Applying a Family Systems Framework to Family Research
Building on a strong foundation of research that has identified key dimensions of family functioning -- such as parenting practices, parent-child relationships, among others -- family systems theorists have long called for a greater integration of these domains into a more cohesive, complete picture of the family context of individual development. By understanding how multiple family processes work in concert with each other, we can better understand family influences on individual development. Just as listening to one instrument in an orchestra would produce a limited perspective on a symphony, focusing narrowly on single family processes cannot offer complete understanding of the rich context in which particular family relationships exist. There is a need for applying family systems principles to family science.
As empirical support for a systems perspective accumulates, the findings are promising. However, there is much left to be done. In a provocative paper published in 1985, Patricia Minuchin raised important issues as a challenge to family and developmental researchers to move toward a more "true-to-life" conceptualization of the family; these challenges continue to serve as inspiration to advance family research today. She summarized six key points for family systems theory: 1) family systems are an organized whole, and the elements within it are interdependent; 2) patterns in a family a circular rather than linear; 3) family systems maintain stability in their patterns of interactions (homeostasis); 4) family patterns change over time; 5) individuals in families are simultaneously members of many subsystems; and 6) boundaries reflect the implicit rules that govern family subsystem interactions.
Below, we highlight some of the ways that our research has incorporated family systems principles into our work to advance our understanding of the ways in which individuals:
As empirical support for a systems perspective accumulates, the findings are promising. However, there is much left to be done. In a provocative paper published in 1985, Patricia Minuchin raised important issues as a challenge to family and developmental researchers to move toward a more "true-to-life" conceptualization of the family; these challenges continue to serve as inspiration to advance family research today. She summarized six key points for family systems theory: 1) family systems are an organized whole, and the elements within it are interdependent; 2) patterns in a family a circular rather than linear; 3) family systems maintain stability in their patterns of interactions (homeostasis); 4) family patterns change over time; 5) individuals in families are simultaneously members of many subsystems; and 6) boundaries reflect the implicit rules that govern family subsystem interactions.
Below, we highlight some of the ways that our research has incorporated family systems principles into our work to advance our understanding of the ways in which individuals:
Include multiple family subsystems for a more complete understanding of family influences on child and adolescent outcomes
Although there is value in understanding how specific relationships in families influence child or adolescent development, we also recognize that family processes in families do not occur in isolation. We strive to capture a more complete picture of the multiple relationships that may influence youth development by examining multiple family processes and relationships simultaneously. Examples include studies where we have examined the unique contributions of mothers, fathers, and siblings to youth outcomes (Fosco & Grych, 2013; Fosco, Stormshak, Dishion, & Winter, 2012; Grych, Raynor, & Fosco, 2004). Future directions will focus multiple influences among different subsystems in relation to those that influence youth outcomes.
Consider the whole family as a unit of influence
Family systems theorists have argued that the family as a whole is an entity unto itself, and that whole-family functioning may influence child and adolescent development, beyond the impact of other subsystems. Some of our work highlights the importance of whole-family functioning, such as the emotional climate (Fosco & Grych, 2007), family cohesion and conflict (Fosco, Caruthers, & Dishion, 2012), and the relative predictive importance when accounting for mother- and father-child relationships (Fosco & Grych, 2013). Recently, we found that the family climate promotes adolescents' academic self-regulation skills, above and beyond school factors (Xia, Fosco, & Feinberg, 2015). Taken together, these studies have impressed on us the importance of whole-family functioning for child and adolescent development.
How families negotiate family boundaries can explain how interparental conflict impacts children's lives
Triangulation -- the process of involving children into interparental conflicts -- has profound implications for understanding how interparental conflict impacts children's lives. Our research has found that triangulation is a mediating process linking interparental conflict with children's internalizing and externalizing problems (Grych, Raynor, & Fosco, 2004; Fosco & Grych, 2008), can lead children to blame themselves for their parents arguments (Fosco & Grych, 2010), and can be detrimental to the quality of parent-adolescent relationships (Fosco & Grych, 2010). Recently, we found that disruptions to interparental boundaries are related to increases in parent hostility, which in turn is associated with increases in adolescents' hostile behavior toward their parents. Ultimately, it was adolescents' hostile behavior with parents that best predicted their behavior problems outside of the family (Fosco, Lippold, & Feinberg, 2014).
Explicitly test assumptions of the direction of influence
We recognize that linear (unidirectional) assumptions of causality pervade much of the existing developmental research. A common assumption is that parenting affects children's behavior. Recent research has shown that children exert tremendous influence on the quality of parenting they experience as well. Some of our work highlights how parent and child hostility is a reciprocal process (Fosco, Lippold, & Feinberg, 2014).
As we move forward, it is important to explicitly test bidirectional processes, or "circular causality" within families. To do so, multi-wave longitudinal research studies are needed, as are those with intensive data collection, such as daily diary or EMA studies.
As we move forward, it is important to explicitly test bidirectional processes, or "circular causality" within families. To do so, multi-wave longitudinal research studies are needed, as are those with intensive data collection, such as daily diary or EMA studies.
Recognize that the influence of family processes changes over the developmental course of family life.
Research is needed to examine the developmental timing of family influences on child and adolescent outcomes. We found that family and peer influences on adolescent substance use changed over time when we followed adolescents from age 12 to 23. In particular, parents' monitoring, or knowledge of their child's activities and whereabouts, was directly related with lower risk for substance use in early adolescence, but became less influential as adolescents got older. However, close family relationships remained an important protective family influence on drug use into late adolescence (Van Ryzin, Fosco, & Dishion, 2012). In a recent study, we found that family influences on adolescent academic self-regulation and school attachment differed over time; whereas family functioning had a stable influence on self-regulation, by the 8th Grade, family influence on adolescents' school attachment had declined (Xia, Fosco, & Feinberg, 2015).
Taken together, these studies underscore the importance of integrating a developmental framework into our thinking about the timing of family influence on child and adolescent outcomes.
Taken together, these studies underscore the importance of integrating a developmental framework into our thinking about the timing of family influence on child and adolescent outcomes.
How do family-centered interventions change family systems to benefit parents and youth alike?
Understanding the mechanisms by which family-centered interventions promote better outcomes for youth is a critical next-step for our field. Often, interventions are based on well-developed theoretical models of change (e.g., parenting skills, family interventions), but typically focus on whether the intervention is related to better outcomes. As a result, there is often little evidence as to whether an intervention: a) changes the aspects of family functioning it is believed to change and b) whether change in those processes accounts for the outcomes observed following participation in an intervention. Recent work of ours has begun testing mechanisms of change for the Family Check-Up model, and indicates that an intervention during middle school can prevent high school behavior problems and depression by preventing escalations in family conflict over the middle school years (Fosco, Van Ryzin, Stormshak, & Dishion, 2014; Fosco, Van Ryzin, Connell, & Stormshak, 2015), or can foster adolescents' effortful control, which also serves as a protective factor against escalations in substance use, deviant peer affiliation, and antisocial behavior (Fosco, Frank, Stormshak, & Dishion, 2013). This work examining mechanisms of family interventions is a critical step in providing an experimental test of family systems theory and in illuminating the processes by which interventions evoke lasting change in the lives of children and adolescents. More research is needed in this area to gain a clearer understanding of how family interventions work.