Fam Proc 21:313-320, 1982

Transactional Theories but Individual Assessment: A FrequentDiscrepancy in Family Research

LAWRENCE FISHER, PH.D.a

aChief, Psychology Service, Veterans Administration Medical Center, 2615 East Clinton Avenue, Fresno, California, 93703, andAssociate Professor of Psychiatry (Psychology), University of California, San Francisco, Fresno-Central San Joaquin Medical EducationProgram.

Spiegel's (20) distinction between studies of relations and studies of transactions are reviewed and applied to thetendency of current research to assess transactional theory using methods that are focused on individual elements.Several of the complexities of transactional research are reviewed with a call for the utilization of methods that are morecommensurate with the level of theory under test.

In recent years I have personally experienced an increasing discontent with attempts at assessing family functioning in anumber of research and clinical enterprises. At the risk of being overly simplistic, it appears that on the one hand familiesseem considerably more complex and subtle than are reflected in present methods of assessment, whereas on the other handdiving into the complexity often yields a mass of variables from which little meaningful structure can be derived. In someways one is caught between the Scylla of exclusionary reductionism and the Charybdis of overwhelming complexity.

The problem was even more disturbing when an opportunity became available to design a large-scale study of referredand nonreferred families with a potential for longitudinal follow up. The question of how to assess families then becamemore a pragmatic reality than one of simple academic interest. For example, with limited funds and availability of familyassessment time, our research team needed some guidelines on how to decide which variables to select in order tomaximize discriminability among subject groups. We had to choose a strategy of assessment so as to balance thecomplexities and costs of direct methods of observation with the less expensive, but stiff and inflexible, paper-and-pencilscales. In addition, we also had to choose an object of measurement; that is, should we attempt to characterize the family asa unit, or assess individual members? I believe that many family researchers, regardless of area of interest, have foundthemselves in a similar position.

With all of this in mind, I began an updated review of the literature on family assessment and measurement, following anearlier paper (6), to determine what kinds of dimensions, strategies, and ideas had been utilized in the past. I began tosample not only the mental health literature but also writings in sociology and anthropology. (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12,16, 17, 18). In this endeavor, several glaringly repetitive problems emerged that I found to be the neon signposts I requiredto guide my own thinking in developing a viable family assessment strategy, given the realities of institutionalized research.In the following paragraphs, I will present a contrast between two family research strategies that I culled from the literature,followed by an illustrative series of what I consider to be often neglected methodological problems that in many waysundermine the goals of family research.

Two Family Research StrategiesThere are several ways of looking at families or interpersonal systems, depending upon the aims of the observer. As will

become evident below, it is strikingly apparent that a substantial number of studies assess families through familymembership. That is, when one gets down to the nitty-gritty of technique, most researchers designate the person, who alsohappens to be a family member, as the object of study and not the family as a unit.

In support of this tendency to have the individual represent the family, I refer to a recent article by Hodgson and Lewis(7), in which a compilation of all studies published in three well-known family journals between 1969 and 1976 isreported: Family Process, Family Coordinator, and Journal of Marriage and the Family. Their tabulation indicated thatthe family was the object of analysis in only 7 per cent of the published studies and the marital dyad was the object in only10 per cent. In contrast, the individual was the object of study in 56 per cent of the "family studies" reviewed. Given thesedata, one must ask what implications they have for the further development of both family theory and assessment. It will behelpful in reviewing these implications if we use Spiegel's (20) definitions of approaches to "action," for it will point upwhat can be seen as a frequently neglected contradiction.

Borrowing from Dewey and Bentley (5), Spiegel defines and elucidates three ways of viewing action or behavior. Thefirst is "self-action," in which "things are seen as acting under their own powers." Independent elements operate inindependent action distinct from their counterparts in the real world. A second form of action is termed "inter-action," inwhich "thing is balanced against thing in causal interconnection." Things relate separately, but in doing so they do not losetheir separateness in the relating. They contribute to each other in a reciprocal fashion and maintain that contribution and

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1

separateness at all stages of their interaction. They need not be defined, sanctioned, or identified by the other with whomthey interact. For example, the planets in the solar system are held in place by their mutual interconnection, yet each retainsits individuality and special properties.

The third and most complex of the three forms of viewing action is termed "transaction." The definition, althoughsomewhat difficult to digest at first reading, is worthy of dissection. Spiegel quotes Dewey and Bentley, saying thattransaction exists

where systems of description and naming are employed to deal with aspects and phases of action without attributionto "elements," "essences," or "realities" and without isolation of presumptively detachable "relations" from suchdetachable elements. [20, p. 23]

There are several aspects of this definition worthy of note, given the present context. First, no object or relationship isconsidered fixed; each varies over time. Second, it may be unwise and exhausting to attempt a separation of "elements"from "relations." Since all objects interrelate, each is at some level defined by the other. In this sense, elements are not realoutside of their relational definition. In transactional terms, objects that display action are so interrelated that causes andeffects can be isolated only out of context. Action then becomes a sequence of transactions. In interactional terms, causesand effects are apparent and definable, whereas in transactional terms, such causes and effects are integrally interrelated.

The use of the terms "interaction" and "transaction" in the present context, however, poses some difficulty. It arises fromthe fact that in many recent publications, e.g., the writings of the Palo Alto group, the term "interaction" has been defined ina manner similar to Spiegel's definition of the term "transaction." To avoid any potential confusion between a term that hasone meaning in one context and another meaning in a second context, I shall use the term "relational" as a direct substitutefor Spiegel's term "interaction," thus removing the label from the discussion altogether. In this sense, a study of "relations"implies an investigation of "causal interconnections" between two or more independent and serf-defining objects, asdiscussed above. Henceforth in this discussion, the terms "relational" or "relation" will be used in lieu of the terms"interactional" or "interaction." The term "transaction" will continue to be used as defined above.

Getting back to a further articulation of the differences between these two modes of inquiry, relational versustransactional, let me introduce the notion of the interpersonal dialectic following Nagy (14). A "marriage," in the traditionalsense, may be considered a transactional level term, whereas a "dyad" may be classified as a relational level term. Amarriage includes a husband and a wife, each of which is a meaningless concept without the other. Husbands must havewives to be husbands and likewise for wives. These are transactional objects that depend upon each other for definition.Moreover, how one is a husband or wife varies over time and is never uniform; yet how a husband is a husband dependsupon how a wife is a wife. Their actions are not singular; rather, they are transactional, and as such, wife's and husband'sbehavior are defined by the other in a sequential and cyclical manner such that it often becomes impossible to sort outcauses from effects from causes, except out of context.

In contrast, a "dyad" comprises two individuals who are each connected to the other, but who are at the same time notdependent upon each other for definition. In a dyadic action, which is relational in nature, one member can be replaced byanother without a fundamental change in the definition of the remaining member.

This distinction between relation and transaction is applicable at multiple levels of inquiry. One can describe each of thetwo at varying levels of meaning from molecular to molar, from therapeutic intervention aimed at system change tohigher-order conceptualizations concerning the nature and meaning of the system. Also, the contrast seems applicable indiscussing the actions of system members in a concrete, behavioral sense as well as on a more conceptual level. In each ofthese cases, the type or style of inquiry, i.e., relational or transactional, refers to the perspective of observation and the kindof meaning one wishes to derive from the data. For example, one may view several marbles rolling around on a walled,shifting plane as individual objects in motion. Alternatively, or in addition, one may view the same marbles from theperspective of a relational system, observing the continuing effects of each marble on the others. Last, one again may viewthe same scene as a transactional network, observing the cyclical effects of sequences of hits and rebounds among theobjects. The purpose of each of these observations could be any of the following: (a) studying the laws of motion andaction; (b) planning for intervention to effect a desired change, e.g., to reduce the number of clashes between or amongmarbles; (c) observing the effects of structural alterations of the system, e.g., changing the rate or degree of shift or tilt inthe shifting plane. In each case, at each level of inquiry and purpose, both relational and transactional perspectives arepossible.

A Common Contradiction in Family AssessmentThe contradiction to which I referred earlier is that the vast majority of family research is conceptualized in transactional

terms but assessed with relational methods. We seem to agree on the family as an interpersonal, mutually self-defining,dynamic system. Yet many of us find ourselves using methods that operate at a totally different level of meaning. The

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2

Hodgson and Lewis data referred to earlier is a case in point. We "family researchers" frequently use procedures andmethods that are not commensurate with the questions under study.

To illustrate the point, let me draw upon our own research and a report published several years ago (19). Briefly, in thisproject we adopted the transactional notion that disturbed families are under severe developmental stress owing to aninflexible family structure. Such families distort the world by biasing family perceptions and needs either because of a fearof facing an issue or because of a need to protect a family member or relationship within the family. Such a process oftenleads to the development of psychopathology in one member as a family attempt at resolution of the presenting crisis. Thepathology may include an unwitting collusion among family members to entertain and abide by certain distortions of realityalong with the adoption of a series of protective blinders.

To test this dynamic, transactional view of family pathology, we operationalized the hypothesis by suggesting thatfamilies with an adolescent member hospitalized for psychiatric disorder contained a sufficient amount of familial distortionto be less accurate in their predictions of other family members' skills on a cognitive task than would nonreferred familieswith adolescents matched for age. The dependent variable for this study was each family member's discrepancy betweenpredicted and obtained scores on the experimental task for the two sets of families: a valid and relational level measure. Notsurprisingly, we found no meaningful differences between the referred and nonreferred families on these measures whencertain demographic variables were controlled.

In this example it can be seen that the method of study clearly fits our definition of assessment at a relational level, asindividual family members' scores were utilized outside of family context. The hypothesis under test was specified,however, in transactional terms. One alternative way we might have established a method of analysis more consonant withthe hypothesis under test would have been to establish a "family discrepancy score" or some measure of distortion couchedwithin the framework of a systems measure. For example, we could have compared the adolescent's discrepancy scores infamilies in which there were marked differences in mother-father discrepancy scores. Alternatively, we could havesuggested that the "pace" or extent of family distortion was probably established by the parents so that misperception of theidentified adolescent's skills would occur most markedly in families that had parents with large discrepancy scores. Thesekinds of approaches narrow and refine the experiment and create a more realistic transactional flavor to the methodology.As still another alternative, we could have looked at configurations of discrepancy scores among members of a given familyand related these patterns to demographic, extrafamilial or other kinds of family variables. Again, a different flavor to theresearch would have been created.

In general, family research has been plagued by a paucity of transactional methods. The reasons for this are multiple andwill be addressed in more detail below. Without such new techniques, however, one can use several traditional tools ofrecording but analyze or score the data from a transactional perspective. Discrepancy scores, patterns, or sequences ofinteraction, clusters of behaviors among different family types, and multivariate analyses that take into account the cyclicalbehavior of dyads or triads can all be utilized as transactional methods when appropriately framed. So although we need todevelop new methods that reflect more fully the internal transactional nature of family life, existing methods and techniquescan be employed as long as the unit of recording and the object of analysis reflect transactional level inquiry.

In many ways, the same kind of contradiction between theory and method or technique emerges in clinical work as well.We confront the presenting problem of the patient-family by trying to understand it in transactional terms. We inquire as tothe function it serves in the family system as well as investigate other aspects of the interpersonal network that may play arole in the maintenance of the symptom in the identified patient. Often, however, therapists permit themselves to beseduced by the family into dealing with a crisis in the identified patient in such a way that the transactional implications ofthe identified patient's crisis are lost. This is not to suggest that intervening at an individual level violates the tenets oftransactional theory. On the contrary, Bowen (4) has very effectively demonstrated that individual treatment has profoundtransactional implications. Nor is it suggested that shifting the level and focal unit of treatment violates the principles underdiscussion here. Rather, it is the family's seduction of the therapist from viewing the system at one level to intervening atanother level that leads to disaster. The most frequent problem facing most family therapists in training seems to be thistendency to observe at one level but to act or intervene at another following a seductive ploy by the family.

As a side note, I am not in any way stating that research aimed at relational as opposed to transactional inquiry isinappropriate or should be reduced in intensity or concentration. Rather, I am stating that relational level research andclinical work are productive in their own right, but they need to be distinguished from transactional methodologies. Eachhas its own contribution and each its own pitfalls. But as we read the literature, we must be careful to evaluate criticallywhether indeed the clinical and research data make a contribution to our knowledge of family systems and dynamics or toknowledge of individuals as they function within a given setting. Each, while important, is also different.

Contrasts and Complexities in Relational and Transactional ResearchA number of problems make our tendency to confound transactional theory with relational methods understandable, for

the utilization of transactional level assessment raises a host of strategic, conceptual and logistic problems. Three examples

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

3

that touch upon these issues follow.

Specifying HypothesesThe problems of specifying hypotheses are exacerbated in transactional research because of the necessity of articulating

a theory that by definition does not have independent elements. For example, the definition of a relational hypothesisspecifies the action of independent elements, such as in the equation: A + B + C = X. Within a transactional mode,however, the level of complexity escalates such that the Term A + B + C is no longer a representation of three independentunits but rather is a distinct unit in and of itself, which we shall label D. The new, nonindependent amalgamation ofelements, D, no longer equals or leads to X as specified above, but instead transacts with X on a continuing, dynamic basissuch that the particular relationship between D and X at any given time can be isolated only out of context. This leads to thenecessity of specifying transactional hypotheses as sequences of actions or configurations of behaviors within a specifiedsetting, whereas relational level hypotheses can refer to isolated actions among elements. A transactional hypothesis mightcall for the increased occurrence of certain patterns of family behaviors in certain kinds of families rather than in others, asin the example cited above. Or, alternatively, a transactional hypothesis might call for a given sequence of family behaviorunder certain conditions.

To illustrate this sequential concept, we can use a hypothesis designed to test the notion of scapegoating used by givenfamilies as a technique to manage anxiety. The hypothesis might be that family scapegoating serves the function of reducingfamily anxiety generated by an unresolved or potentially dangerous topic. To test the hypothesis, the researcher would haveto measure "family anxiety" before, during, and after the anxiety was provoked or stimulated in some controlled manner.The operationalized sequence might go something like this: (a) researcher measures base-line "family anxiety"; (b)researcher probes a previously identified "hot topic"; (c) experimental measure indicates an increase in "family anxiety"; (d)negative behavior in scapegoat emerges; (e) family refocuses on negative behavior (f) family anxiety returns to prior state.This sequence of family behavior, then, becomes the object of study rather than the presence or absence of any of theelements within the sequence, as in relational inquiry. Consequently, the patterns of behaviors a family exhibits undercertain controlled conditions can be used to test transactional hypotheses.

Specifying hypotheses about the occurrence of a sequence of behavior within given settings is a complicated business notonly because of problems of measurement and reliability, which escalate here as well, but also because of the difficulty ofidentifying and defining the behavioral sequence to begin with. The scapegoat sequence described above is a relativelysimple chain of family elements. Specifying the more subtle aspects of behavior, behaviors that even experienced cliniciansoften miss, is a time-consuming and delicate process. Not only is the identification of the transacting objects necessary buttheir order in the sequence and their hypothetical reciprocal relatedness must also be outlined. This requires sophisticatedtheory translated into imaginative methodologies. But, as stated above, systems theory, upon which family dynamics isbased, at least in part, is extraordinarily complex, and research methodology of equal sophistication must be developed.

Family MembershipThere are serious difficulties in trying to establish uniform groups of families for comparison purposes in transactional

settings (9). For example, in one pilot study we wanted to gather a group of intact families with an eldest referredadolescent and one other child of no younger than 12 years of age. Although our feeder agencies had large numbers ofreferred adolescent families, we had great difficulty collecting the sample for several reasons. First, the adults in the homewere often not the biological parents of the offspring owing to divorce or separation. Second, the sex of the referredadolescent and sib varied across families. Third, there was considerable variability among the families as to their contactswith mental health professionals in the past. In some cases both parents had sought individual help over the years whereasin other cases the families were seeking assistance for the first time. Often, that reflected the chronicity and severity offamily disturbance. Fourth, the variability of parental age among referred families with similar problems was striking.Parental age in many ways reflects the developmental level of the family, and as such often couches the family's behavior indifferent terms. Mid-30's parents of adolescents clearly face different personal and transactional problems than late 40's orearly 50's parents of adolescents. We estimated that accounting for all of these factors in one study would require over 75subject groups. Yet ignoring them would lead to a high probability of confounding effects.

Disloyalty and ProtectivenessEntire books have been written about this topic (13) and the difficulty in piercing family boundaries to learn more about

the interworkings of family life. Clinical experience as well as theory support the contention that family members are quiteprotective of one another, often deriving some level of gratification for what on the surface appears to be self-injuriousbehavior. For example, young adolescent girls are often unwilling to reveal the presence of incest in the family for manyreasons. First, while frightening and harmful to themselves, at some level there is the realization that the incest is providing

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

4

something positive in the family. It may protect mother and assure her position. It may gratify father and provide him with adegree of pleasure that is ambivalently gratifying to the youngster in the midst of her fear. Second, no matter what theintensity of the psychological pain and anxiety, there is often a cohesion in families that is hard to break. Revealinginformation to outsiders violates family mutuality and is an act of traitorous behavior subject to severe sanctions. Yet manytransactional-level inquiries are often based on the naïve assumption that a single paper-and-pencil test or briefexperimental task focused on the assessment of one dimension of family life will reveal a variety of problems and behaviorsthat will lead to an understanding of the fundamental dynamics of family life.

In addition, pencil-and-paper scales, even those with built-in lie detectors, are frequently subject to the influences ofsocial desirability and the need of the family to save face publicly. Transactional research is particularly vulnerable to suchinfluences and, as many clinicians have noted, families seem to join together to cleverly bias their responses in the directionof positive social norms, especially norms felt to be expected by upper-middle-class academic professionals who mostfrequently operate the research.

It is important to keep in mind, therefore, that quick and easy assessment procedures will generate only superficial dataand this problem is particularly compounded in transactional level research in which the complexity of family functioningunder study is much higher and perhaps, from the family's perspective, more revealing than in relational level research.

ConclusionsOne of the reasons our knowledge of family functioning has been so slow in becoming experimentally validated is that

our assessment tools have not kept pace with the complexity of theory and clinical experience. As mentioned above, single,"quick-and-dirty," paper-and-pencil scales that purport to assess relatively complex dimensions of family functioning mayyield statistically significant correlations with other variables, but their meaningfulness within the context of familyfunctioning is open to question, especially as they apply to transactional research. There are several reasons for this. First,an individual family member's response to a questionnaire or scale is not necessarily representative of how that familyoperates. As we have seen, issues of protectiveness, social desirability, etc., come into play to distort, perhaps bias,self-report data. Second, when seen in isolation, single indexes of family life are artificial and often end up blurring moreuseful data; there is a crying need for meaningful, multidimensional family assessment. Third, indirect reports of whatfamilies do are frequently inaccurate and a poor second to some form of direct observation. Unfortunately, in most cases,methods employing direct observation of family life imply greater expense and more sophisticated and imaginativemethdologies than are presently available.

Although research at a transactional level of inquiry is more complicated and difficult than at relational levels, thebenefits are readily apparent. Validation of systems concepts in the mental health sphere are surely lacking, and studiesgeared to such validation represent exciting challenges. To reach these ends, we shall need to devise new strategies oftransactional research, more sophisticated but not necessarily more elaborate methods, and practical experience in handlingthe logistics of comprehensive, multidimensional family research. This paper calls for concerted movement in suchdirections.

REFERENCES

1. Bateson, G., Naven, Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1955. 2. Bohannan, P. and Middleton (Eds.), Kinship and Social Organization, New York, Natural History Press, 1968. 3. Bott, E., Family and Social Network, London, Tavistock, 1957. 4. Bowen, M., "Toward a Differentiation of a Self from One's Own Family," in J. L. Framo (ed.), Family Interaction:

A Dialogue Between Family Researchers and Family Therapists, New York, Harper & Row, 1972. 5. Dewey, J. and Bentley, A., Knowing and the Known, Boston, Beacon Press, 1949. 6. Fisher, L., "Dimensions of Family Assessment," J. Marr. Fam. Ther., 2, 367-382, 1976. 7. Hodgson, J. W. and Lewis, R. A., "Pilgrim's Progress: III. A Trend Analysis of Family Therapy and Methodology,"

Fam. Proc., 18, 163-173, 1979. 8. Hsu, F. L. (Ed.), Psychological Anthropology, Cambridge, Mass., Schenkman, 1972. 9. Jacobs, T., "Family Interaction in Disturbed and Normal Families: A Methdological and Substantive Review."

Psych. Bull., 82, 33-65, 1975. 10. Kluckhohn, C. and Leighton, D., The Navaho, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1958. 11. Minuchin, S., Families and Family Therapy, Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press, 1974. 12. Murdock, G. P. (Ed.), Social Structure, New York, MacMillian, 1949. 13. Nagy, I. and Spark, G., Invisible Loyalties, New York, Harper & Row, 1973. 14. Nagy, I., "A Theory of Relationships: Experience and Transaction", in I. Nagy and J.L. Framo (eds.), Intensive

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5

Family Therapy, New York, Harper & Row, 1969. 15. Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H. and Russell, C., "Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: I. Cohesion

and Adaptability Dimensions, Family Types and Clinical Applications," Fam. Proc., 18, 3-28, 1979. 16. Opler, M. E., "Themes as Dynamic Forces in Culture," Amer. J. Sociol., 51, 198-206, 1945. 17. Pelto, P. J., Anthropological Research: The Structure of Inquiry, New York, Harper & Row, 1970. 18. Redfield, R., The Little Community, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1955. 19. Shapiro, R. J., Fisher, L. and Gayton, W. F., "Perception of Cognitive Ability in Families of Adolescents," Fam.

Proc., 13, 239-252, 1974. 20. Spiegel, J. and Papajohn, J., Transactions: The Interplay Between Individual, Family and Society, New York,

Science House, 1971.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

6