not supported.

During the post-experiment debriefing, 75 per cent

of the individuals implied that observation had no impact

on their performance. It apparently did influence the

other 25 per cent of this sample. This finding agrees

with the work of Sauer and Marcuse (1957): " . . . over

one-fourth of the Ss reported greater difficulty

(phenomenological data) when being overtly rather than

being covertly observed /p. 395/." The fact that the

majority of subjects in the present study did not report

behavioral differences when observed could account for

the negative results. However, the influence of

85

observation on the minority of individuals could account,

in part, for some of the trends noticed within the data.

Apparently observation had no impact on the

family decision-making process variables (i.e., sequential

interactions, and the amount of simultaneous communication).

It did have marginal influence on the outcome measures of

family efficiency (i.e., decision time and positive choice

fulfillment). Lack of support for the process variables

agreed with Roberts and Renzaglia (1965) who found that

the quantity of talk betv/een client and counselor did

not change with recording.

The outcome measures were only marginally signifi­

cant. However, the trend for decision time was opposite

from the direction predicted in the hypotheses; the observed

decision time was longer than the unobserved decision

time. The hypotheses (i.e., numbers 5 and 6) stated that,

relative to their own prior performance, functional and

dysfunctional families would expend less time making

decisions when observed than when unobserved. Decision

time was considered to be a measure of family decision­

making efficiency (Ferreira & Winter, 1965). Functional

families have typically completed URDT questionnaires in

significantly less time than dysfunctional families

(Ferreira & Winter, 1965, 1968a). Family triads examined

in the present study tended to become more inefficient

when observed. In order to explore further the meaning

86

of the longer observed decision times, several post hoc

analyses were conducted, using the questionnaire-related

outcome variable called positive choice fulfillment (PP).

PP, the other outcome efficiency measure, indicated

the degree to which the family unit was able to take into

account the preferences of its members (Ferreira & Winter,

1965). As mentioned in Chapter III, a low level of

statistical reliability (p<0.1) existed only for the

PP comparisons between dysfunctional family observed and

dysfunctional unobserved, and between functional observed

and dysfunctional unobserved.

A few cautious comments can be made about these

results. Functional families were as efficient whether

observed or unobserved. However, it appeared that, under

the observed condition dysfunctional families were as effi­

cient as functional families. Therefore, by taking a longer

time to reach their decisions in the observed phase, dys­

functional families were able to increast intrafamily agree­

ment. The reason functional families expended a greater

amount of time when observed was not clear. Again, these

statements must be taken as indicative, not as conclusive.

Family Decision-Making

In this section, the dependent variables will be

explored in greater depth than they v;ere in the preceding

section.

87

In light of the fact that none of the hypotheses

regarding observation were supported, it seemed relevant

to question whether the families utilized in the present

sample were, indeed, functional and dysfunctional. Three

variables used in previous studies by Ferreira and Winter

(1965, 1968a) were found to discriminate between families

being assessed by the Unrevealed Differences Task question­

naire: spontaneous agreement (SA), positive choice-

fulfillment (PP), and decision time (DT). SA and PP will

be discuosed below; DT will be explored later in the

chapter.

Unrevealed Differences Task Questionnaire

The degree to which the questionnaire filled out by

individual family members agreed with each other was

considered an index of their interpersonal closeness

(Ferreira & Winter, 1968a). As a group, functional

families have attained consistently higher SA scores than

dysfunctional families (Ferreira & Winter, 1965, 1968a).

They reasoned that the more interpersonally close a family

happened to be, the more likely their views would tend

to merge on similar issues. According to Sorrells and

Ford (1969), communication, one of the primary avenues

of interpersonal knov;ledge, is hampered within dysfunc­

tional families by denial, distortion, obliteration or

disqualification of interpersonal perceptions. Further,

88

communications among dysfunctional family members are often

indirect, unclear, and incongruent. Give a context of

blurred and distorted communications, the likelihood of

interpersonal isolation and dissimilar viewpoints is

markedly increased.

In the present study, the functional family group

attained significantly higher SA scores than their dys­

functional counterparts. At least on the SA variable,

the family groups were differentiated. This result lends

some support to the criteria used within the research

design to select the two family groups.

The other URDT measure, positive choice-fulfillment

(PP), was unable to differentiate between the two groups.

Ferreira and Winter (1965, 1968a) have consistently found

lower PP scores in abnormal families. For some reason,

the outcome of the URDT decision-making process in both

of the present groups was the same.

In order to gain more understanding of the role

played by each family member in the decision-making

process, PP scores for each individual were summarized and

compared. In dysfunctional families, the preferences of

father, mother, and child contributed equally to the

final PP score. But functional mothers contributed

significantly more of their ideas (p<0.05) to the

family PP score than their children. As shown later,

it appeared that functional fathers interacted relatively

89

more with their children. One could speculate that the

increased attention served as a compensation for the

child's relative lack of influence. Functional mothers

also exerted comparatively greater influence than dys­

functional children (p<0.05) and dysfunctional fathers

(p^O.l).

A number of functional fathers questioned the

validity of the URDT cjuestionnaire. They maintained that

some of the situations were too simplistic to provide

an adequate sample of their behavior. Their suggestions

for improvement included ways to generate more conflict

during the family decision-making.

Family researchers disagree among themselves on

hov/ to answer the dilemma of cjuestionnaire construction

and validity. Strodtbeck (1972) still prefers his

Revealed Difference Technicjue (RDT). Others (e.g.,

Mishler and Waxier, 1968) apparently have agreed with him.

There is no doubt that the RDT can provide conflicts for

families to resolve. However, it seems that everyday

interaction for most families does not necessarily involve

the resolution of a continuous series of crises. Although

some functional family members recommended more discord-

producing questions, it did not occur to the dysfunctional

families to ask for more conflict.

In defense of their URDT questionnaire, Ferreira

and Winter (1968a) maintained that only a neutral.

90

non-threatening questionnaire such as their own could

allow all family types to respond without broaching family

taboos, et cetera. Perhaps the argument regarding the

relative merits of the RDT and URDT cjuestionnaires was

trivial; Haley (1967a) found no response differences when

families discussed neutral or controversial issues.

In summary, the SA variable differentiated between

the family groups, but the PP measure did not. Post hoc

analyses of individual PP responses suggested that

functional mothers exerted considerably more influence

than children. A similar influence hierarchy did not

exist within dysfunctional families. According to Riskin

and Faunce (1972), PP overlaps Bauman and Roman's (1966)

variable called "dominance." Apparently, dysfunctional

families did not form the alliances which were required

to establish dominance.

Sequence of Speakers

The sequence of speakers variable has been used

by many family researchers (Riskin & Faunce, 1972).

Speaker secjuences were typically used in conjunction with

a behavior coding system applied by observers directly

from the family interaction or later from a transcript

of the conversation.

There are basically two ways to examine speaker

sequences. One can note who speaks first and who speaks

91

second, or one can try to determine who is speaking to

whom. Who speaks first and who speaks second can be

determined in an objective manner without raters. This

method was used by Haley (1964, 1967b). Who speaks to

whom is often a subjective judgment applied by human

observers. It has been used by Mishler and Waxier (1968),

Riskin and Faunce (1970), and others. For example,

Mishler and Waxier placed an observer behind a one-way

mirror who determined the recipients of messages by noting

eye contact between the participants. In spite of its

relatively wide use, the who speaks to whom variable by

itself has been found to be only weakly significant by

most researchers (Riskin & Faunce, 1972). It was usually

associated with determinations of power, dominance,

or control within families (Riskin & Faunce, 1972).

The who speaks first and who speaks second

variable, as used by Haley (1964, 1967b), was based on

the premise that organization means limitation, and that

disturbed families clinically appeared to exhibit greater

rigidity than normal families. Since they are theorized

as more rigid, their behavior should also be more pre­

dictable. An obvious v eakness of this variable is that it

is stripped of many of the important cues (i.e., voice tone,

body movements, facial expression, and message content)

human beings continuously integrate during the process of

communicating v/ith one another.

92

One of the interesting findings in the present study

was that it was sufficient to learn the participation rates

of dyads; the secjuence of speakers was not as important.

Hence, the variable who speaks first and who speaks second

was redefined to indicate the relative responsiveness of

dyads (i.e., symmetrical dyadic interactions).

A Chi-square test between the symmetrical dyads

in functional and dysfunctional families was borderline

significant (p<0.1), and failed to support the hypothesized

difference between the two groups (i.e., hypothesis 1).

However, within functional families the father-child

dyad was the most active. Within dysfunctional families,

the father-mother dyad interacted most, and the mother-

child dyad interacted the least.

For purposes of comparison, the six categories of

who speaks first and v/ho speaks second given in percentages

by Haley (1964, p. 60) were converted into symmetrical

dyadic interactions. The results of the present study

and Haley's research are summarized in Table 16.

Parenthetically, Haley's speaker sequences appeared to

exhibit symmetry somewhat similar to that found in the

present study. Contrary to the present study, Haley's

normal mother-child dyad interacted the most v;hile the

father-child dyad interacted the least. Kis abnormal

father-mother dyad related the most and his father-child

dyad the least. The two studies agree only for the high

93

rate of interaction between dysfunctional (or abnormal)

fathers and mothers. From these data alone, it was

impossible to determine whether the higher rate of inter­

change meant affinity or disagreement or both.

TABLE 16

TOTAL SYMMETRICAL DYADIC INTERACTIONS IN PERCENTAGES COMPARED

Source

Allen

Haley

Allen

Haley

Family

Functional (N= X s.d.

Normal (N=40) X s.d.

Dysfunctional X s.d.

=12)

(N=

Abnormal (N=40) X s.d.

12)

F+M

29. 8.

32.

40, 17.

,09 .60

.49 >

.43

.91

38.93 •

F+C

39. 9.

30. «

34. 15,

,27 .25

.29 >

.51

.06

29.73 •

M+C

31. 13.

.64

.33

36.09 •

25. 17,

.07

.25

31.33 •

One of the postulates about family interaction is

that families tend to follow the leader (Sorrells & Ford,

1969). Within functional families, it is generally the

father who sets the tone of the family, and initiates

new rules. However, the responsibility for the overall

pattern set within the rule-governed family system rests

94

with both parents and seems to be a function of the nature

of their relationship (Sorrells & Ford, 1969).

In both this study and Haley's, normal family

parents interacted more with their child than with each

other. On the other hand, dysfunctional parents in both

studies spent a greater amount of time talking with each

other than with their child.

It is difficult to explain these differences

without engaging in some rather broad speculation. Werner,

Stabenau and Polin (1970) found that normal family parents

tended to be more child centered than parents of delincjuent

or schizophrenic children. During the same study, Werner

and his colleagues found parents of delincjuent children

involved more with the task than their child. Finally,

schizophrenogenic parents appeared most interested in

their own needs.

Assuming that higher rates of dyadic interaction

were ecjuated in some way with interpersonal affinity,

the results of both studies could be explained in terms

simJLlar to the findings described in the preceding para­

graph. Normal or functional parents did appear more child

centered. In the present study, the functional father or

leader of the family, could have actively encouraged

greater participation by his child. In the outcome of

decision-making (i.e., choice fulfillment), the functional

mother wielded significantly more influence than her child.

95

As Haley (1967b) stated, " . . . in the middle class

American culture, it would be considered 'normal' to

encourage equal participation by the children

/p. 88/" The results seemed to indicate that participation

was not equivalent to influence. Functional children were

not inhibited but neither did they challenge parental

authority.

The opposite situation occurred within dys­

functional families; parental interaction predominated.

Since the fathers in the present sample were psychiatric

patients, it could be argued that the parents were forced

to devote more time to their marital relationship. Perhaps

half jokingly, some women maintain that their husbands

were their first child. But, according to Haley (1967a),

"Clinical observation had indicated that in abnormal

families the members do not participate equally, but two

of the members tend to participate more and shut the

third out of the conversation /p. 60/." In any event, it

appeared that dysfunctional children's choice fulfillment

scores were the same as either parent's. Therefore, the

child could influence the family's decision with a minimum

of interaction. Indeed, Coe, Curry and Kessler (1969)

noted a tendency toward turning more decisions over to

the children in psychiatric families.

96

Simultaneous Communication

As it was mentioned earlier in the chapter, observa­

tion had no demonstrable effect on the amount of simultaneous

communication within families. Further, functional and

dysfunctional families did not differ with regard to their

total amount of simultaneous communication. Accordingly,

hypothesis 7, which prediced more simultaneous communication

in dysfunctional families, was not supported.

The literature regarding what was called simultaneous

communication here was contradictory. Many studies used

different definitions to the extent that comparison between

them was difficult to assess. Some terms which overlap

simultaneous communication were: conflict (O'Connor &

Stachowiak, 1971), interruptions (Mishler & Waxier, 1968),

overlapping speeches (Ferreira, Winter & Poindexter, 1966),

who-interrupts-whom (Risking Faunce, 1970), and intrusions

(Lennard, Beaulie, & Embry, 1965). In one study (Poon,

Winter & Ferreira, 1971), disturbed families apparently

engaged in more overlapping communication than normals.

But Mishler and Waxier's (1968) normal families engaged in

relatively more interruptions. In sum, it was difficult

to tell from the literature which group typically engages

in more simultaneous coiimiunication.

According to Riskin and Faunce (1972), the general

category of simultaneous communications is usually

97

associated with higher-order abstractions such as spon­

taneity, influence, and control. These terms are not as

mutually exclusive as they might appear. During the observed

phase of the present study, it appeared that one person

would often speak at the same time as another whenever

the interrupter expressed agreement or wished to cjualify

what he had heard. Thus, the interruption was spontaneous

and it was intended to influence another person.

Several post hoc analyses were performed on the

dyadic and triadic simultaneous communications. The dys­

functional mother-child dyad simultaneously interacted

much less (p<0.05) than the same functional family dyad.

The identical situation occurred within the symmetrical

dyadic interactions mentioned earlier. It was reasonable

to infer that if mothers and children interacted less they

would also engage in less simultaneous communication.

Two alternative explanations are possible. First,

the father may have imposed himself between mother and

child in such a way that they had less opportunity to

interact. Or, second, the mother and child were allies

against the father and did not need to interact as much

with each other. Mother could have been the spokesman

for the mother-child coalition. As seen in the choice-

fulfillment scores, the dysfunctional child, contrary

to the functional child, exerted as much influence as

his parents. It could be that the dysfunctional parents

98

were influenced with a minimum of effort being expended

by the child to get his way.

Decision Time

The hypothesis that functional families would

complete the questionnaire significantly faster than dys­

functional families (i.e., hypothesis 4) was not supported.

In view of the fact that functional family parents happened

to be better educated than dysfunctional parents, one

might expect their families to make decisions more rapidly;

they did not. In light of the significant differentiations

between normal and abnormal families using decision time

and positive choice fulfillment by Ferreira and Winter

(1965, 1968a), it is time to challenge the definition of

a dysfunctional family.

Implications for Future Research

Because of the relatively wide variation among

functional and dysfunctional families on all of the

variables, there was some reason to believe that the

groups, as defined, were not homogeneous. In spite of

the family interaction theorists' and researchers'

apparent distaste for the traditional psychiatric nomen­

clature, future research should concentrate on specific

family groups such as schizophrenogenic or alcoholic.

The normal family, or even the normal individual, has

99

always been difficult to define. However, it appeared

that the absence of contact with community mental health

or legal professionals was much too broad a category.

In view of the fact that previous studies had been

able to discriminate between functional and dysfunctional

family triads utilizing some of the same dependent vari­

ables measured in the present study, it appeared that the

operational definitions of these family types were too

broad. It was possible that the significant results

obtained in other studies was due, in part, to their

inclusion of several broad diagnostic sectors of psychi-

atrically troubled families, especially schizophrenogenic

families, within their samples of dysfunctional families.

The main trust of the experiment was directed

toward assessing the effect of observation in the most

objective manner possible. In retrospect, the experi­

menter wondered whether family interaction research was at

a stage in its development where the utilization of highly

objective measures such as the sequence of speakers could

be used alone without the other parameters of communication

such as the content of messages, the body language of the

speakers or their tone of voice. Indeed, differences

between family groups became apparent only after, for

example, total simultaneous communications were broken

down into the interactions of dyads. In sum, the global

100

objective measures appeared insensitive to differences

between families.

It appeared that family interaction was not affected

by observation. Some individuals reported uneasiness due

to observation, but the majority did not. The inter­

personal interaction styles of those individuals who report

some uneasiness during observation should be explored

further. A useful extension of the present study would be

to dichotomize families according to their subjective

reaction to observation and then examine their family

interaction by means of more elaborate behavior coding

systems such as those used by Mishler and Waxier (1963) .

One of the thoughts about observation was that its

effects tend to diminish over time (Harris, 1970). It

was possible that families felt observed during both

phases of the experiment. Another useful extension of

the present study would be to assess the effects of obser­

vation over various temporal intervals.

Further research needs to be done regarding the

nature of the marital relationship in abnormal families

and its influence on the child.

Finally, Haley's (1972a) comment about family

interaction research in general appears to apply to the

present study: " . . . the evidence for a difference

between the normal family and a family containing a patient

is no more than indicative /p. 30/."

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The present study represented an examination of

the effect of observation on family triads while they

performed an interactional task designed for use in

assessing family groups.

Twelve functional (or normal) families and 12

dysfunctional families (the father was a psychiatric

patient) participated in the study. Families completed

a cjuestionnaire as individuals and again as a family

group. When gathered together as a unit, families served

as their own control in a counterbalanced design by filling

out one-half of the questionnaire while observed and the

other half while unobserved. During both phases of obser­

vation, the individuals wore throat microphones which

(as they were told) m.erely recorded who was talking, not

what was being said. Simultaneous communication and the

sequence of who spoke first and who spoke second during

the stream of conversation were electronically recorded

and displayed by an event recorder.

The speech sequences, the amount of simultaneous

communication, and the time recjuired to complete each

half of the cjuestionnaire comprised the dependent variables

directly related to the research hypotheses. Two

101

102

questionnaire-related variables, spontaneous agreement,

and positive choice fulfillment, were analyzed post hoc.

The results of the study indicated no significant

performance differences within family groups as a result

of observation. The variables, except for spontaneous

agreement, were also unable to discriminate between

families which were appropriately designated as functional

or dysfunctional according to accepted clinical definitions

of those terms. Functional families attained significantly

higher (p <'0.05) spontaneous agreement scores than

dysfunctional families.

Functional mothers and children engaged in more

simultaneous communication (p<0.05) than their dysfunc­

tional counterparts. Dysfunctional children had as much

influence as their parents with regard to the outcome of

family decision-making (i.e., positive choice fulfillment).

However, functional mothers were significantly more

influential (p<0.05) than their children or dysfunctional

family children.

There were some marginally significant trends

(p<0.1) within the data. These trends suggested that

functional parents were more child-centered, whereas

dysfunctional parents were more parent-oriented during the

family decision-making process. The increase in inter­

personal activity of dysfunctional family parents seemed

to occur at the expense of attention to their child.

103

Preliminary evidence based on careful visual observation

suggested that dysfunctional parents prompted the child

to rule on issues about which they could not agree.

In a sense, the child may have acted as a buffer between

the parents. On the other hand, functional parents gave

relatively more attention to their child. However, in

the final analysis, the functional child did not have as

much influence as the functional mother.

Conclusions

Based on the research hypotheses and several post

hoc analyses of the data, the following conclusions were

drawn from the study:

1. Observation did not have an effect on family

interaction.

2. Whereas the functional child received more

parental attention than his dysfunctional counterpart, he

was not as influential on the outcome of the family

decision-making process.

3. The variables called decision time and positive

choice fulfillment were not cross-validated with Ferreira

and Winter's (1965) research. However, the present study

differed in that all of the identified patients in the

dysfunctional family sample were the fathers.

104

4. Due to the small sample size, the results of

the present study should be considered tentative and

subject to replication.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, N. W. The psvchodvnamics of family life: diacrnosis and treatment of family relationships. New York: Basic Books, 1958.

Ackerman, N. W. Family psychotherapy and psychoanalysis: the implications of difference. Family Process, 1962, 1, 30-43.

American Psychological Association. Ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 1963, 18, 56-60.

American Psychological Association. Casebook on ethical standards of psychologists. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1967.

Attneave, F. Applications of information theory to psychology: a summary of basic concepts, methods, and results. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1959.

Bailey, K. T., & Sowder, W. T., Jr. Audiotape and video­tape self-confrontation in psychotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74., 127-137.

Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. H. Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1956, 1., 251-264.

Bauman, G., & Roman, M. Interaction testing in the study of marital dominance. Family Process, 1966, 5, 230-242.

Beels, C. C , & Ferker, A. Family therapy: a view. Family Process, 1969, 8, 280-318.

Bellak, L., & Smith, M. B. An experimental exploration of the psychoanalytic process. Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 1956, 5, 385-414.

von Bertalanffy, L. General system theory. New York: George Braziller, 1968.

Bing, E. The conjoint family drawing. Family Process, 1970, 9, 173-194.

105

106

Bloom, v., & Dobie, S. I. The effect of observers on the process of group psychotherapy. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 1969, 1^, 79-87.

Bodin, A. M. Conjoint family assessment: an evolving field. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1968.

Burchard, W. W. A study of attitudes toward the use of concealed devices in social science research. Social Forces. 1957, 3i6, 111-116.

Coe, W. C , Curry, A. E., & Kessler, D. R. Family inter­actions of psychiatric inpatients. Family Process, 1969, 8, 119-130.

Covner, B. J. Studies in phonographic recordings of verbal material: I. The use of phonographic recordings in counseling practice and research. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1942, 6, 105-113. (a)

Covner, B. J. Studies in phonographic recordings of verbal material: II. A device for transcribing phono­graphic recordings of verbal material. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1942, 6, 149-153. (b)

Covner, B. J. Studies in phonographic recordings of verbal material: III. The completeness and accuracy of counseling interview reports. Journal of General Psychology, 1944, 30, 181-203. (a)

Covner, B. J. Studies in phonographic recordings of verbal material: IV. Written reports of interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1944, 28, 89-98. (b")

Curran, C. A. An analysis of a process of therapy through counseling and its implications for a philosophy of personality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1944.

David, A. C. Using audiotape as an adjunct to family therapy: three case reports. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 1970, 7. 28-32.

Deutsch, M. An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group processes. Human Relations, 1949, 2, 199-231.

107

Farina, A., & Dunham, R. M. Measurement of family rela­tionships and their effects. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963, 9, 64-73.

Feinsilver, D. Communication in families of schizophrenic patients: describing common objects as a test of communication between family members. Archives of General Psychiatry. 1970, 22, 143-148.

Ferreira, A. J. Decision-making in normal and pathologic families. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1963, 8, 68-73. "~

Ferreira, A. J. Personal communication, 1971.

Ferreira, A. J., & Winter, W. D. Family interaction and decision-making. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1965, 12, 214-223.

Ferreira, A. J., & winter, W. D. Stability of inter­actional variables in family decision-making. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1966, 1±, 354-355.

Ferreira, A. J., & Winter, W. D. Decision-making in normal and abnormal two-child families. Family Process, 1968, 7, 17-37. (a)

Ferreira, A. J., & Winter, W. D. Information exchange and silence in normal and abnormal families. Family Process, 1968, 7, 251-276. (b)

Ferreira, A. J., Winter, W. D., & Poindexter, E. J. Some interactional variables in normal and abnormal families. Family Process, 1966, 5, 60-75.

Fontana, A. F. Familial etiology of schizophrenia: is a scientific methodology possible. Psychological Bulletin, 1966, 66, 214-227.

Frank, G. The role of the family in the development of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin, 1965, 64, 191-205.

Freed, H. On various uses of the recorded interview in psychotherapy. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1948, 22, 685-695.

Freud, S. Standard edition of the complete psychological works. Vol. 15. Introductory lectures on psycho­analysis. London: Hogarth, 1963.

108

Friedman, C. J., & Friedman, A. S. Characteristics of schizogenic families during a joint story-telling task. Family Process. 1970, 9, 333-353.

Gassner, S., & Murray, E. J. Dominance and conflict in the interactions between parents of normal and neurotic children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 33-41.

Geertsma, R. H., & Reivich, R. S. Repetitive self-observation by videotape playback. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1965, 141, 29-41.

Goodrich, D. W., & Boomer, D. S. Experimental assessment of mcxies of conflict resolution. Family Process, 1963, 2, 15-24.

Gump, p. V. A statistical investigation of one psycho­analytic approach and a comparison of it with non-directive therapy. Unpublished master's thesis, Ohio State University, 1944.

Gussow, Z. The observer-observed relationship as informa­tion about structure in small group research. Psychiatry, 1964, 27/ 230-247.

Haley, J. The family of the schizophrenic: a model system. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1959, 129, 357-374. (a)

Haley, J. An interactional description of schizophrenia. Psychiatry, 1959, 22, 321-332. (b)

Haley, J. Observation of the family of the schizophrenic. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1960, 30, 460-467.

Haley, J. Whither family therapy. Family Process, 1962, 1, 69-100.

Haley, J. Research on family patterns: an instrument measurement. Family Process, 1964, 3, 41-65.

Haley, J. Experiment with abnormal families: testing done in a restricted communication setting. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1969, 17, 53-63. (a)

Haley, J. Speech sequences of normal and abnormal families with two children present. Family Process, 1967, 6, 81-97. (b)

109

Haley, J. Critical overview of present status of family interaction research, in J. L. Framo (Ed.), Family Interaction. New York: Springer, 1972. Pp. 13-49. (a)

Haley, J. Personal Communication, 1972. (b)

Haley, J., & Hoffman, L. Technigues of family therapy. New York: Basic Books, 1967.

Handel, G. Psychological study of whole families. Psychological Bulletin. 1964, 63, 19-41.

Harris, A. M. Observer effect on family interaction. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Oregon) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1970. No. 70-15, 342.

Hurvitz, N. Marital problems following psychotherapy with one spouse. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1967, 31., 38-47.

Jackson, D. D. The question of family homeostasis. Psychiatric Quarterly, 1957, 3jL, 79-90.

Jackson, D. D. Family interaction, family homeostasis and some implications for conjoint family therapy. In J. H. Masserman (Ed.), Individual and family dynamics. New York: Grune and Stratton,. 1959. Pp. 122-144.

Jackson, D. D. Family rules: the marital quid pro cjuo. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1965, 1^, 589-594. (a)

Jackson, D. D. The study of the family. Family Process, 1965, 4, 1-20. (b)

Jackson, D. D. The individual and the larger contexts. Family Process, 1967, 6, 139-147.

Jackson, D. D., & Weakland, J. H. Conjoint family therapy: some considerations on theory, technique, and results. Psychiatry, 1961, 24 (Suppl. to No. 2), 30-45.

Kadushin, P., Cutler, C , Waxenberg, S., & Sager, C. The family story technique and intrafamily analysis Journal of Projective Technigues and Personality Assessment, 1969, 33, 438-450.

110

Kirk, R. E. Experimental design; procedures for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, Calif.: Brooks/ Cole, 1968.

Laing, R. D. Knots. New York: Pantheon Books, 1970.

Lamb, R., & Mahl, G. Manifest reactions of patients and interviewers to the use of sound recording in a psychiatric interview. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1956, 112., 731-737.

Leighton, L. A., Stollak, G. E., & Ferguson, L. R. Patterns of communication in normal and clinic families. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1971, 36, 252-256.

Lennard, H. L., Beaulieu, M. R., & Embrey, N. G. Interaction in families with a schizophrenic child. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1965, 12, 166-183.

Loveland, N. T., Wynne, L. C , & Singer, M. T. The family Rorschach: a new method for studying family interaction. Family Process, 1963, 2_, 187-215.

Masling, J., & Stern, G. Effect of the observer in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 60, 351-354.

Mischel, W. Personality and assessment. New York: John Wiley, 1968.

Mishler, E. G., & Waxier, N. E. Family interaction processes and schizophrenia: a review of current theories. The Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 1965, ]J , 269-315.

Mishler, E. G., & Waxier, N. E. Interaction in families. New York: John Wiley, 1968.

Moos, R. H. Behavioral effects of being observed: reactions to a wireless radio transmitter. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1968, 22/ 383-388.

Murrell, S. A. Family interaction variables and adjustment of nonclinic boys. Child Development, 1971, 42, 1485-1494.

ill

Murrell, S. A., & Stachowiak, j. G. Consistency, rigidity, and power in the interaction patterns of clinic and nonclinic families. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1967, 12,, 265-272.

O'Connor, W. A., & Stachowiak, J. Patterns of interaction in families of low adjusted, high adjusted, and mentally retarded members. Family Process, 1971, 10, 229-241.

Olson, D. H. Marital and family therapy: integrative review and critique. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1970, 3^, 501-538.

Patterson, G. R., & Harris, A. Some methodological considerations for observation procedures. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, 1968.

Poon, L., Winter, W. D., & Ferreira, A. J. An analysis of communication time among normal and abnormal families in a problem-solving situation. Unpublished manuscript, California State University at San Jose, 1971.

Porter, E. H., Jr. The development and evaluation of a measure of counseling interview procedure. Psychological Bulletin, 1941, 3^, 524-525.

Porter, E. H., Jr. The development and evaluation of a measure of counseling interview procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1942, 1, 105-126. (a)

Porter, E. H., Jr. The development and evaluation of a measure of counseling interview procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1942, i, 215-238. (b)

Purcell, K., & Brady, K. Adaptation to the invasion of privacy: monitoring behavior with a miniature radio transmitter. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1966, 11, 242-254.

Rabkin, L. Y. The patient's family: research methods. Family Process, 1965, 4, 105-132.

Raush, H. R. Interaction sequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2' 487-499.

112

Redlich, F. C , Dollard, j., & Newman, R. High fidelity recording of psychotherapeutic interviews. American Journal of P. ynhi at-ry 1950, 107, 42-48.

Reid, J. B. Reliability assessment of observation data: a possible methodological problem, child Development. 1970, £1, 1143-1150.

Reivich, R. S., & Geertsma, R. H. Observational media and psychotherapy training. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 1969, 1£8, 310-327.

Riskin, J., & Faunce, E. E. Family interaction scales. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1970, 2g, 504-537.

Riskin, J., & Faunce, E. E. An evaluative review of family interaction research. Final Report, July, 1972, Mental Research Institute, Contract Nonr NIH-71-325, National Institute of Mental Health.

Roberts, R. R., Jr., & Renzaglia, G. A. The influence of tape recording on counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 1_2, 10-16.

Rogers, C. R. Counseling and psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942. (a)

Rogers, C. R. Electronically recorded interviews in improving psychotherapeutic technicjues. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1942, 12 , 429-435. (b)

Rogers, C. R. Counseling. Review of Educational Research, 1945, 15, 155-163.

Roose, L. J. The influence of psychosomatic research on the psychoanalytic process. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 1960, 8, 317-334.

Rosner, A. A. Psychiatric voice recordings in the military service; a recorded program. War Medicine, 1944, 6, 38-41.

Sager, C , Grundrach, R., Kramer, M,, Lanz, R., & Royce, J. The married in treatment, effects of psycho­analysis on the marital state. Archives of General Psychiatry, 1968, 19, 205-217.

Satir, V. Con joint family therapy. (Rev. ed.) Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1967. (a)

113

Satir, V. Family systems and approaches to family therapy. Journal of Fort Logan Mental Health Center, 1967, 4, 81-93. (b)

Sauer, R. E., & Marcuse, F. L. Overt and covert recording. Journal of Projective Technicrues, 1957, 21, 391-395. —

Siegal, S. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956.

Snow, L. H., St Rickels, K. Use of direct observation in the teaching and learning of psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1965, 19, 487-491.

Sorrells, J. M., & Ford, F. R. Toward an integrated theory of families and family therapy. Psycho­therapy; Theory, Research and Practice, 1969, 6, 150-160.

Strodtbeck, F. L. Husband-wife interaction over revealed differences. American Sociological Review, 1951, 16, 468-473.

Strodtbeck, F. L. The family as a three person group. American Sociological Reviev;, 1954, 1£, 23-29.

Strodtbeck, F. L. Techniques for simulating family interaction in the laboratory and methodological problems of conducting experiments with families. In J. L. Frcimo (Ed.), Family Interaction. New York: Springer, 1972. Pp. 201-215.

Symonds, P. M. Research on the interviewing process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1939, 30, 346-353.

Tyler, L. E. Comment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1965, 11, 16.

Van Atta, R. E. Excitatory and inhibitory effect of various methods of observation in counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1969, 16, 433-439.

Watson, P. D., & Kanter, S. S. Some influences of an experimental situation on the psychotherapeutic process. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1956, 18, 457-470.

114

watzlawick, P. An anthology of human coimunication. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books, 1964.

watzlawick, p. A structured family interview. Family Process, 1966, 5, 256-271.

watzlawick. P., Beavin, j., & Jackson, D. D. Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton, 1967.

watzlawick. P., Beavin, J., Sikorski, L., & Mecia, B. Protection and scapegoating in pathological families. Family Process, 1970, 9, 27-39.

Waxier, N. E., & Mishler, E. G. Sequential patterning of family interaction: a methodological note. Family Process, 1970, 9, 211-220.

Weakland, J. H. Family therapy as a research arena. Family Process, 1962, 1, 63-68.

Werner, M., Stabenau, J., & Polin, W. TAT method for the differentiation of families of schizophrenics, delinquents, and normals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1970, 21, 139-145.

Will, O. A., St Cohen, R. A. A report of a recorded interview in the course of psychotherapy. Psychiatry, 1953, 16, 263-282.

Willi, J. Joint Rorschach testing of partner relationships. Family Process, 1969, 8, 64-78.

Winter, W. D., & Ferreira, A. J. Talking time as an index of intrafamilial similarity in normal and abnormal families. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 574-575.

Winter, W. D., Ferreira, A. J., & Olson, J. L. Story sequence analysis of family TATs. Journal of Projective Technigues and Personality Assessment, 1965, 19, 392-397.

Winter, W. D., Ferreira, A. J., & Olson, J. L. Hostility themes in the family TAT. Journal of Projective Technigues and Personality Assessment, 1965, 30, 270-274.

APPENDIX

A. Family Fact Sheet

B. Consent Form

C. Instructions to Families

D. Unrevealed Differences Task Questionnaire

E. Debriefing Questionnaire

115

APPHiDIX A: FAMILY FACT SHEET 116

Name of Fciinily

HoT.e Address:

Home Phone:

Office Phone:

Occupation: KUsband;_

Wife:

Highest crac'ij corpletcd and coll€>ge decrees:

Kusband

Wife

Date and year rarriod to present spouse

FAMILY Tf-CT SHEKT

Date of birth of first child of present ir.cirriage

First Name Age Sex

FAMILY MLXUERS: Husband

Wife

Children

Are thore people besides your children living with you?

YES NO

Have you ever been married before?

Husband: Yes Wife: Yes

No No

List briefly any previous counseling or psychiatric treatment (as family, couple or for ar.y ir.dLvidaal family member)

DO :0T WRITE BELOW TfllS LINE

Referred by: V7ard: Phono:

Children (age, sex, vhere living) Previous Marriages

Kusband: (1) Tro?n To D or W

(2) Frcrr. To

Wife: (1) Fro'P_j To

(2) From To

Hospitalizations for psychiatric reasons Person r.D::pit:ali7,ci: :._ :i C Hospital (list v.-<ird if VA-A) Dates Diagnosis Type of Discharge

1

1 D

> D

1 D

or W

or w

or VI

Date and time of sc:iedi-ilcd i r.tcrvicv,'3:

Other pertinent infoii?.3tio-i:

117

APPENDIX B: CONSENT FORM

Family Study Unit Veterans Administration Hospital

Palo Alto, California

THE UNDERSIGNED hereby voluntarily consent and permit personnel of the Family-Study Unit, Veterans Administration Hospital, and its authorized agents to observe, record, and reproduce some or all of the sessions in which we and the minor children whose names are listed herein, will partici­pate and be involved. We are informed that the recordings may consist of audio tape^ video tape u- oi -other-inean -of-iFeeofdiiig -"these sesaionax and that they may be reproduced for training or research papers. We further understand that any of us may be requested from time to time to complete various standardized test questionnaires. We hereby consent to such testing.

We further consent to the use by the personnel of the Family^^Study-ltoit,—Veterans Administration Hospital, its successors, assigns, and duly authorized agents, of the observations, recordings, and reproductions of the sessions in which we participate, and the psychological tests given to us, for the purposes of research, teaching, clinical reporting and investigation, professional investigation, publication in books or journals or any other use associated with professional activities.

We give the foregoing consent upon the assurance that the Family Study Unit, Veterans Administration Hospital, its personnel, agents, successors and assigns will use reasonable means to delete any references which will in any way identify the participants, but we acknowledge that it is impossible to assure us completely that anonymity can always be maintained. We release Veterans Administration Hospital, its personnel, agents, successors, or assigns from all liability and claim whatsoever with respect to any use of the sessions in which we participate and the psycho­logical tests taken by us.

Dated at Palo Alto, California, this day of , 19

WITNESS

MINOR CHILDREN;

118

APPENDIX C: INSTRUCTIONS TO FAMILIES

SAY: "In order that everyone who participates in this

study receives the same instructions, I am going to read

them to you rather than tell them to you.

"Before we begin, I would like to thank you for

volunteering to take part in this project. This project

is aimed at understanding how families make decisions. The

findings will be placed in a statistical report so that you

can be sure no family or individual family member's views

can be identified. Also, you should know that the results

of your participation here today will not, under any

circumstances, be transmitted to your physician or become

a part of the hospital records. What we do here today will

have no influence on your treatment in the hospital.

"Our work together will be divided into three parts.

I will thoroughly explain each phase before you begin it,

and answer any questions."

GIVE BOOKLET

SAY: "Each of you has a booklet containing a number of

imaginary situations. Please read the instructions on the

cover to yourself while I read them aloud."

READ ALOUD: "Instructions."

SAY: "Do you have any questions about the instructions?

"Remember—make believe the situations are real and

actually happening. Before you begin I would like you to

119

know that there are no right or wrong, good or bad, normal

or abnormal answers to these questions. Simply mark the

choices which represent your own wishes. The choices you

make will be confidential.

"Please turn the page and we will do the sample

question together."

DO SAMPLE QUESTION

"There is no time limit for filling out this question­

naire, but you should try to work as quickly as you can

and answer every question. When you are finished, bring

the booklet back to me at the nursing station.

"Do you have any questions?

"I will show each of you to a separate room where you

can work without being disturbed."

Entry into video room

SAY: "First, I would like each of you to put on a throat

microphone and adjust it so that it is comfortable to

wear."

PUT ON THROAT MIKES

SAY: "Now I would like to tell you about this room. There

are tw o TV cameras which are permanently installed in the

room. However, their lenses are covered and we will not

be using them. The opposite wall has a one-way mirror.

The mirror allows a staff member to observe anyone in this

room. The drapes on each side of the mirror allow us to

cover it so that even if someone was in the next room, he

120

could not see into this room. Similarly, the wall on

which the one-way mirror is located has been soundproofed.

Even if one of you shouted, it would be very difficult for

anyone in the next room to hear what was being said unless

the microphones on the table in front of you were plugged

into the wall. (SHOW) The table microphones can be hooked

up to a tape recorder and speakers which are located in

the next room. The throat microphones are connected to

an electronic counter in the next room which merely records

who is talking, not what is being said.

"Do you have any questions at this point?"

SAY: "'You have all filled out the same form, and your

individual answers are, as I said, confidential. Now I

am going to ask you to fill out the same form, once again,

but in a rather different way. For now there will be only

one form and therefore only one decision for all three of

you. In other words your decision now will be a family

decision inasmuch as it will affect all three of you. . . .

Now, as you go together through these described situations

and consider your decisions you may find that sometimes you

agree with each other and that other times you do not. The

way you are going to solve the disagreements you may find

is a task I leave up to you, for it does not matter to me.

However, it is important that you will make a decision

about every situation . . . " just as you did before."

•'-Ferreira (1963) , pp. 70-71; italics his.

121

DEPENDING OJ THE CONDITION, USE "Observed" or "Unobserved"

SECTION NEXT.

Observed

SAY: "For this part I am going to plug in the table

microphones and open the curtains covering the one-way

mirror. Your conversation will be recorded on a tape

recorder by way of the table microphones. In a minute I

will introduce you to one of the staff. This person will

be observing you from behind the one-way mirror and making

comments about what he sees and hears on the tape with a

separate microphone. Tell us when you have finished the

booklet."

INTRODUCE STAFF PERSON

"Do you have any questions?"

PLACE QUESTIONNAIRE MID ONE PENCIL ON CENTER OF TABLE.

"You may begin as soon as I close the door."

Unobserved

SAY: "For this part I am going to unplug the table

microphones and close the curtains covering the one-way

mirror. I will be waiting in the next room. However, as

you know, I cannot hear your conversation. Therefore, it

is important for one of you to let me know as soon as you

finish the booklet by Icnocking on the one-way mirror.

"Do you have any questions?"

PLACE QUESTIONNAIRE AND ONE PEl CIL ON CENTER OF TABLE

"You may begin as soon as I close the door."

122

APPENDIX D: UNREVEALED DIFFERENCES TASK QUESTIONNAIRE

INSTRUCTIONS

In this booklet a number of situations are described.

For each situation you have 10 possible choices. Now -

(1) Make believe the situation is real and actually

happening.

(2) Of the available choices, cross off the three that

you would not want or that you want the least.

Draw a line through these three choices to cross

them off.

(3) Then mark the three choices you would want the

roost. Write the number "1" next to the choice

you want the very most.

Then write a "2" next to your second choice, and

a "3" next to your third choice.

(4) Check your sheet to make sure you have lines

drawn through the three choices you do not want,

and your three favorite choices are marked

"1", "2", and "3".

(5) Go on to the next situation until you have

finished them all.

123

THE SITUATION:

You are going to a movie this weekend. Below are the

films you might be seeing.

(1) Cross out those three movies you would not be interested

in seeing.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three movies

you would most like to see, with "1" being your

favorite, "2" your second choice, and "3" your third

choice.

a. A western with John Wayne

b. An adventure story with Ann Margaret

c. A comedy with Jack Lemmon

d. A love story with Rock Hudson

e. A western with Jane Fonda

f. A comedy with Goldie Hawn

g. A love story with Raquel Welch

h. An adventure story with Steve McQueen

i. A drama with Vanessa Redgrave

j. A drama with Paul Ne\vnnan

(Sample Question)

124

THE SITUATION:

You are going to choose the color of your next car.

Below is a list of choices you might have.

(1) Cross out the three color combinations you do not like,

or like the least.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three color

combinations you would most like to have on your car,

with "1" being your favorite, "2" your second choice,

and "3" your third choice.

a. Maroon and white

b. Black and gold

c. White and blue

d. Blue and cream

e. Red and white

f. Yellow and black

g. Blue and gray

h. Green and cream

i. Red and black

j. Black and gray

125

THE SITUATION:

You are going to subscribe to a magazine. Below are

the magazines to which you might subscribe.

(1) Cross out the three you would want the least to

subscribe to or don't want at all.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three

magazines you would most like to subscribe to, with

"1" being your favorite, "2" your second choice, and

"3" your third choice.

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

q-

h.

i.

j.

vogue

Sports Illustrated

Hot Rod

Seventeen

Field and Stream

Playboy

Time

Ladies Home Journal

True Detective

True Confessions

126

THE SITUATION:

Tomorrow night you are having supper out. Belov; are

the foods you might find on the menu.

(1) Cross out the three foods you would not like to eat,

or want to eat the least.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three foods

you would most like to eat, with "1" being your

favorite, "2" your second choice, and "3" your

third choice.

a. Meat loaf

b. Spaghetti and meatballs

c. Beef stew

d. Pork chops

e. Fried Oysters

f. Ham

g. Macaroni and cheese

h. Fried shrimp

i. Fillet of salmon

j. Cheeseburgers

127

THE SITUATION;

Suppose you are going to spend a month's vacation on

the East Coast and have to state in advance how you

are going to spend your last evening in New York City,

Below is a list of things you might do.

(1) Cross out the three you would not like to do or would

like the least to do.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three ways

you would most like to spend the evening, with "1"

being your favorite, "2" your second choice, and

"3" your third choice.

WOULD YOU PREFER GOING:

a. to the Circus

b. to a Museum of Modern Art

c. to a military parade

d. for a stroll on the streets

e. to the Ballet

f. to visit Grant's Tomb and other monuments

g. to a typical night-club

h. to visit an industrial exhibit

i. to tour the Statue of Liberty

j. staying in the hotel resting for the trip ahead,

packing, etc.

128

THE SITUATION:

You are going to make a $100 donation of your own

money to a fund. Below is a list of the choices

you might have.

(1) Cross out the three funds you would not like to give

money to, or would least prefer to give money to.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three funds

you would most like to give money to, with "1" being

your favorite, "2" your second choice, and "3" your

third choice.

a. Polio

b . Veterans of Foreign Wars

c . Your Church

d. Crippled Children

e. Mental Health

f. NAACP (National Association for the Advancement

of Colored People)

g. Aid to the Blind

h. UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund)

i. TB (Tuberculosis)

j. Orphaned Children

129

THE SITUATION;

If you were to join a club or group, which of the

following would you prefer to join?

(1) Cross out the three clubs you would not want to loin

or would want to join the least.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three clubs

you would most like to join with "1" being your

favorite, "2" your second choice, and "3" your third

choice.

a. Californians for Political Progress

b. Friends of Good Music

c. Food St Wine Gourmet Society

d. Family Pets Club

e. All-Religions Church

f. Sun St Fun Club

g. Bridge & Poker Club

h. Stage and Screen Guild

i. Good Books, Inc.

i. Social Sciences Club

130

THE SITUATION;

You are going to a championship sports event this

weekend. Below is a list of the sports you might see,

(1) Cross out the three you would want the least to see,

^^ don't want to see at all-

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three sports

events you would most like to see, with "1" being

your favorite, "2" your second choice, and "3" your

third choice.

a. Baseball

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

g.

h.

i.

i .

Boxing

Ice Hockey

Horse racin

Bowling

Skiing

Auto racing

Basketball

Wrestling

Football

131

THE SITUATION:

You are going to be assigned a book to read. Below

is a list of fiction books about to be published.

(1) Cross out the three books you would not want to read

or would least prefer to read.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three books

you would most like to read, with "1" being your

favorite, "2" your second choice, and "3" your third

choice.

a. Murder on Dover Street

b. The Perfect Marriage?

c. The Short Happy Life of Pierpont Pumpernickel

d. The Miracle at Bethlehem

e. Fast Gun West

f. Black, White, and Gray

g. The Whitehurst Family Saga

h. Inez, My Love

i. Taming the Wild Country

i. African Tales

132

THE SITUATION:

If you had to move to another city which would you

prefer?

(1) Cross out the three cities you would not want to move

to at all, or would least prefer to move to.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three cities

you would most like to move to, with "1" being your

favorite, "2" your second choice, and "3" your third

choice.

a. New York

b. Chicago

c. Honolulu

d. New Orleans

e. Miami

f. Boston

g. Phoenix

h. Detroit

i. Seattle

i. Houston

133

THE SITUATION:

Which of the following new TV series would you prefer

to watch tonight?

(1) Cross out the three programs you would not want to

watch or would least prefer to watch.

(2) Then mark with numbers "1", "2", "3" the three

programs you would most like to watch, with "1"

being your favorite, "2" your second choice, and

"3" your third choice.

a. ^ Commentary on the News (news)

b. Sports Hi-lights (sports)

c. The Neighbors (situation comedy)

d. Orchestras of the World (music)

e. The Great Men (biographies)

f. The Vampires of Outer Space (thrilling fantasy)

g. Our Changing World (science)

h. Murder & Co. (crime stories)

i. Comedy Hour (Musical variety)

j. Bedtime Stories (love stories)

134

PLEASE

GO BACK NOW TO THE BEGINNING

AND QUICKLY CHECK EVERY PAGE

MAKING SURE THAT FOR EVERY "SITUATION"

YOU HAVE MARKED

THREE MOST LIKED CHOICES

(1, 2, and 3)

AND CROSSED OFF

THREE LEAST LIKED ONES

Thank you.

135

APPENDIX E: DEBRIEFING QUESTIONNAIRE

DEBRIEFING QUESTIONS

1. Was the way your family acted here today similar to the way they usually act at home? (Explain)

2. Was the way your family acted here today different than the way they usually act at home? (Explain)

3. When you were gathered together as a family there were two parts to the session. Did either of the parts produce any difference in the way you acted?

a. (if comment "uptight," etc.) Did this remain so throughout the session?

4. Was there anything pleasant or amusing about th« experience?

5. Was there anything unpleasant about the experience?

6. What do you think we were trying to do here today? (Probe)

136

"^ fl^^^^ u^^^ you were trying to do the same kind of thing. How would you conduct it? Same? Different?

8. What things have you learned here today about yourself or your fami 1 v? ^ JT or your family?

9. Any questions or comments?