family


 * Definition and Etymology **

The word family comes from the Latin word familia meaning family servants or domestics (Family, 2012). In the 15th century, family was extended to describe a particular lineage or kin-group in the ancestral sense (Williams, 1985). The main modern sense of “those connected by blood” is first used in the 17th century. Several 17th and 18th century uses of the word family often refer specifically to children, but the dominant sense of the word refers to a small kin-group.

This notion of a blood related kin-group is coming under more scrutiny within the 21st century (McFadden, 2015). Wrestling with the concept of family is important for areas such as political rhetoric and scientific inquiry. The way in which one talks about the parameters of a family can have a profound impact on his/her social outlook. To avoid the complete amalgamation of the concept definitions of the word family generally get broken down into three categories: family structure, task orientation, and transactional process definitions (Wambldt & Reiss, 1989; Noller & Fitzpatrick, 1993).

Family structure definitions, possibly the most common, are used to describe the family of procreation (partners and children), relatives by blood, or individuals that have established biological or legal connection (Wambldt & Reiss, 1989). An example of this is the Census definition of the family: “a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption (Census, 2000). These definitions provide scholars with clear criteria for membership, but may not be as useful as the social definition of family continues to evolve.

Secondly, task orientation definitions focus on the certain tasks that family members perform in conjunction with other members (Wambldt & Reiss, 1989). Families in these definitions are described as group members working toward mutual need / goal fulfillment. For example, family groups working toward the socialization and nurturance of children (e.g. Lerner & Spanier, 1978) and those collectively building a business together would both be included in these types of definitions.

The third type of definition, the transactional process, views the family as a group of intimates who construct a group identity (Wambldt & Reiss, 1989). Families therefore have strong ties of loyalty, share a history, and forecast a future together. This type of definition is especially useful for communication scholars because of the strong emphasis on interaction as the major vehicle in establishing intimacy (Caughlin, Koerner, Schrodt, & Fitzpatrick, 2011).


 * In Interpersonal Communication Research **

The study of families is inherently interdisciplinary (Vangelisti, 2004). Scholars from communication, social psychology, clinical psychology, sociology, and family studies all contribute to family focused scholarship. However, communication has played a particularly large role in shaping the study of families.

Theories of family largely originated outside of communication departments, but have since been adopted and implemented by communication scholars in several ways. According to Stamp’s (2004) meta-analysis of theories that have guided research in communication, the five theories that occur most frequently in the family communication literature are Attachment Theory (e.g. Scher & Mayseless, 1994), Family Life Course Theory (e.g. Roberto, Carlyle, Goodall, & Castle, 2009), Family Systems Theory (e.g. Harris, Hay, Kuniyuki, Asgari, Press & Bowen, 2010), Role Theory (e.g. Daly, 1992) and Exchange Theory (e.g. Serewicz, Hosmer, Ballard, & Griffin, 2008).

Communication within these theories is a crucial element that reflects the interpersonal connections among family members and therefore allows scholars to study a variety family forms. To that end, communication scholars often study the life course of a family, focusing on dating partners (e.g. Berger, Gerdner, Clatterbuck, & Shulman, 1976), spouses (e.g. Canary & Stafford, 1992), parent-child relationships (Noller, 1995), and divorce (e.g. Afifi & Schrodt, 2003). Within the 20th and 21st centuries scholars have also begun to give attention to the expanding definition of family by examining gay and lesbian couples (e.g. Allen & Demo, 1995), adoption (e.g. Krusiewicz & Wood, 2001), as well as the increased role of extended family and social networks (e.g. Milardo, 1988).

Beyond studying family forms, scholars also focus on processes across family types. Examining aspects or dimensions of communication without focusing on the type of family allows for an understanding of the processes that are widely applicable across different family relationships (Caughlin, Koerner, Schrodt, & Fitzpatrick, 2011). Caughlin et al. (2011) identify supportive communication and conflict as two processes that are highlighted in the interpersonal communication literature that have the potential to impact families of all types.


 *  Family and Social Support **

Social support is an important communicative process that is highlighted in family communication scholarship. Specifically, the marital relationship is often the context used to study social support because of its importance in intimate relationships as a determinant of satisfaction (Xu & Burleson, 2004; Goldsmith, Lindholm, & Bute, 2006). Familial social support can also be studied in health contexts such as partners adjust to cancer (e.g. Helgeson & Cohen, 1996) and infertility (e.g. Wright, Allard, Lecours, & Sabourin, 1989; for more see Miller-Day, 2011). Moving beyond the marital dyad, family communication scholars also take a systems approach to studying supportive communication when investigating communal coping (e.g. Lyons, Mickelson, Sullivan, & Coyne, 1988) among all the family members.


 *  Family and Conflict **

Conflict is one of the most, if not the most, studied and discussed subject in the area of family communication (Bradbury, Rogge, & Lawrence, 2001). Due to the complexities offered within families and conceptualizations of conflict, communication scholars often focus on conflict as a process within the family context. Studying the process of conflict between parents and children is particularly valuable because these family relationships are seen as less voluntary and therefore depend less on satisfaction for stability (Vangelisti, 1993) versus the romantic dyad.

Conceptually, family conflict is often characterized as intense, frequent, and consequential for the entire family system (Sillars, Canary, & Tafoya, 2004). Due to this system based configuration, conflict affects interpersonal relationships in the family beyond the individuals actively involved in the specific interaction (Caughlin et al., 2011). As a product driven process, some scholars focus on conflict in the family as a socialization agent where children learn and adopt particular conflict styles to be used in their own interpersonal relationships (e.g. Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2009). Additionally, other scholars focus on ways in which conflict is managed communicatively (Sillars, Pike, Jones, & Redmon, 1983) through patterns of demand / withdraw that may occur during times of conflict (Caughlin, 2002).


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Family and Times of Change **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">It is inevitable that people change and those changes impact interpersonal relationships. New members are added through birth or marriage, others move away to pursue education or careers, and various life experiences shape the dynamic in the family. Developmentally, children mature and psychosocial changes occur that influence the family dynamic or relational trajectory in ways that prompt individuals to renegotiate relational roles (Arnett, 2000, p. 469). Additionally, situational changes that may involve family members that travel for long periods of time for work or for a military deployment also have the potential to bring about times of difficult adjustment (e.g. Houston et al., 2013, p. 110; Theiss & Knobloch, 2013, p. 1110).

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">In these two separate dimensions of change (i.e. development and situation) family members may realize that relational transitions can be complicated experiences. Individual psychosocial development can be a difficult time of change for individuals within the family (e.g. Kloep & Hendry, 2010, p. 829). For example, as emerging adults transition out of the house and seek greater levels of autonomy this can be a struggle for both the children and the parents (Arnett, 2000, p. 472; Kloep & Hendry, 2010, p. 825). These are normative changes that occur as individuals mature and as relationships develop over time. In contrast, the changes that occur due to military deployment (Knobloch, Pusateri, Ebata, McGlaughlin, 2015, p. 332), for example, and are not necessarily paired with any psychosocial developmental timeline. However, both types of change are difficult for families as responsibilities shift, roles change, uncertainty increases, and interpersonal goals get reevaluated (e.g. Theiss & Knobloch, 2014, p. 41). Therefore, challenging family transitions such as those that occur during emerging adulthood and period of long absence due to military deployment are important lines of research for both scholars and practitioners.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">include component="comments" page="page:family" limit="10"


 * <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">References **

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Afifi, T. D., & Schrodt, P. (2003). Uncertainty and the avoidance of the state of one’s family/relationships in stepfamilies, post-divorce single parent families, and first marriage families. Human Communication Research, 29, 516-533.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Allen, K. R., & Demo, D. H. (1995). The families of lesbians and gay men: A new frontier in family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 111-127.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Arnett, J. J. (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. American Psychologist, 55(5), 469 – 480. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.5.469

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Berger, C. R., Gardner, R. R., Clatterbuck, G. W., & Schulman, L. S. (1976). Perceptions of information seeking in relationship development. Human Communication Research, 3, 29-46.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Bradbury, T., Rogge, R., & Lawrence, E. (2001). Reconsidering the role of conflict in marriage. In A. Booth, A. C. Crouter, & M. Clements (Eds.), Couples in conflict (pp. 59-81). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage. Communication Monographs, 59, 243–267.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Caughlin, J. P. (2002). The demand/withdraw pattern of communication as a predictor of marital satisfaction over time: Unresolved issues and future directions. Human Communication Research, 28, 49-85.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Caughlin, J. P., Koerner, A. F., Schrodt, P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2011). Interpersonal communication in family relationships. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of interpersonal communication 4thedition (pp. 679-714). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Census 2000 Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics, United States, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2001). p. A-1. Archived at: []

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Daly, K. (1992). Parenthood as problematic: Insider interviews with couples seeking to adopt. In J. Gilgun, K. Daly, & G. Handel (Eds.), Qualitative methods in family research (pp. 103-125). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Family (2012). In Oxford English Dictionary online. Retrieved from [|http://dictionary.oed.com]

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Goldsmith, D. J., Lindholm, K. A., & Bute, J. J. (2006). Dilemmas of talk about lifestyle changes among couples coping with a cardiac event. Social Science and Medicine, 63, 2079-2090.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Harris, J. N., Hay, J., Kunlyuki, A., Asgari, M. M., Press, N., & Bowen, D. J. (2010). Using a family systems approach to investigate cancer risk communication within melanoma families. Psycho-Oncology, 19, 1102-1111.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Helgeson, V. S., & Cohen, S. (1996). Social support and adjustment to cancer: Reconciling descriptive, correlational, and interventional research. Health Psychology, 15, 135-148.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Houston, J. B., Pfefferbaum, B., Sherman, M. D., Melson, A. G., & Brand, M. W. (2013). Family communication across the military deployment experience: Child and spouse report of communication frequency and quality and associated emotions, behaviors, and reactions. Journal Of Loss & Trauma, 18(2), 103-119. doi:10.1080/15325024.2012.684576

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Kloep, M., & Hendry, L. B. (2010). Letting go or holding on? Parents' perceptions of their relationships with their children during emerging adulthood. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(4), 817-834.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Knobloch, L. K., Pusateri, K. B., Ebata, A. T., & McGlaughlin, P. C. (2015). Experiences of military youth during a family member’s deployment: Changes, challenges, and opportunities. Youth & Society, 47(3), 319-342. doi:10.1177/0044118X12462040

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2009). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orientation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48, 59-75.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Krusiewicz, E. S., & Wood, J. T. (2001). “He was our child from the moment we walked in that room”: Entrance stories of adoptive parents. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 785-803.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lerner, R. M., & Spanier, G. B. (Eds.) (1978). Child influences on marital interaction: A life-span perspective. New York: Academic Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Lyons, R. F., Mickelson, K. D., Sullivan, M. J. L., & Coyne, J. C. (1988). Coping as a communal process. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 579-605.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">McFadden, S. (2015, July 14). Politicians: Don’t talk about ‘family’ like it only has one definition. The Guardian. Retrieved from:

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">@http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/14/politicians-define-family-marriage-children

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Milardo, R. M. (1988). Families and social networks: An overview of theory and methodology. In R. M. Milardo (Ed.), Families and social networks (pp. 13-47), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Miller-Day, M. (Ed.) (2011). Family communication, connections, and health transitions: Going through this together. New York, NY: Peter Lang.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Noller, P. (1995). Parent-adolescent relationships. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions (pp. 77-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Noller, P., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1993). Communication in family relationships. Englewood Cliffs, CA: Prentice Hall.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Roberto, A. J., Carlyle, K. E., Goodall, C. E., & Castle, J. D. (2009). The relationships between parents’ verbal aggressiveness and responsiveness and young adult children’s attachment style and relational satisfaction with parents. Journal of Family Communication, 9, 90-106.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Scher, A., & Mayseless, O. (1994). Mothers’ attachment with spouse and parenting in the first year. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 601-609.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Serewicz, M., Hosmer, R., Ballard, R. I., & Griffin, R. A. (2008). Disclosure from in-laws and the quality of in-law and marital relationships. Communication Quarterly, 56, 427-444.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sillars, A., Canary, D. J., & Tafoya, M. (2004). Communication, conflict, and the quality of family relationships. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), The handbook of family communication, (pp. 413-446). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Sillars, A. L., Pike, G. R., Jones, T. S., & Redmon, K. (1983). Communication and conflict in marriage. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 6). Beverly Hills: Sage.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Stamp, G. H. (2004). Theories of family relationships and a family relationships theoretical model. In A. Vangelisti (Ed.), The handbook of family communication, (pp. 1 - 30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Theiss, J. A., & Knobloch, L. K. (2013). A Relational Turbulence Model of military service members' relational communication during reintegration. Journal of Communication, 63(6), 1109-1129.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Theiss, J. A., & Knobloch, L. K. (2014). Relational turbulence and the post-deployment transition: Self, partner, and relationship focused turbulence. Communication Research, 41(1), 27-51. doi:10.1177/0093650211429285

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Vangelisti, A. L. (1993). Communication in the family: The influence of time, relational prototypes, and irrationality. Communication Monographs, 60, 42-54.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Vangelisti, A. L. (2004). Introduction. The handbook of family communication (pp. xiii-xx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Wamboldt, F., & Reiss, D. (1989). Task performance and the social construction of meaning Juxtaposing normality with contemporary family research. In D. Offer & M. Sabshin (Eds.), Normality: Context and theory (pp. 2-40). New York: Basic Books.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Williams, R. (1985). Keywords: A vocabulary of culture and society, revised edition. New York: Oxford University Press.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Wright, J., Allard, M., Lecours, A., & Sabourin, S. (1989). Psychosocial distress and infertility: A review of controlled research. International Journal of Fertility, 34, 126-142.

<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Xu, Y., & Burleson, B. R. (2004). The association of experienced spousal support with marital satisfaction: Evaluating the moderating effects of sex, ethnic culture, and type of support. Journal of Family Communication, 4, 123-145.