Cognitiile Si Constructele Familiei

7/27/2019 Cognitiile Si Constructele Familiei

1/19

Journal of Cognit ive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, Volume 2, Num ber 4,1988

The Therapeutic Implicationsof Family Cognitions

and ConstructsPamela C. AlexanderDepartment of Psychology,Memphis State University

F ami ly cognit ions a re d e f ined a s i nd iv idua l f a m i l y m e m b e r s ' beliefsabout each o ther a nd f a m i l y cons t ruc ts as the f am i ly ' s jo in t ly he ldbeliefs about i tself and its world . A ra t iona le is developed for theim por tance o f these cognit ions a nd cons t ruc ts in ensu r ing s tab le a nda t t i m e s se l f - fu l f i l l ing pa t te rns of behavior within the f a m i l y a ndbetween the f a m i l y and i ts e n v i r o n m e n t . T he de v e l o p m e n t of thesecognit ions and cons t ruc ts is descr ibed, as a re charac ter is t ics whicha s s u r e t h e i r m a i n t e n a n c e . Fina l ly , the re levance of these bel iefs tof am i ly pa thology sugges ts the ut i l i ty of i n t e rven ing in a fami ly at thelevel of the bel iefs themselves .

T he f ie ld o f cognit ive therapy deve loped f rom the rea l iza t ion thattherapists a nd theorists ha d ove r empha s iz ed the impor t a nce of envi-ronmental events ( an tecedents and consequences) and had underem-phasized the importance of a client's perception a nd eva lua t ion of thoseevents ( M e i c h e n b a u m , 1977). F a m i l y therapists had s imi la r ly tended toove r empha s iz e their eva lua t ion of the respective roles of f a m i l ymembers a n d h a d u n d e r e m p h a s i z e d f a m i l y members' perceptions ofeach other a n d o f events. T he increased attention on the part of f a m i l y


2/19

220 Alexanderpe nde n t l y f rom the cognit ive the r apy m ovem ent and w as in f lue nced toa grea t ex ten t by the observat ions of the anthropologis t Gregory Bate -son. There fo re , a l though cogni t ive the r apy and sys temic f ami l y t he r -apy hold much in c o m m o n , there has been a re lat ive dear th of cross-semina t ion of ideas between the two f ie lds. Cogni tive the r a py focuseson how the a s s u m p t i o n s and expecta t ions of i nd i v i dua l s a f fec t the i rsubseq ue nt beh av ior . This i s re levant to f ami l y dy nam ics in two ways .Firs t , i t helps expla in how f ami ly m e m b e r s ' expec ta t ions of each othercan a f fec t their interact ions. Second, as Reiss (1981) has pointed out , i tsugges ts how the cognitive sets of i n f l u e n t i a l f ami l y m e m b e r s cana f fec t those of the whole f a m i l y unit . Reciprocal ly , f ami l y t he r apyemp h a s i z e s tha t ind iv idua l s a re especially l ikely to m ak e the s e j udg -ments about themse lves a nd others in the contex t of an ongoing, long-te rm r e l a t ionsh ip . The re fore , jus t as an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of f ami l ym e m b e r s ' bel iefs and cognit ions is essentia l to an apprec ia t ion of f am i l yd yn a mi cs , an awareness o f f a m i l y dynamics helps to descr ibe the con-tex t of the indiv idu a l ' s cogni t ions .A ny discussion of c ogn i t i ons w he the r i nd i v i dua l or f a m i l y r e -q u i re s f u r t h e r def in i t ion . Ma ny cogni tive theor is ts m ak e the d is t inc tionbetween consc ious cogni t ive ac t iv i ty and cogni t ive s t ruc tures . Con-scious cogni t ive a c t iv i ty re f e rs to "verbal izable , expl ic i t d escr ipt ion s ofthe self, other people, and the wor ld" (L io tti, 1986) a nd cor responds toEllis ' (1973) idea of s e l f statements, Meichenbaum's (1977) idea of internaldialogues, and Beck's (1976) idea of automatic thoughts. Cogni t ive s t ruc -tu r e s , on the othe r hand , a re im pl ic it , nonverba l ized, nonconsc ious , a ndm ore gene ra l (Golden & D r y de n , 1986). Meiche nbau m (1977) descr ibedthe cogni t ive s t ruc ture as "that organ iz ing aspec t o f th ink ing tha tseems to m oni to r a nd di rec t the s t ra tegy , rou te a nd choice of thoughts"(p. 213). A lso com m only re fe r red to as "schem ata" (Beck, 1976), "worldviews" (Watz l awick , 1978), and "core assumpt ions" (Liotti , 1986), they"represent one's gene ra l knowledge about a given concept or s t i m u l u sd o m a i n " (Fiske & Taylor , 1983). An example would be the v iew that"People a re i nhe ren t ly good" or "People a re inherent ly evi l ." Thesebeliefs a re usua l ly so basic that they a re outside th e level of awareness .The sam e dis t inc t ion abou t ind iv idu a l cogni tions and cogni tive s t ruc -t u r e s ca n apply to those held in a f ami l y context . Firs t , each f ami l ym e m b e r h a s beliefs about every other f ami l y m e m be r and eve ry o the r


3/19

Family Cogni t ions and Construc ts 221sys tems outs ide the f a m i l y . In this pape r , I wil l descr ibe each of theseca tegor ies of cogni t ive ac t iv i ty , h o w th e y d e v e lo p a n d a r e m a in t a i n e d ,how t h e y a re r e l a t ed to a co n ce p tu a l i z a t i o n of f a m i l y p a th o lo g y , a ndf inal ly , som e im plicat ions for t rea tm en t. For the sake of convenience, Iwill r e f e r to the fo rm e r ( each f a m i l y m e m b e r ' s bel iefs abou t eve ry o the rf a m i l y m e m b e r ) a s f a m i l y cogn i t ions and the l a t te r ( the f am i l y ' s jo int lyheld bel ie fs) a s f a m i l y cons t ruc t s .

FA M I LY M E M B E R S ' COGNITIONSDescriptionIn a discuss ion of f a m i ly members ' pe rcept ions of each other, Bo g d a n(1984) referred to Bateson's (1972) idea of f ami ly organization as an"ecology of ideas." In other word s, the behav ior of f ami ly member s showsorder , pa t te rn , organiza t ion , a nd r edu nd ancy p rec is ely because the be-havior of each individual is cognitively consistent with th e behavior ofevery other ind ivid ua l in the sy stem . This reciprocal interact ion betweeni deas and behavior can be seen in two way s . F i r s t of all, the fami ly ' s ef fec ton the indiv idu al de pend s on the individu al 's perceptions of the f ami l y .Simi lar ly , the ideas of the i nd iv idua l l ead h im or he r to behave in waystha t conf i rm or su ppor t the ideas of eve ry o the r f ami ly member . Peoplethus behave in accordance wi th how they f r a m e , de f ine , o r pun c tua te thecircular causa l i ty which is characteristic of any f ami ly sys tem.To use an i l l u s t r a t ion p rov ided by Bogdan (1984) of a f a m i l y with anac t ing -ou t ch i ld , the f a the r be l ieved the son's behav io r to be du e to h i swife 's over indulgence and the fa the r ac ted on this belief (whethera ccu r a t e or not) by b e co m in g to u g h on the boy . T h e m o th e r a t t r i b u t e dthe son's behav io r to the fa ther 's excess ive cr i t ic ism a nd consequen t ly ,a t t e m p t e d to protect the son f r om h is f a t h e r . Th e s o n e v a l u a t e d th ebehav io r of h is p a r e n t s a s ev idence of h is mothe r ' s suppor t for himaga ins t h i s f a the r ' s un reasonab le au thor i ty and ac ted in a manne r tha twa s cons is tent wi th h is assessm ent of h is pa ren ts ' in te rac t ion . A s canbe seen in F ig u r e 1, the act ions of each ind iv idu a l were con s is tent wi tha n d d e p e n d e n t u p o n his or her bel iefs a b o u t the behav io r s of the othersin the f a m i l y . As can a lso be seen , the in te rac t ions were comple te lycircular and the starting point (if there ever was one) was at this pointind iscern ib le a n d i r r e l e v a n t .


4/19

222 Alexander

F IGURE 1. Family interactions resulting from the cognitions of eachfami ly member.

m a t c h o r mismatch of the rule systems of the f a m i l i e s of origin of thecoup le would determine whether the union would go well or badly.Consider, f o r exam ple , a new marriage (see Figure 2) in which both thew i f e a n d t h e husband come f r o m f a m i l y backgrounds with th e rule "B esupportive." Consider, further, the consequences i f "Be supportive" inthe wife's f a m i l y means "Respect each other's autonomy" and i f in thehusband's f a m i l y it means "Give each other suggestions about what todo." These implicit d i f f e r e n c e s about definitions of supportiveness (i.e.,d i f f e r e n c e s in f a m i l y constructs) could easily provide the basis for thewife ' s and the husband's subsequent misperceptions a nd stereotypes o feach other. For example, she might see him as controlling and he mightsee her as uninvolved. Furthermore, these individual cognitions abouteach other could lead to a jointly held belief ( f am i l y construct) that "W edon't see things alike." Thus, the cognitions of individual f a m i l ymembers are i n f l uenced by the core assumptions or constructs of theirof to the f a m i l y


5/19

223

FIGURE 2. Development of disparate cognitions from the mismatchof implicit constructs in families of origin.

Moreover, Procter (1985) has noted that triangles are critical to anunderstanding o f f a m i l y interactions n o t just because they representcoalitions within th e f a m i l y bu t also because they provide a basis for the

Family Cognitions an d Constructs


6/19

224 Alexanderthe p r e v io u s e x a m p l e of the son wi th the behavior problem in tha t eachf a m i l y m e m b e r ' s bel iefs were based on his or her un ique pe r spec tive onthe s im i l a r i t i e s a nd d i f f e r e n c e s of a l l three i n d i v i d u a l s .

T he Mi lan group , headed by Selvini-Palazzoli , d escribed a s imi la r no-t ion of the dev elopm ent of f ami l y m e m b e r s ' beliefs when they re fe r red toBateson 's de f in i t ion of i n fo r m a t i o n as a di f fe r ence and a di f fe r ence as are la t ionship (Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1980). Since,according to Bateson, a ll knowledge of exte rna l events is der ived f romthe re la t ionships between them, any belief of an i nd iv idua l or a f ami l ywould be based on observat ions of re la t ionships . These re la t ionshipsdevelop not only with respect to specific interac t ions and behaviors, a s inthe case jus t descr ibed, bu t also with respect to emotions, events leadingto changes in re la t ionships , and even hypothet ica l c ircumstances .Maintenance of Family CognitionsG iv e n th a t f a m i l y co g n it io n s d e v e lo p u n d e r u n iq u e a n d i d i o syn c r a t i cc i r cu m s t a n ce s , the qu es t ion a r i se s as to ho w these cognit ions a re m a i n -t a ined even a f t e r the impe tus fo r the i r deve lopment has long s inced i s a p p e a r e d . This i s an especia l ly im por ta nt i s sue g iven the d i f f i cu l ty a nou ts ide r ( inc lud ing a the r ap is t ) wou ld hav e in dec iph er ing the bas is force r t a in in te r ac t ions in the f a m i l y .Meichenbaum (1977) ha s noted tha t th e t e rm " in te rna l d i a logue"e m p h a s i z e s t h a t a n i nd iv idua l bo th s p e a k s to h i m / h e r s e l f a nd listens toh i m / h e r s e l f a nd p e r h a p s ev e n co m m e n ts on th e s e co m m e n t s . A f a m i l y ,by v i r t u e of h a v in g m o r e t h a n one member, ca n ca r r y on these d ia -logues a s well as the m e ta c o m m u n i c a ti o n ev e n m o r e n a t u r a l l y t h a n ca nthe i n d i v i d u a l . F u r th e r m o r e , the dia logues need no t even be ve rba l a ndo f t e n are not . F a m i l y m em bers , the re fore , l ike ind iv id ua ls , do not re lyon memory a s the med ium fo r conse rv ing the i r cogn i t ions (Re i s s ,1981). Cogni t ions are main ta ined th rough behav io r s and in te rac t ions .F u r t h e r m o r e , a ny even t tha t can be i n te rp r e ted a s being consis tentwith a prev iou s ly held belief will ten d to s t rengthen tha t be l ie f (Bogdan ,1984). These i n te r ac t ion pa t t e rns can also serve to v a l i d a t e the wholef ami l y ' s jo in t pe rcept ion of an i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y m e m b e r . F or e x a m p le ,if a husba nd expe r i ences f r u s t r a t ion and expre s se s a nge r in r e sponse toh is wife 's perce ived pass iv i ty and i f she becomes more pass ive when-


7/19

Family Cognitions and Constructs 225FAMILY CONSTRUCTS (JOINTLY HELD BELIEFS)

DescriptionThe other type of construct to be considered in this analysis is thefami ly construct or jointly held belief. This join tly held belief is signifi-cant in t h a t f ami ly m e m b e r s ' sense of belonging is a resu l t of theexperience of consonance coming f rom a shared rea l i ty (Sluzki , 1983).Although these beliefs have been var iously descr ibed as the fami lyhistory (Sluzki , 1983), the fami ly pa rad igm (Reiss, 1981), th e fami lyrules (Ford, 1983), and the f ami ly myth (Seltzer & Seltzer , 1983), theya ll r e f e r to a common construct or a g r e e m e n t about the order andm e a n i n g a t t r ibu ted to events.A s wa s sta ted previously, the fami ly construct serves as the basis forin te rp re t ing other events and i s thus comparab le to the individual ' scognitive s t ruc tu re . Reiss (1981) reported that he was inf luenced in hisconceptual izat ion of the f ami ly construct by Kelly's (1955) descriptionof an individual 's personal construct in which the f o r m a l propert ies ofthe construct de termine behavior in a given sett ing by serving asguid ing conceptions to help the ind ivid ua l m ak e sense of the part icu larsett ing. Reiss conducted a series of l abora to ry exper iments t ha t illus-t ra ted how a f am i ly , as an integra l unit , explores i ts environment forinformat ion, d is t r ibutes th is in format ion among i ts members , and in -terpre ts the signif icance of the info rm at ion. In other words, the f ami lyas an ent i ty develops a pa r a d igm for organ iz ing in fo rm a t ion r e levan t tothe group .Development of F a m i l y ConstructsThe development of the fami ly construct m ir rors the d evelopm ent ofthe f ami ly system s ta r t ing f rom the cu l ture in which the f ami ly residesto the fami l ie s of or igin to the u niq ue e xperiences of the pre sent f ami ly .Just as culture provides a range of descriptors which can serve as theinit ial basis of compar ison, it a lso determines how much leeway isallowed the f ami ly in developing its own u n i q u e beliefs. Reiss (1981),for exam ple , contras ted the Pu r i tan fami ly s t ructure in which thef am i ly served pr imar i ly as a representa t ion of the culture with thef ami ly s t ruc tu re of the settlers on the Pra i r ies in the 1800s in which,

225


8/19

226 Alexanderm e n t a nd e x t e r n a l stressors. Moreover, Reiss (1981) ha s sugges ted thatone specific k in d of f a m i l y con s t ruct ( the cris i s con s t ruc t) deve lops ou tof the reso lu t ion of a f a m i l y cr is is . G iven a h igh enough degree of s tressto cause dang er of d is in tegra t ion of the f a m i l y unit, the f a m i l y loses itsabil i ty to expla in the wor ld . T he process by which the f a m i l y recoversf r om this cr is is is its co l labora t ive recons t ruct ion of rea l i ty . T he con-s t r uc t thus deve loped s t ands ou t a s an ach ievement o f the f a m i l y a ndbecom es the pa r ad igm fo r dea l ing w i th f u tu r e c ri s es . Th i s cons truc t ca nbe p r o d u c t i v e and "healthy," which is hope fu l l y the o u t c o m e of asuccess fu l f a m i l y t h e r a p y i n t e rv e n t i o n in w h ich a f a m i l y conc ludes that" We c an work out our prob lems i f we ju s t d iscuss them openly ." On theother hand , th is new cr is i s cons t ruct can be pa thogenic as when acoup le d i scove r s tha t the i r un re so lved mar i t a l conf l ic t i s not as s a l i en twhen they choose to focus ins tead on the i r p rob lem ( and pe rhaps ,scapegoa ted) chi ld .In a n e x t re m e e x a m p l e of a pa thoge nic cr is i s cons t ruc t , W ikle r (1980;Pollner & Wikler, 1985) described the case of a f o l i e a famille in which af a m i l y , fo l lowing severe f i n an c i a l se tbacks a nd psychologica l s t ressesi nc lud ing the dea th of a son , deve loped the de lus ion tha t the f ive -year -old d a u g h t e r w a s es sen t i a l l y of norm a l in te l l igence a l thoug h she actedm enta l ly re ta rd ed in publ ic . In response to the f ami ly ' s reques t for ane v a l u a t i o n of the gir l , p rofess iona ls in n in e d i f f e r e n t subspecia l t ie s a l ld e t e r m i n e d he r IQ to be a p p r o x i m a t e l y 25 . W ikle r de sc r ibed how thef a m i l y w a s able to m a i n t a i n th e i r belief a b o u t the gir l by f r a m i n g a nybehavior of he r s a s n o r m a l , by phys ica l l y pu ppe tee r ing he r , by p u t t i n gw o r d s in her m o u t h , a nd w h e n a l l else f a i l ed , by d e f i n i n g her f a i l u r e s a sev idence of he r super ior ab i l i ty to fool the p ro fe s s iona l s . A l thoughm o s t f a m i l y cons t ruc t s a r e by no m eans a s ex t r em e a s the one de sc r ibedhere, the ex is tence of a cr i si s con s t ru ct w hich provides the ba s is for thef ami ly ' s r e so lu t ion of conf l ic t dese rves explora t ion .In s u m m a r y , the f am i ly ' s be l i e f s abou t i ts e lf a re i n f l u e n c e d by thecon tex t of cu l t u r e and the f a m i l i e s of or ig in . They deve lop as a way toa cco u n t for the d i s t inc tnes s of the expe r i ences of the f a m i l y a s a whole .A l th o u g h th e y m a y be i n f l u e n ce d by the cogni t ions of i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l ym em bers , they a lso se rve as a tem pla te for orga niz ing the cogni t ions off a m i l y m e m b e r s .


9/19

Family Cognitions and Constructs 227de l inea t e bounda r i e s w i th in a n d without the f a m i l y , a nd above all, toestabl ish a nd prese rve the f a m i l y iden t i ty . The i r d i scuss ion of theser i t u a l s i nc luded f a m i l y ce lebra t ions , such as ho l idays and r i tes o f pas -sage, f a m i l y t rad i t ions , such a s s u m m e r v a c a t i o n s a nd v is i t s wi th ex -t ended re la t ives , a nd f a m i l y i n t e r ac t ions , such a s bed t im e rou t ines fo rch i l d ren or le isure act iv i t ies . T he l a t t e r are the l eas t de l ibera te a nd m o s tcover t , bu t a re espec ia l ly re lev an t in d e f i n i n g f a m i l y m e m b e r s ' ro les andresponsibi l i t ies .The m a i n t e n a n c e of f ami l y constructs is a lso in f luenced by cer ta incharacter is t ics of the const ruc ts them se lves . F i rs t of all, f ami ly const ruc tstend to be of a higher level of abstraction than most beliefs and thus a reless accessible to consciousness and more imperv ious to change (Bogdan,1984). In fact , according to Bateson , th e idea that survives in a f ami ly ismore abs t rac t and there fo re , used successfully more o f ten (Bogdan ,1984). S im ilar ly , the effec t of the nonverba l com m unica t ion on the verba lc o m m u n i c a t i o n is an e x a m p l e of the abstract , impl ic i t a nd p o w e r f u lna tu re of the constru cts contro l l ing the in tera ct ion (Selv in i-Pa lazzol i,Boscolo, Cecchin, & Prata, 1978; Watz lawick , Weak land , & F isch, 1974).Ford (1983) described the effec t of the level of abstract ion in the m ain te-nance of a f ami l y construct or ru le . A ccording to Ford , every f ami l y "rule"(e.g., "Be nice to yo ur mother . " ) i s accom pan ied by a "counter rule" (e.g.,"Don't be nice to y o u r mother .") . Al though the ru le and the counter ru leappea r to be s imi la r to opposite poles of the same construct , they are notnecessar i ly on the sam e leve l of abstract ion in th a t one t ends to be explicitwhile the other is impl ic i t . A s a result, the ru le and the counter ru le ca neasily chang e places. This a llows for the m ain tena nce of the m ore ab-stract construct (i.e., the counter ru le) . F or examp le , "Be on t ime" sta tedoften enough impl ies or expects t a rd iness and the ru le "Don't f ight"spoken to chi ldren suggests the behav ior tha t is actua l ly expected ofthem . There fo re , the abs t rac t and im pl ic i t na tu re o f a f ami ly constructhelps to assure i ts cont inued existence.A n o t h e r a t t r i b u t e of the cons t ruc t that a f f ec t s i ts m a i n t e n a n c e orsuscept ibi l i ty to change is i ts com p lex i ty . Fo rd (1983) specu l a t ed th a tthe most e legan t ru les no t on ly have the f ewes t words ( and the re fo rethe h ighes t l eve l o f abs t rac t io n) bu t a l so a h igh leve l o f am bigu i ty thata l lows mul t ip le cho ices and the wides t r ange of e f fec t s . H is "elegantf a m i l y rule" is c o m p a r a b l e to Kelly 's (1955) description of a h igh lyd i f f e r e n t i a t e d persona l const ruc t which a l lows the in tegra t ion o f new

227


10/19

228 Alexander

instances of asser t iveness in the mother or sensi t ivi ty in the f a t h e r )would ei ther be rejected by the f ami l y in order for the construct to bepreserved or would r i sk inva l ida t ing a m a jo r system of belief within thef a m i l y . Given the m a jo r d i s rup t ive ef f ec t s of the l a t t e r , it can be seenw hy such a fami ly is so res is tant to change.A f ina l re levant charac te r i s t ic of the const ruc t is its permeab i l i t y .Sys tems theor is ts emphas ize the impor tance of a permeable and openf am i l y s t ruc tu re in orde r for it to grow and deve lop to a higher level oforgan iza t ion . Given Bateson's not ion of f ami l y organ iza t ion as an ecol-ogy of ideas , it can be seen that f am i l y constructs a lso require ana d e q u a t e a m o u n t of interact ion with the e nv i r onm e n t in order to be-come complex enough to deal with new deve lopmenta l s tages a ndexte rna l dem and s . To r e fe r aga in to the exam ple o f the incestuousf ami ly , another aspec t of th is f am i l y s t r uc tu r e is its social an d /or phy si-cal i so la t ion. W ithout be ing faced with the divers i ty of personal i t ies andperspect ives that exis t outs ide a f ami l y uni t , the i nces tuous f ami l y ha svery l i t t l e exposure to social mores a nd l i t t le opportunity to observeo the r fami l ie s ' w a y s of deal ing with conflict whi le ma in ta in ing f ami l yuni ty . There fore , the inces tuous f ami l y re ta ins an outmoded and r ig idview of i tself and of the world for lack of a m or e d i f f e r en t i a t ed con-s t ruc t sys tem.In s um m ar y , c ons t r uc t s a re m a i n t a i n e d in several ways. Firs t of all,their val idi ty is cons tan t ly conf i rm ed th rough a series of rehearsed andintr ica te beha vio ral intera ct ions. Secondly, becau se of their implic i t andabs t rac t n a tu re , they are not eas i ly consc iously ident i f ied and inspectedfor the i r verac i ty . Final ly, depend ing upon the degree of the i r complex-ity and pe rmeab i l i t y , they may or may not be ab le to accommoda teenough new in fo rm at io n to a llow for a m ore comple te and a ccura terepresenta t ion of the f ami l y and i ts m e m be r s .

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF P A T H O L O G YAs was descr ibed in the previous section, the im plic i t na tu re of f ami l yconstructs is such that they are not eas i ly subject to examinat ion andconscious change. However , they would not have much significance forf ami ly the r apy if the i r only funct ion was to promote a sense of f ami l y


11/19

Fam ily Cognitions and Constructs 229f ami l y belief sys tem and s y m ptom a t i c be hav io r in the r egu la t ion ofanx ie ty within the f ami ly . Thei r mode l a lso of fe rs a f r a m e w o r k forde m ons t r a t ing the r e l a t ionsh ip be tween jo in t ly held f ami ly beliefs a ndf ami l y members ' expec ta t ions of each other .F e l d ma n and Pinsof descr ibed how catas t rophic expecta t ions andanx ie ty within a f ami l y resul t f rom the violat ion of implici t rules withinthe f ami ly (usua l ly ru les re la t ing to al lowable behaviors and to theexper ience of conflict a nd i n t im ac y ) . In cyberne t ic t e r m s , anx i e t y re -sul ts f rom a f e a r of a des t ruc t ive pos i t ive feedback runaway ( " th ingsgett ing out of control") . There fo re , the anxie ty can be seen as ar is ingf rom a t h r e a t to the fami ly 's core as sum pt ions and to the in tegr i ty ofthe f ami l y u ni t . The an xie ty m ay a lso ar i se less d i rec t ly f rom a changein a given f ami l y m e m b e r ' s behavior which can t hen upse t the cogni-t ions of every o the r f ami l y member as i t appl ies to t h a t person. Theanxie ty then serves a s a s t im u lus cue for a ce r t a in symptomat ic orproblem behavior . Usu al ly the problem behavior i s exhibi ted by a spe-cific f ami l y m e m be r a l t hough it is also possible for d i f f e r e n t f ami lym e m b e r s to display d i f f e ren t problem behaviors . Given tha t the prob-lem behavior is pa r t of a well-rehearsed cycle of behaviors , it elicits awel l - rehearsed response . Fur thermore , both the problem behavior a ndthe response to i t serve as a basis for confirming f ami l y m e m b e r s 'beliefs abou t each other . Since these cognitions are also not new, th ebehaviors and cognit ions can be seen as pa r t of a nega t ive feedbackmech a n i sm . B y r e t u r n ing the f ami ly to f ami l i a r t e r r i to ry a nd f ami l i a rin te rac t ions , the anxie ty tha t had deve loped f rom the ini t ia l violat ionsof the core as sum pt ions or of the specific f ami l y cognit ions is r e duc e d .However , the problem behavior a lso a rouses new anxie t ies itself( th r ea ten ing a posi t ive feedback spi ra l ) wh en it exceeds its own al low-able level within the f ami l y (a s des ignated by the re levant f ami l y ru lesregarding problem behavior ) . At th is point , ca tas t rophic expecta t ionsr e ga r d ing the problem behavior lead to s t imulus cues which e l ic i t a ndre inforce const ruc t ive a l te rnat ive behaviors which cons t ra in the prob-lem behavior .W i t h th is m ode l, Fe ld m an and P insof have a t t em pted to in tegra tep sych o d yn a mi c perspect ives (e .g. , anxiety a nd de f e ns e s ) a nd sociallearning perspec t ives (e.g ., in te rperso na l s t im u lus cues , re info rcem entof problem and nonproblem behaviors) within a cyberne t ic f ramework

229


12/19

23 0 Alexanderchange in the f a m i l y r u l e s o r cons t ruc t s r ega rd ing confl ict , i n t i m a c y ,and a l lowable behaviors .

However, to the ex ten t tha t th e f a m i l y cons t ruc t s a re too u n c l e a r tobe eva lua ted or to the e x t e n t that even acknowledg ing or c o m m e n t i n gon the family rules is itself a violation of a family rule, it is going to bem o r e d i f f i cu l t for the f a m i l y to a l t e r t h i s p r o b l e m - m a in t e n a n ce cycle .The re fore , a l ack of c la r i ty abou t the ru les and an unw i l l ingness toa ckn o w le d g e the r u l e s a re both sets of problem behaviors sugges t ingthe i r o w n ca ta s t roph ic expec ta t ions i f the cons t ruc t s or r u l e s were evento be s ta ted . Ford (1983), for exam ple , proposed tha t sym ptom for m a-tion could be thought of as a resolution of the uncla r i ty about the rulea nd the coun te r r u l e and the inab i l i ty to f ind ou t w h a t the ru les a re . F orexam ple , the sch izophren ic m ay engage in vague and c ryp t i c ve rba l i za -t ions in a f a m i l y in which no t only are the exceptions , qua l i f i ca t ions ,consequences of the r u l e s a nd w a y s to i m p l e m e n t t h e m u n c l e a r , bu tthe r e a lso ex is ts a s t rong ru le aga ins t ta l k ing abou t the ru les . W hi leFord add re s sed the i m p a c t of lack of c la r i ty of the f a m i l y cons t ruc t orru le , the Milan group descr ibed the e f f ec t of a lack of cla r i ty in f a m i l ymembers' expec ta t ions of each o the r . They s ta ted tha t th is lack ofclar i ty is an i n ten t iona l avo idance on the p a r t of d y s f u n c t i o n a l f a m i l i e sto m a k e a d e f i n i t i o n of their re la t ionships (Se lv in i -Pa lazzol i e t al.,1978). The r e su l t i s d i s c onf i rm a t ion and the " f am i l y game" in wh icheach person tr ies to win control of the f a m i l y r u l e s wh i l e deny ing tha the or she is rea l ly d oing so. Fo r exa m ple , i t is a lw ay s poss ible to s igna l toanother f a m i l y m em ber th rou gh com m unica t ion m e ta l eve l s (e .g ., bo re-dom , phy s ica l i l lness) that the other's apparent super ior i ty i s not rea l lysup er ior i ty . The resu l t , o f course , i s a dou ble b ind in wh ich the nonver -ba l co u n t e r a c t s the ve rba l s t a t em en t . Once aga in , i t can be seen howspeci f ic fami ly cogn i t ions ( and subsequen t in te r ac t ions ) a re both a f -fected by the " f am i ly gam e" o r " f am i ly rule" ( tha t clar i f ica t ion is notal lowable) and a l so he lps to ma in ta in th i s f a m i l y r u l e o r cons t ruc t .Pa thology in a f a m i l y m ay also be the r e su l t of excess ive ly r igidcogni t ions or cons t ructs in which f a m i l y member s a r e no t ab le o rwill ing to change the i r pe rcept ions of each o the r or of the f a m i l y i t se l f .Wolin a nd Bennett (1984) , fo r example , s t a t ed tha t a n u n d e r l y i n gc o m m i t m e n t to use r i t u a l i s not r e l a t ed to p a th o lo g y w h e r e a s theinabi l i ty to a d ap t r i tua l i s . Se l tze r and Se l tze r (1983) s im i la r ly d iscussed


13/19

Family Cognitions a n d Constructs 231m e m b e r ) , f ami l y anxie ty cues or elicits a set of problem behaviorswhich func t ion a s a nega t ive feedback m e c h a n i s m up to the point a twhich the problem behaviors themselves e l ic i t a series of correct ivebehaviors to stabi l ize the sys tem. The re fore , a m e a n i n g f u l c ha n g e ofthis cybernetic system requires an al terat ion of the regulatory con-s t ruc t s themse lves as well as a change in the specific cogni t ions a ndinterac t ion pa t t e r ns of f am i l y members . Both a fam i ly ' s inabi l i ty andunwi l l ingness to eva lua te these cons t ruc ts ca n obviously inhibit theirmodif ica t ion . F u r t h e r m o r e , a lack of c lar i ty abo ut these co ns t ruc ts andthe r ig id i ty of the const ruc ts themse lves a re both character is t ic ofseverely pathological f am il ies . Therefore , successful therapeu tic in te r -ve nt ion requi res the abil i ty to interv en e at the level of the con struc ts aswell as at the level of the cogni t ions .

IMPLICATIONS FOR TREATMENTConsidera t ion of the im por t anc e of the family 's bel iefs (e i ther indiv id -u a l or jo int ly he ld ) leads to severa l im pl ica t ions for the r apy . It sugges tstha t the the r ap i s t m us t exam ine h i s /he r s tance wi th r e spec t to thesebeliefs. Conversely , i t sugges ts tha t the fami ly ' s i n te rpre t a t ion of thetherapis t and the the r apy expe r i ence wi l l a f fec t the n e w l y - f o r m e d"crisis const ruct" which deve lops f ro m the thera py . F ina l ly , a cons ider -at ion of f ami l y const ruc ts should encourage the therapis t to in te rveneat the level of the const ruc ts themse lves .Therapist NeutralityIn explor ing f a m i l y members ' cogni t ions and jo int ly he ld cons t ruc ts ,the therapis t ' s neut ra l i ty is essentia l . Given tha t conflict in the f am i l y isa re f lec t ion of a d i f f e r ence in beliefs ei ther between f am i l y m e m b e r s orbetween the f am i l y and i t s e nv i r onm e n t , it is essent ia l tha t the the r a -pist not i n f e r a cer ta in rea l i ty . F i r s t , th is m a y prec lude the the r ap i s tf rom gaining ins ight in to the fami ly ' s subjec t ive exper ience of thesym ptom . Second , the picture of real i ty presented by the f ami l y to thetherapis t ma y b e p a r t of the f am i l y g a m e . T he Milan grou p d escribedthe ga m e presen ted in the r ap y as "Here is our burd ensom e, s ick, or bad


14/19

232 Alexanderblame . There fo re , ins tead of in fer r ing a cer ta in rea l i ty f rom the non-verbal behaviors presented in the session (e.g., Mrs. White lookingbored and d is interested ) , i t is m o r e use fu l to observe the effects of thisbehavior on other f ami ly m e m b e r s and on the therapis t h imsel f orherse l f . In this wa y, the the rap is t can ga in access s im ul taneou sly to thesubjective basis for the beliefs of the f ami ly as well as a m ore objectivebasis for the f unc t ion of the behavior .It is impor tan t to note tha t the use of this approach diverges from Ellis'or Beck's attem pt to eva luate the exter nal va lidity of a given cognition.This author 's view of pathology is m ore closely related to tha t of Kelly intha t problem s seem to ar ise m ore f rom the form al properties of thecognitions or constructs (e.g., their r igidi ty or lack of clar i ty) ra ther thanfrom the i r ra t ional i ty of their specific content. Consequently, an assess-m e n t of a family member's cognitions or family 's constructs would focusless on a rationa l a naly sis of the beliefs themselves and more on thefunctionali ty of the beliefs within the fami ly sys tem.Therapist CredibilityThe fam ily 's perception of the the rap ist and the th era py expe rience isequa l ly im por tan t . G iven t h a t the behavior of the f ami ly is med i a t ed bythe perceptions of the f ami ly m em bers, the therap ist 's credibi l i ty withthe f ami ly becom es essent ia l to h is /her e f fec t ive ness . As noted bySeltzer and Seltzer (1983), an assumpt ion is u sua l ly ma d e by the f ami lythat the therapist has a legit imate role as a specia l is t to conduct con-cre te procedu res ( r i tua ls) which should be loaded with m eaning (m y th) .There fo re , the f ami ly ' s in te rp re ta t ion of an in tervent ion is as impor -t a n t as the behaviora l in tervent ion i tself .Reiss' (1981) ana lysis of the cr is is construct i l lustra tes ano ther way inwhich the fam i ly ' s in terp re ta t ion of the therapy is im por tan t . To theex ten t t h a t most fami l ie s regard themselves as in a cr is is before theyare willing to seek t he r apy , it is use fu l to recognize t h a t their interpre-ta t ion of the therapy exper ience m ay be very s ignif icant in their use ofprofess ionals in the f u tu r e a nd , m ore im po r ta n t l y , in the i r use of newlyacqui red skills to resolve f u tu re crises . The therapis t m ay also considerthe option of m a g n i f y in g the crisis in a reca lc i t rant fami ly in orde r toin te r fe r e with the f am i ly ' s cons truc t ion of itself so t h a t a new crisis


15/19

Family Cognitions a nd Constructs 233though it is possible to also in tervene at the level of specific cogn itionsand exp ectat ion s, an interv ention at the level of the fami ly construct orru l e subsuming those specific cogni t ions ca n ac tua l ly be m u c h m o r ed r a ma t i c a n d f a r - r e ac h ing .One intervention s trategy would involve using exis t ing constructs tosuggest new behaviors which a re consis tent with these constructs(Procter , 1985). F or example , ove r ly indu lgent bu t loving pare nts m ightrespond more enthus ias t ica l ly to be hav io r a l m anage m e n t if it weresugges ted tha t "Car ing m eans d isc ipl in ing yo ur chi ldren." F ur the r -more , W hipp le (1987) noted the u t i l i ty of re fe rr i ng to re lev ant Biblicalpassages in working wi th bat tered women f rom a fundamenta l i s tChr i s ti an backgroun d . In fact , she ma in ta ined tha t many women wi ththis belief system m ay only be willing to do someth ing d i f f e r e n t "if theycan see in the Bible t ha t G od does not want them to be abused." The re -fore , i na t t en t ion to a client's belief s t ruc tu re not only represents theneglect of a potent ia l ly use fu l the r apeu t i c s t r a t egy b u t , a t t imes, ca neven lead to the al ienat ion and loss of the c l ient .A contras t ing type of in te rvent ion is to focus on exist ing behaviorsbu t suggest that they a re evidence of a new set of const ruc ts . Refe r r edto as posi t ive connotat ion by the Milan group (Se lv ini-Pa lazzol i e t al.,1978; Sluzki, 1983) and r e f r a m i n g by the Palo Alto group (Watzlawicket al . , 1974), the purpose of this strategy is to eliminate the strugglebetween the f ami l y members or be tween the f am i l y and the the r ap i s twhich keeps the sys tem so int rac tably s table .Howe ver, in ord er to ascribe a new m ea nin g to a series of ev ents, i t isnecessary to f i r s t "cul t iva te" the re f raming by re focus ing on and sys -t emat ica l ly punctuat ing an inte rac t ion in such a way as to sugges t anew classification of the behavior before the f r a m e is explicitly s ta ted(Jones, 1986). Since th e fami ly ' s real i ty is a social con struct ion and isbased on exis t ing schemas or constructs , f am i l y m e m be r s a r e un l i k e l yto accept a therapist's sudden re in terpre ta t ion of behavior. Therefore,the therapis t readies the thera peu t ic sys tem by in t roduc ing a new "codebook" which will relax the fami ly ' s exist ing presupposi t ions and al lowthe f ami l y to respond to new i n format ion (Whi te , 1986). Jones (1986)described three tech niqu es tha t a re f re qu en t ly used by f am i l y the r a -pists to implic i t ly set the stage for a l a t e r r e f r a m ing . The rap i s t s m a y a skques t ions which by the i r very na ture im ply a re la t ionship tha t m ay notyet be acknowledged by the f ami l y . F or e xam p le , a mult ip le -choice


16/19

234 Alexanderseem ingly innocuous d iscuss ions of m u n d a n e e v e n ts . Final ly, the rap i s t sm ay u se behav io ra l enac tm en ts wh ich aga in m ay sugges t a r e l a tionsh iptha t would be denied by the f am i l y if s ta ted expl ici t ly too soon. F orexamp le , pra is ing a p a r en t for a child 's good behavior in a session canini t iate a process of imp l i ca t ion tha t the p a r e n t m ay ac tua l ly havecontrol over the chi ld 's misbehavior a s well .Al though i t may never be necessary to do any th ing more explicitt h a n to cu l t i v a t e a d i f f e r e n t f o r m u l a t i o n of the fami ly ' s experience, thesubsequen t r e f r a m i n g or posi tive conno tat ion m ay a lso be very specificand de l ibera te . An example might be to l abel a sch izophrenic ch i ld ' sbehavior as ev idence of h is a t te m pt to keep the f ami l y together. Sincethe idea of a ch i l d a ssuming a n u r t u r a n t r o l e is incongruous wi th theidea of his being sick and helpless, the f a m i l y is forced to al ter theirexpecta t ions of his behav io r . Fu r the rmore , the subsequent change inexpecta t ions has the ef fect of r e in fo rc ing new, m ore a ppropr i a t e be -haviors (Bogdan, 1984).A f ina l met h o d of i n t e rven ing at the level of the const ructs is toa t t e m p t to m a k e the im pl ici t constru ct expl ici t . As w as s ta ted pre-v ious ly , par t of the reason tha t bel iefs are so res i s tant to change isbecause they a re abs t r ac t and the re fo re u nav a i l ab l e fo r com m ent . Ast ra tegy which wi l l make them more concrete will al low for a moreconscious decision for change. Watzlawick et a l. (1974) recounted anexam p le o f this type of in tervent ion in which a t eenage g i r l ac ted veryd is respec t fu l ly toward her mother wh i l e her f a t h e r r ema i n ed q u i e t .A l though the mo t h e r fe l t t h a t he r h u sb a n d w a s sub t ly encourag ingthei r daughter ' s behavior by his silence, t he r e w a s obviously no way forher to prove this since her h u sb a n d had a very d i f f e r e n t perspect ive onthe s i tua t ion . T he the rap i s t then requ i red the f a t h e r ( in his wife'spresence) to s i l en t ly g ive h is da ug hter a d im e each t im e she a rgued wi thher mother . Whether or not the fa ther ac tua l ly had been re inforc in g h isd a u g h t e r fo r t h e se a rg u men t s w a s open to in terpre ta t ion a nd the re fo rei r r e l evan t . T he point of the i n t e rven t ion was to co n f u se the d a u g h t e rand to provide a basis for the m o t h e r a nd f a t h e r to agree on wh a t m ayhave been his role a l l a long. With their beliefs no longer implicit andnonverbal , they then h a d a n oppor tun i ty to verba l ly d i scuss the prob-lem a nd arr ive a t a reso lu t ion .

In su mma ry , an appreciation of a fam ily 's construct ion of reality andf ami l y memb er s ' bel iefs about each o the r can prove to be a use fu l new


17/19

Family Cognitions a nd Constructs 23 5R E F E R E N C E S

Bateson, G . (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Chandler.Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive theory and the emotional disorders. New York: Interna-tional Universities Press.Bogdan, J. L. (1984). Family organization as an ecology of ideas: An alternative

of the reification of family systems, family Process, 23, 375-399.Bowen, M. (i960). A family concept of schizophrenia. In D. Jackson (Ed . ) , The

aetiology of schizophrenia. Basic Books, pp. 346-372.Ellis, A. (1973). Humanis t ic psychotherapy: The rational-emotive approach. New York:

McGraw-Hill.Feldman, L. B., & Pinsof, W. M. (1982). Problem m ain tenance in f a m i l y systems:

A n integrative model, journal of Mari tal a n d Family Therapy, 8, 295-308.Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1983). Social Cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.Ford, F. (1983). Rules: The invisible family. Family Process, 22, 135-145.Golden, W. L., & Dryden, W. (1986). Cognitive-behavioural therapies: Com-

monalities, divergences and future development. In Dryden, W. & Golden,W . ( E d s . ) , Cognitive-behavioural approaches to psychotherapy. London: Harper &Row, pp. 356-378.

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

Herman, J. L. (1981). Father-daughter incest. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universi tyPress.

Jones, C. W. (1986). Frame cu ltiva tion: Helping new meanings take root infamilies. T h e American Journal of Family Therapy, 14, 57-68.

Kelly, G . A . (1955). T h e psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Liotti, G. (1986). Structural cognitive therapy. In Dryden, W., & Golden, W. L.

(Eds.), Cognitive-behavioural approaches to psychotherapy. London: Harper & Row,pp. 92-128.

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavioral modification: An integrative approach.New York: Plen um .

Pollner, M., & Wikler, L. (1985). The social constructio n of unreality. FamilyProcess, 24, 241-257.

Procter, H. (1985). A construct approach to f a m i l y therapy and systems inter-vention. In E. Button (Ed.), Personal construct theory a n d mental health. Cam-bridge, MA: Brookline Books, pp. 327-350.

Reiss, D . (1981). T h e family's construction o f reality. Cambridge, M A : HarvardUniversity Press.

Seltzer, W. J., & Seltzer, M. R. (1983). Magic, material, and myth. Family Process,


18/19

23 6 AlexanderSluzki, C. E. (1983). Process, s tru cture and world views: Toward an integrated

view of systemic models in f a m i l y therapy. Family Process, 22, 469-476.Watzlawick, P. (1978). T he language of change. N ew York: Basic Books.Watzlawick, P., Weakland, ]. , & Fisch, R . (1974). Change: Principles of problemformation a n d problem resolution. N ew York: Norton.Whipple, V. (1987). Counseling battered women from fundamentalist

churches. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 13, 251-258.White, M. (1986). Negative explanation, restraint, and double description: A

template for f a m i l y therapy. Family Process, 25, 169-184.Wikler, L . (1980). Folie a famille: A f a m i l y therapist's perspective. Family Process, 19 ,

257-268.Wolin, S. J., & Bennett , L. A. (1984). Family rituals. Family Process, 23, 401-420.


19/19

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	nicoph
View:	222 times
Download:	0 times

Cognitiile Si Constructele Familiei

Documents