Communication Theory and The
Family
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D.
(1993). Communication Theory and the
Family. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R.
LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, & S. K.
Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family
theories and methods: A contextual
approach (pp. 565-585). New York:
Plenum Press.
The Academic Discipline of
Communication
 Develop testable hypotheses in order to
understand the production, processing,
and effects of symbol and signal systems.
 It focuses on one category of behavior -communication -- across many levels of
analysis.
 There are various distinctions (e.g., mass
communication versus interpersonal,
applied versus theoretical).
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Mass Communication Research
 Early theoretical interests: propaganda
and persuasion; free expression and
regulation; political participation;
influence of technology.
 Influence on discipline:
 Increased popularity of television.
 Fear about unethical persuasion techniques.
 Research on families compared the
influence of families to the influence of
television.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Interpersonal Communication
Research
 Early research focused on characteristics
of speakers, seeking to understand
variables associated with
persuasiveness.
 Contemporary research examines factors
which influence interpersonal
communication.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Terms
 Definition of Human Communication
 Dimensions of communication:
Symbols: something that can be used to
represent something else.
The medium for transmitting symbols.
Cognitive processes which influence
transmission and interpretation of symbols.
Social norms which govern meaning.
 Two Key Communication Constructs
 Intersubjectivity: sharing of cognitions in a
communicative event. There are three ways
intersubjectivity may affect communication:
Communication may require a shared set
of meanings.
Communication may occur in the context of
shared relationship norms.
Communication may lead to a shared set of
ideas about the environment.
 Interactivity: the degree to which symbol
creation and interpretation are linked. This
requires encoding by the sender and decoding
by the receiver(s).
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Code Model I: The Strong Code
Model
 Communication is linear.
 Words and meanings are mapped in a
simple one-to-one correspondence with
“meanings.” A dictionary is a “codebook.”
 Communication failure is attributed to
 incompetent coding,
 incompetent decoding,
 or degradation of the signal (a/k/a/ “noise”).
 Implication of this model: limited
opportunity to distinguish family
communication from other forms.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Code Model II: The Weak Code
Model
 Early computer translation experiments
discovered that natural language is
ambiguous and nonlinear.
 This refined model was more elaborate; it
recognized that each symbol can have
multiple meanings.
 A decoder is responsible for interpreting
the meaning of the message.
 Implication of this model: limited
opportunity to distinguish family
communication from other forms.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
The Inferential Model
 Fundamental assumption: many, if not most,
symbols are ambiguous.
 Communicative act requires the speaker to
direct attention toward facts from which certain
inferences are likely to be drawn.
 Communication occurs when
 one person produces some representation of
their thoughts,
 and anther person constructs a mental
representation of that representation.
 Comprehension is dependent on knowledge of
goals and plans of participants in the
interaction. We supply information from our
knowledge.
 Implication of this model: opportunity to develop
unique theories of family communication which
requires that we account for the influence of
distinguishing family features on
 family members’ expectations;
 structure of relevancies within the family;
 and how family context shapes perception.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Metaphor 1: The Family is a
Private Miniculture
 Family culture is created and sustained
through communication.
 Emphasizes knowledge, ideology, rules,
values, and day-to-day rituals.
 Although families are private cultures, it is
still possible to identify predictable
patterns in families.
 Influenced by symbolic interactionism.
 The relational typology (see
FITZ2&3.DOC for a typology and
research about marital satisfaction):
 Measures relational (e.g., traditionalism) and
information exchange aspects of
communication (e.g., sharing, and conflict
avoidance).
 Most research has been conducted with
couples residing in the same house, although
limited research has been conducted on
cohabiting heterosexual and homosexual
couples.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Metaphor 1: The Family is a
Private Miniculture (cont.)
 Family communication patterns:
 Examines the influence of communication on
shared understanding between family
members.
 Research often emphasizes the influence of
family structure on communication.
 Accuracy: match between impression of one
person and the thoughts of another.
 Congruency: first person presumes that the
second person thinks in a compatible way.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Metaphor 1: The Family is a
Private Miniculture (cont.)
 The Family as an information-processing
group (exemplified by Reiss, 1981):
 Focuses on entire family rather than on a dyad
within the family.
 Families are classified according to the effects
of observed behavior of the family on
individuals’ behavior.
 Central theoretical proposition: families
develop fundamental and enduring
assumptions about the world based on it’s
own development.
Families develop constructs.
Paradigm change occurs because of crisis.
Family structure is generated and
sustained in the daily interactions among
family members.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Metaphor 2: The Family is a
Resource Exchange System
 Assumption: family members exchange
resources (e.g., time, expertise);
exchanges are guided by the desire to
maximize rewards and minimize costs.
 Family scientists, using exchange theory,
focus on the resources; communication
scientists, in contrast, focus on
 communication as the means for exchanging,
 communication as a resource to be
exchanged.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Metaphor 2: The Family is a Res.
Exchange System (cont.)
 Coercive family process theory
 Problematic interactional patterns between
parents and children may cause antisocial and
aggressive behavior in children.
 There are five major forms:
Family members are generally critical and
punitive.
Parents are poor observers of their child’s
behavior so deviant behavior reaches
unmanageable proportions.
Punishment is used in an inconsistent
manner.
Parents display lower levels of positive
contact and are less likely to use positive
reinforcement.
Rewards are used coercively.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Metaphor 2: The Family is a Res.
Exchange System (cont.)
 Social learning models of marital
interaction
 Assumptions: people only enter and stay in
relationships that are equitable.
 Positive interaction is associated with
relationships satisfaction.
John Gottman, for example, has
demonstrated that couples with at least a
5:1 ration of positive to negative
interactions are less likely to divorce.
See also Fitzpatrick, 1988; Ting-Toomey,
1983; Schaap, 1984; Gottman, 1979, 1995;
Jacobson et al., 1982; Margolin and
Wampold, 1981; and Revenstorf et al.,
1984).
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Metaphor 3: The Family is a set of
Relationships
 Subsystems are the focus of research
and theory.
 Relationship: conceptualized as a series
of interactions between individuals
 Each interactions is limited in duration.
 Each interaction is influenced by previous
interactions.
 This approach has had a strong influence
on family systems theory and research.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson
Metaphor 3: The Family is a set of
Relationships (cont.)
 Relational control model
 Messages are bimodal, featuring two levels:
Content level: what was said.
Report level: what is meant or interpreted.
 Messages are interconnected.
 Patterns of interaction:
 Complementary: two messages are paired
which are “opposite” or compatible forms
(e.g., a dominant message with a submissive
responsive). Example: messages to assert
control is paired with a message that
relinquishes control.
 Symmetrical: two messages have similar
intent. Example: both speakers seek to assert
control.
Dr. Ronald J. Werner-Wilson