Divorced Families and Tran-generational Conflict: An
Examination of a Case Study Using Coordinated
Management of Meaning Theory
By Jen Fryzel
SCOM 432: Seminar in Conflict and Intervention
Dr. Leppington
Spring 2011
0
Abstract
An examination of a case study that applies the Coordinated Management of
Meaning (CMM) theory to determine future implications of divorced family’s stories. A
video case study done on a couple in conflicts was used to create a serpentine that
illustrates the individual construction of reality during communication. These serpentines
or diagrams take stories from the couples past family history to create a context for the
conversation. Implications on how to stop this pattern of conflict are produced by
identifying past stories or events that help shape the context of their conversational
event,. This serpentine uses a CMM foundation to specifically target the areas of
conversation or perceptions within a couple’s communication that are failing. This article
expands on the past conclusions that divorce disrupts the divorcees’ children’s romantic
relationships to show how conflict conversations can be broken down to reveal
unsatisfactory patterns. By deconstructing these patterns’ stressors, we will be able to
learn to break these romantic relationship failures.
Introduction
Almost half of all first marriages, in the United States, end in divorce (Amoto,
2000). Past research has focused mainly on establishing that the parents and children of
the divorced couple are affected by the divorce. The affect on the divorcees children’s
romantic relationships has shown that the children are more susceptible to romantic
influence during adolescence (Craig, Connoly, Heifetz & Pepler, 2010). There has also
been a considerable amount of research dedicated to therapy techniques before, during
and after the divorce (Corliss, Steptoe, Bower, van Dyk & Cole, 2004). As Corliss et al
1
report, “In 2001 the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy listed
47,111 marriage and family therapists in the U.S. and estimated that they treat 863,700
couples a year.” But how much is all of this therapy truly helping? William Doherty,
director of the Marriage and Family Therapy Program at the University of Minnesota
offers one explanation that, “the idea of therapist neutrality often came down to support
of breaking up” (Corliss et al, 2004). One area that is lacking in research is how the
communication between the divorced parents where the children have suffered in their
own romantic relationships can be deconstructed to reveal what narratives are affected by
past familial patterns. It is essential to dissect these stories to discover a common theme
in meaning management in order to better the romantic relationships of the divorcees’
children. Ultimately, the ability to identification of these communication patterns can
lead to the growth of understanding about divorced families. The results can be used to
educate couples on these common communication habits. Ultimately, helping them better
their social realities formed during communication interactions and conflict.
Research Questions
1. What stories do divorcees’ children use when discussing past family conflict?
2. How do the children of divorced parents assign meaning or construct reality according
to past family conflict contexts?
3. How can communication interactions be changed to construct better realities and
relationships for the children of divorced parents?
Literature Review
Many past research articles in family therapy have mainly focused on defining the
people affected by broken marriages or relationships. For example, Forste and Heaton’s
2
2004 study entitled, “The Divorce Generation: Well-being, Family Attitudes, and
Socioeconomic of Marital Disruption”, focuses on the statistics of divorced individuals
that are economically and emotional stable post divorce. Similarly, research on the
children of divorced individuals mainly focuses on self-reports of affects the divorce had
on them. Heifetz, Connolly, and Pepler’s 2010 research reports that many adolescent
child of divorced parent’s relationships are affected by their parents past examples.
Cartwright’s 2006 article, “You Want to Know How it Affected Me? Young Adults’
Perceptions of the Impact of Parental Divorce” documents many of these experiences.
One participant describes her experience saying, “I think it’s affected me a heck of a lot,
in the way that I approach people, in the way that I live my life, as far as being very
closed off and willfully independent”(p.130). Bowen’s systemic family theory (1978)
also the affect multigenerational relationships have within families (Hurst, Sawatzky, &
Pare, 1996). This theory examines whether a person emotionally or intellectually
separates themselves or follows their family. Hurste et al explains Bowen’s theory
saying, “differentiation of family members is a key indicator of family functionality:
greater differentiation leads to greater flexibility and independence from emotional forces
and a lesser likelihood of developing emotional difficulties” (p. 696). This research
illustrates that there is an affect on children of divorced parents but it does not
specifically describe the communication interactions that cause these affects to occur.
Relatively less research has been done specifically on communication conflict
between couples using CMM theory. Previous research that defines the affects of
communication theories on conflict, such as Alexander’s 1979 research, “The reduction
of cognitive conflict: Effects of Various Types of Communication” uses multiple
3
communication theories to define cognitive conflict but does not examine CMM.
However, Harris’ 1980 research used the CMM model when studying a “normally
functioning” married couple. They used a process of interviews, self-reports and roleplaying to identify the couple’s construction of realities through these interactions.
Harris’ research uses couples to support CMM theory that, “social reality is created
through the process of communication” (p. 1), whereas this study will use to CMM
theory to diagnose where the process of interaction is failing. By identifying how a
couple’s process of interaction is breaking down, there is potential to facilitate therapy by
using the CMM theory as a model.
Methods
A CMM serpentine was used to answer these questions in a specific case study
example. The subjects in this case study, Michelle and Jason, have been in a
monogamous committed relationship for five years (Hellman & Leibovitz, 2005). They
have sought the help of renowned divorce therapist, John and Julie Gottman. Both
Michelle and Jason’s parents are divorced. The Gottman’s research involved placing
video cameras all around Michelle and Jason’s home for three days before they arrived at
the Gottman’s therapy center. The Gottman’s then watched these videos in preparation
for their initial interview with the couple. Many of their relational issues could be seen
clearly during this three-day period. Their arguments mostly focused around the
discipline of their son. During the Gottman’s first discussion with the couple both
Michelle and Jason told stories of their families past relational issues. Michelle disclosed
that he father had been abusive to her, her siblings and her mother. When asked how her
parent’s divorce affects her views on marriage she said, “He [Jason] wants to get married,
4
I’m not sure. I don’t want to end up like my parents”. Similarly, when Jason was asked to
describe his family history he described a household of abuse. His father used spanking
to discipline him and his siblings. He begins to admit that this is a learned behavior from
his own father. Unlike Michelle he views marriage as an opportunity to change their
familys’ past patterns. He reveals this in his statement, “ I take it as a challenge. If it
didn’t work for you [his parents], well I’m going to make it work.” These admissions into
their past family history shape the way they communicate and therefore how they
construct meaning from their interactions. The Gottman’s study was analyzed in order to
determine these hierarchies of meanings among the couple. Once these contextual forces
are defined, the relationship’s goals can be better fulfilled.
After the initial meetings, the Gottman’s asked Michelle and Jason to remain in
the room and begin discussing their opinions on disciplining their son. Their son, Luke, is
three years old and has been having behavioral issues both at home and at school. Jason
has been using spanking to punish his unruly outbursts. Michelle feels very strongly that
spanking is the wrong form of discipline to use. The data collected are utterances
collected during this video taped conflict. The CMM serpentines use their individual
contextual forces as well as their prefigurative forces to determine how they construct
meaning from each other’s comments. Their contextual forces are how they define their
cultural, family, self, relationship and episode framework that the conversation is taking
place in. Once they have determined what the others’ utterances, counts as according to
their own contextual and prefigurative forces they will then decide what they feel the
appropriate response is. They feel a level of obligation to react in a certain way. Each
individual feels the compulsion to respond a certain way due either to their predetermined
5
contextual and prefigured forces or their desire to achieve a specific result from the
interaction (practical or implicative force). Based on these inferences the individual then
determines their response.
This research method employs a CMM serpentine to disect Michelle and Jason’s
conflict and determine what contextual, prefigurative, practical and implicative forces are
at work to find where the conflict arises and where it can be resolved. These forces were
compiled from stories that Michelle and Jason told during their video interviews and
three-day in home surveillance. Throughout the conflict their contextual forces or
prefigurative forces that have been determined by their families conflict patterns which,
have been creating a logic of interaction that continues to escalate. As the argument
progresses both sides increasingly compelled to continue therefore furthering their
dispute without reaching a resolution.
Following the Gottman’s diagnosis of many of these predetermined familial
patterns Michelle and Jason were sent back home for another three months to work on
their relationship. In therapy, they had been advised of each other’s contextual forces that
were affecting their ability to communicate effectively. They were also told to try to
focus on the practical outcome of their communication interactions instead of negative
past influences. By focusing on the goal of their communication they are able to better
determine the utterances that will lead to a solution. The practical outcome of a
conversation should be the main focus of communication but is often lost due to
individuals’ strong prefigured contextual forces. By being aware of each other’s past
historical contexts it allows both individuals to understand the others communication
habits. Once these have been shared, intentions of the communication episode become
6
clearer. The data in the following serpentines describes Michelle and Jason’s forces and
goals. They then show how they changed after the therapy sessions opened their eyes to
each other’s ties to their past familial habits. They were able to begin focusing on both of
their desires to arrive at a solution and stay together. They began to recognize the affect
each other’s family history has on their relationship. They talk practically or with
implicative force about their son and relationship. They also use active listening to show
their understanding of each other’s needs and concerns. Finally, they consider their
ultimate goal of staying together while discussing their issues. Using the CMM
serpentine as a way of shaping this conflict allows these results to be more readily
understood.
Data
The following serpentines are a sequence of Michelle and Jason’s conversation
that display the elements of the CMM theory. These elements were applied to their
conversation in order to display their pattern of conflict.
7
In this conversation Michelle and Jason argue about disciplining their son.
Michelle begins by saying, “You yell and hit”. Jason then interprets this utterance
through his contextual forces or hierarchy of meaning. On the smallest contextual level
Jason views this conflict as one pertaining to the disciple of their son. He sees their
relationship as one in which Michelle is very close to leaving him and he will
consequently lose their son. This can be deduced from his wife’s threats to leave him and
take their son with her. He views himself as being head of the household that is
responsible for keeping order and passing down punishments. His perception of family is
one where the father disciplines through physical and mental abuse or torment.
Culturally, he views this conflict through his past personal experiences of his father
disciplining through physical and mental abuse or torment. This can be concluded
through his stories of his father’s abuse on his family. He spoke of how his father would
belt him when he disobeyed. His father also mentally tormented him by first telling him
that he would belt him in ten minutes and making him wait for his impending
8
punishment. From all of these stories of past experiences, contextual and predetermined
perceptions are formed causing Jason to construct meaning of her utterance. He counts
this utterance as an attack on his fathering practices and a judgment that he is an abusive
father.
In the next piece of the serpentine, (displayed below) Jason formulates how this
attack and judgment need to be responded to and why he feel the next action is necessary.
As depicted in the diagram above, Jason feels it is legitimate to defend himself. He also
feels obligated to correct her point of view and prove his innocence. He does this because
he does not want to be an abusive father like his own father was. He also does it in order
to save face and gain compassion from her by showing his regret for spanking his son.
The practical goal of his utterance is to better his image and position within their dispute.
These implications infer his reply (utterance #2, below).
9
Jason then furthers the argument saying, “Michelle, that’s not all I do and you know that
and I don’t appreciate you misrepresenting it.” Michelle then interprets his utterance
through her own set of contextual forces. Her own contextual forces determine her
prefigurative force which then defines his speech act. She views the episode the same
way Jason does, as a conflict about the disciple of their son. She would define their
relationship as dangerously close to separation. This can be seen through her stories about
their relationship. Throughout the videotapes she speaks of how if things don’t change
they will need to separate. She perceives herself as the defender of her son. She feels
compelled to nurture him and be the “good cop” when Jason spanks him. Her family
context is one where her father was physically abusive towards her and mother. On the
larger cultural level, she sees men as aggressive and abusive because of the behaviors she
has witnessed. Therefore, Michelle counts Jason’s utterances as an attack on her skills
10
and a threat to her argument against spanking. She applies her contextual forces to
determine her reply.
Above shows Michelle’s belief that she has no other choice or is compelled to continue to
stand her ground and express her position clearly without wavering. She does this in
order to distance herself from her mother’s passive behavior. She accomplishes this by
distancing herself from her husband. She shuts down his opinion in defense of her strong
stand against her father’s abusive discipline habits. She feels strongly compelled to do
this because of her past experiences or contextual forces. She applies these experiences to
how she should act in order to achieve her goal of not conforming to her mother’s weak
patterns of behavior. She also feels that by being strong willed and defending her beliefs
she can stop Jason from becoming both her father and his own father. She does this by
saying, “I don’t think we should spank him, that’s all. I don’t think so.”
11
Jason again interprets this through his same contextual forces. He then determines it to be
another attack on his fathering capabilities. Therefore, he feels it is legitimate to stand his
ground if she will not back down. Here it is obvious that Michelle and Jason both feel
that conceding to the others opinion will forfeit their individual goals and identities. This
furthers their argument and makes them continuously more stubborn.
12
Jason feels that he has to stand his ground in order to maintain the position as head of the
family and prove that he knows what is the best way to discipline their child (above).
13
As shown in the diagram above, he does this by saying, “I do.” This statement is a clear
stand that he will not back down. Michelle then interprets this message through the same
set of contextual forces. She takes this his utterance as a way of discounting her role as a
mother and her opinion. She also believes he is highlighting her weaknesses in
disciplining their son.
She then feels that she has no other choice but to further her position by threatening the
results of having an abusive father. She does this to gain ground on her argument while
also showing Jason that his spanking has long-term consequences for their child. She
does this by saying, “I don’t want him to end up being a sixteen year old kid pissed off at
us cause we spanked him and then blow our heads off.” As shown below Jason then
interprets this through his contexts and counts it as a threat and attack on him that names
him as an abuser. He also feels that she is ultimately blaming him for their son’s bad
behavior.
14
These utterances, which have been expanded to show the process of their construction of
meaning, have quickly escalated. After their therapy session and three months of
working on their issues at home, Jason and Michelle met again in the Gottman’s therapy
center to see if their new awareness of their own and each other’s perceptions had
changed their communication patterns.
The following serpentine shows a conversation in which the Gottman’s asked
them to describe their needs from one another.
15
Above, Jason opens up to Michelle by saying, “I don’t want to spank him ever. If it was
up to be I never could and I want you to help me remember that before I spank him.”
Michelle then interprets this through a new set of contextual forces. The context has
changed due to the new topic and the time that has passed. She views the episode as one
where they are conversing about their individual needs from each other. Their
relationship is now in a critical rebuilding stage. She is trying to open herself up to
Jason’s viewpoint and listen to his needs. Her family and cultural contexts however
remain the same because they have been this way for most of her life and therefore will
take longer time to rebuild. With these new contexts in place, she counts his utterance as
and admittance that he was wrong and needs her help to change.
16
These new contexts make her feel a strong obligation to support him and show her
understand and love. She is using the practical force of rebuilding her relationship in
order to have a longer more successful relationship.
17
She does this by saying, “ I will try to be everything that you need when it comes
to disciplining our son, and when it comes to life in general and I will be there for you
because I love you and I love Luke.” Jason then decodes this message through his new
set of contextual forces. Like Michelle, he too defines the episode as discussing their
individual needs from each other and their relationship as being in a critical rebuilding
stage. He sees himself opening up to her by showing his weaknesses. But, like Michelle,
his family and cultural contexts will take much more work to change due to a lifetime of
experiences. This set of serpentines results in an effective communication interaction
between the couple because they are no longer defending opposing positions. Instead,
they are recognizing each other’s point of view and focusing on their goal of staying
together.
Discussion
In conclusion, this research supports the findings that children of divorced parents
report that the divorce has an affect on their romantic relationships. Using the CMM
theory as a model, this research established a context for the couple’s construction of
reality due to past family behavioral patterns. The implications here strongly suggest that
by defining conflict in these CMM theory terms, one can better their communication
interactions. In the future the CMM theory can be employed in therapy contexts to further
individual’s understandings of their partner’s and their own past experiences and current
intentions.
However there were some limitations to this study. Videotaping the individuals
can cause a data to be biased due to their knowledge of being analyzed. This may have
caused the individuals to conform to social norms or save face in front of their audience.
18
The CMM theory also has limitations due to its assignment of contextual forces. Not all
contextual forces can be easily defined and therefore the theory will always be restricted.
These constraints however are minor while the benefits of redefining one’s social reality
can be immense. This study employs CMM theory concepts to show the positive results
communication therapy can have on individuals from divorced families.
19
References
Alexander, E. (1979). The reduction of cognitive conflict: effects of various types of
communication. The Journal of Conflict Resolution. Pp. 120-138.
Amoto, P. (2000). The consequences of divorce for adults and children. Journal of
Marriage and the Family. Pp. 1269-1287.
Bogolub, E. (1989). Families of divorce: a three-generational perspective. National
Association of Social Workers, Inc. pp. 375-376.
Cartwright, C. (2006). You want to know how it affected me? Journal of Divorce &
Remarriage. Pp.125-143.
Connolly, J., Heifetz, M. & Pepler, D. (2010). Family divorce and romantic relationships
in early adolescense. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. Pp. 33-378.
Corliss, R., Steptoe, S., Bower, A., van Dyk, D., & Cole, W. (2004). The Marriage
Savers. Time, 163(3), 88-96. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Forste, R. & Heaton, T. (2004). The divorce generation: well-being, family attitudes, and
socioeconomic consequences of marital disruption. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage.
Pp. 95-114.
Harris, L. (1980). Analysis of a paradoxical logic: a case study. Family Process. P. 19-33.
Hellman, J. & Leibovitz, B. (producer/director). (2005). Love Lab [videorecording].
Lawrenceville, N.J.: Productions, Inc. for Discovery Health.
Herzog, M. & Cooney, T. (2002). Parental divorce and perceptions of past interparental
conflict. Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. Pp. 89-109.
Hurst, N. & Pare, D. (1996). Families with multiple problems through a bowenian lens.
Child Welfare League of America. Pp. 696-708.
Oles, T. & Walzer, S. (2003). Accounting for divorce: gender and uncoupling narratives.
Qualitative Sociology. Pp. 332-349.
20