family climate and the role of the the adolescent

7/28/2019 Family Climate and the Role of the the Adolescent

1/10

Family Climate and the Role of the Female Adolescent: Determinants of Adolescent

FunctioningAuthor(s): Linda G. Bell and David C. BellSource: Family Relations, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Oct., 1982), pp. 519-527Published by: National Council on Family RelationsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/583927 .

Accessed: 30/05/2013 02:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Family Relations.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.230.238.12 on Thu, 30 May 2013 02:51:31 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfrhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/583927?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/583927?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncfr


2/10

Family Climate and the Role of theFemale Adolescent: Determinants ofAdolescent Functioning*

Linda G. Bell and David C. Bell**Two groups of families were compared. In one group each family contained anadolescent girl who scored high on a number of psychological and social measureswhich reflect general maturity, ncluding Loevinger'smeasure of ego development, asociometric questionnaire and selected scales from CaliforniaPsychological Inven-

tory. The comparison group contained families with an adolescent girl who scoredlow on these same measures. Families were selected throughlocal high schools, andwere middle class, white, intact families with two or three children. Adolescents inthe high scoring group came from families more likely to describe themselves asflexible and trusting in their interpersonal lifestyle. The high scoring adolescentswere less likely to be triangledinto the maritalrelationship-either as a scapegoat orin a cross-generational coalition with one parent.

The development of children occurs, to alarge extent, within the particularclimate andsubculture of the family of which they are apart. Within a particular family system, thechild learns when and how to express feelings,manage conflict, and negotiate differences.The general climate of the familywill teach thechild certain norms, values, and interpersonalskills which will be of more or less benefit toher when she interacts in the larger environ-ment outside the family.Perhaps equally important to the develop-ment of the child, as the general climate of thefamily, is the child's particularplace or role inthe family system. The child may be a strong

*Thisresearchwas supportedbya grant fromthe NationalInstituteof MentalHealth(R03MH28190).**LindaG. Bell is an Associate Professor of BehavioralSciences at the Universityof Houston at Clear LakeCity, 2700BayAreaBlvd.,Houston Texas 77058. DavidC. Bell is an Assis-tant Professor in the Departmentof Sociology, UniversityofHouston Central Campus, 4800 Calhoun, Houston, Texas77004.KeyConcepts:Familyclimate,adolescent, familycoalitions.(FamilyRelations, 1982,31, 519-527.)

family member who may be depended on, or aweak member who must be protected; an allyof one family member, or an independentagent. An importantclass of roles is involvedinthe process of triangulation(Anonymous, 1972;Haley, 1967; Vogel & Bell, 1968).When there isstress in the maritalsystem, the husband andwife may react by focusing their attention andconversation around their child's problems,thus avoiding dealing with the conflict be-tween them. This process is called "scape-goating" (Vogel & Bell, 1968; see alsoSchmidt's, 1968 discussion of the united frontfamily).Another method of dealing with maritalstress is for one parent to pull in a child forsupport, orienting conversation around thefaults of the spouse. This cross-generationalcoalition leaves the spouse in the position of adistanced, dissimilar outsider (see Schatt-schneider, 1960, for a discussion of the sameprocess in the political sphere). Over timefamilies develop relatively stable patterns oftriangulation(Anonymous, 1972).

This study was concerned with the effects ofthe general family climate and of the adoles-cent's role in triangulationrelationships on the

October1982 FAMILYRELATIONS 519

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/10

adolescent's level of functioning. By function-ing, we referto the skills and personality struc-ture the adolescent has (or has not) developedthat enable effective action. This includesvariables such as ego development, self-acceptance, self-control, and interpersonal ef-fectiveness.The families studied were normal in thesense that they were unlabeled with respect todelinquency and mental illness of familymembers. Most work in the area of family pro-cess has focused on comparisons betweenfamilies of schizophrenic or otherwise dis-turbed children and normal families (seeJacob, 1975). Two notable exceptions are thestudies of Raush, Barry, Hertel and Swain(1974)and Lewis, Beavers, Gossett and Phillips(1976). Raush et al., did a longitudinal study ofmarital couples, focusing on styles of dis-agreement and approach to conflict resolution.Lewis et al., using global ratingscales of familysystem variables, scales which correlated withboth clinical observations and more microana-lytic techniques, were able to differentiate op-timal from adequate families within their nor-mal group.

The study reported here was devoted to ex-amining the relations of family climate andadolescent role on adolescent functioning innormalfamilies.Method

Ninety-nine families participated in a struc-tured two hour interview in their homes. Thefamilies were selected with the cooperation oflocal high schools. A homogeneous population(white middle class, two and three childfamilies, with a 15-17 year old girl)was soughtin order to minimize variance. The identifiedadolescent girl in each family had previouslycompleted Loevinger's sentence completionmeasure of ego development (Loevinger,1966;Loevinger &Wessler, 1970) the CaliforniaPsy-chological Inventory (CPI),and a sociometricquestionnaire.Initially, sociometric questionnaires wereadministered to about 3,500 freshman andsophomore students in three high schools.(The sociometric measure was completed byboys and girls. It included questions relevantto socio-economic status, religion, and familystructure.) Four hundred eighty-five girls from

this group were invited to come to after-schooltesting sessions for completion of the Loevin-ger and CPI measures.1 These were all girlsfrom two or three child families, who reportedthat their parents were not divorced, and thatthey lived with both parents. Two hundredeighty-three girls accepted this invitation, withtheir parent's permission; they were paid $2each for their participation.Subjects were excluded from the sample ifthey scored higher than 31 on the Good Im-pression scale of the CPI(implyingthey mighthave been falsely giving a good impression), orlowerthan 19 on the Communalityscale (imply-ing they may have been answering items ran-domly); they were also excluded if they had notcompleted all of the measures. Families inwhich both parents were foreign born wereomitted, as well as families which had movedfromthe district or could not be contacted, andfamilies with severe health problems. This left215 families, 99 of which agreed to be inter-viewed. Families were contacted first by letter,then by phone; the person making the tele-phone contacts was not an interviewer;sheknew nothing about the status of the adoles-cent and little about the specific goals of thestudy. Families who declined the interviewusually gave lack of time ora concern for main-taining their privacyas reasons.Results

Characteristics of the interviewed familiesare shown in Table 1.There were no significantdifferences in the group of families whichdeclined the interview, compared with thegroup which accepted, in age, father's educa-tion, mother's education, numberof children inthe family, religion,or position of the identifiedadolescent (oldest, middle, oryoungest). Therewas a difference in the functioning of the iden-tified adolescent, as measured by the psycho-logical and sociometric tests. Families whodeclined had, on the average, adolescents whoscored less well on a summary score of thesemeasures (t (216) = 2.30, p < .03, 2-tailedtest).

'Due to time limitations, a choice had to be made betweengiving the entire Loevinger, the entire CPI, or a shortened ver-sion of each. It was decided to give a shortened Loevinger (12items), and the following CPI scales: Sociability, Self Accep-tance, Self Control, Good Impression, Socialization, and Com-munality.

520 FAMILY RELATIONS October1982



4/10

Table 1Characteristics of the FamiliesaTotal Interviewed HiSc LoScFather Mother Father Mother Father Mother

Education of ParentsGrade school, or some high school 7% 3% - - 14% -Finished high school 24% 49% 13% 60% 50% 60%College, business or trade school 28% 30% 33% 13% 7% 13%Finished college 25% 16% 33% 20% 22% 27%Postgraduate study 16% 2% 20% 7% 7% -Religion of Identified AdolescentProtestant 53% 47% 53%Catholic 37% 33% 40%Other 10% 20% 7%Family Position ofIdentified AdolescentOldest 63% 60% 67%Middle 29% 13% 13%Youngest 8% 27% 20%Sample Size 99 15 15

aThe total sample consists of 99 families initially interviewed. The other columns give per-centages for the 30 families selected for the research reported in this paper. The HiSc and LoScsamples each consist of the 15 families of the adolescents with the highest and lowest combinedscores respectively on the psychological and social measures.

Families participated in a structured homeinterview. Immediately after the family mem-bers had given their written permission for theinterview, they completed individually a63-item True-False questionnaire about theirfamily. This questionaire was a shortened ver-sion of the Moos Family Environment Scale(Moos, 1974). Answers to the questionnaireprovide the data reported here.Measurement of Adolescent Functioning

Following a factor analysis of the individualpsychological variables, four scales were de-vised for each adolescent: ego development(Loevinger), sociometric (popularity and mu-tuality of choices), self-acceptance and socia-bility (CPI), ocialization and self-control (CPI).A gross measure of adolescent functioningwas achieved by summing the adolescent'sstandard scores on these four individualscales. This paper reports data analyses focus-ing on the families of the girls who scored inthe top 15% of this gross measure and thoseof the girls scoring in the bottom 15%. Thefamilies will be referredto, respectively, as thehigh-scoring (HiSc)and the low-scoring (LoSc).There were no significant differences betweenthese two groups in age of identified adoles-cent, number of children in the family, religion,

or position of the identified adolescent. Therewere no differences in mother's education. Allmothers had completed high school. In bothgroups, 40% had some furthereducation. Thegroups did differ in father's education, fathersin the HiSc group being better educated (X2(4) = 9.76, p < .05). No families reported anytrouble with the law or difficulties with eitheralcohol or drugs (except for one alcoholicgrandfather). Two parents reported past in-dividualpsychotherapy (one in the HiSc group,one LoSc). Two children, both in the HiScgroup, siblings of identified adolescents, werereported as having had therapy-one for alearningdisability, one for a behavior problem.Ineach group, 60% of the mothers worked fullor part-time. One person interviewed ninefamilies in each group;a second interviewerin-terviewed six families in each group. (Inter-viewers were not aware of the nature of thefamily at any time.)Family Climate and Adolescent Functioning

The system in which the child develops willaffect her personal development and her styleof relating to others-both inside and outsidethe family. Behavioralskills and cognitive setsbeneficial-or detrimental-to successfulfunctioning in the "real world" are learned

October1982 FAMILY RELATIONS 521



5/10

through the ongoing process of family interac-tion. Some behaviors are reinforced,others ex-tinguished, and the child comes to feel comfor-table with her family's way of seeing the worldand structuring interpersonal interactions.Some family experiences will be more bene-ficial than others in helping the child to dealwith specific extrafamilial environments. Themore secure, stimulating, and 'healthy" thefamily is, the greater will be the developmentby the child of cognitive and interpersonalskills valuable in her living outside the family.Jackson (1970, 1977) has shown the impor-tance of "familyrules" for the family'sadaptiveability. Hess and Handel (1959) haveenumerated a number of "familythemes" that

summarize how a familyviews the world. Lewiset al. (1976),who measured the level of familyfunctioning by both macro and micro analysisof interaction process, have formulateda list ofcharacteristics that diffentiate "optimal"from"adequate" families within a normal popula-tion. The characteristics of families in their op-timal groups are summarized as follows:1)An affiliative attitude about human en-counter. There is an expectation that humanencounters are apt to be caring; this expecta-tion encourages reaching out to others.2) Respect for subjective views. Familymembers feel free to be open and honest aboutagreements and disagreements. They do notspeak for each other. The respect for subjec-tive views is not grounded in a high level ofagreement between family members about im-portant values, but rather in the respect for in-dividualdifferences.3)A belief in complex motivations. This is in-ferredfrom the families' approach to problems,a willingness to explore numerous options.4) High levels of initiative. Healthierfamiliesdemonstrate more constructive reaching out,are more active in their response to their en-vironment.5) Flexible structures. Whereas dysfunc-tional families are chaotic; midrange or ade-quate families tend to have rigid structures;and optimal families, flexible structures.Healthy families exhibit egalitarian marriagesand strong parental coalitions.6) Separateness with closeness. Familymembers have clear ego boundaries and arespect for individual autonomy, and at the

same time, perhaps as a result of this mutualrespect, a high level of demonstratedcloseness to each other.7) Family mythology congruent with reality.The family perceives itself much as it is seenby competent observers.8) Open expression of feelings. Healthyfamilies are more open in the expression of af-fect. The prevailingmood is one of warmth,af-

fection, and caring, and there is a welldeveloped capacity for empathy.The Family EnvironmentScale used in thisstudy (Moos, 1974) contained seven scales:Cohesion (committment and support), Ex-pressiveness (open expression of feelings),Conflict (open expression of anger and aggres-sion), Independence (self-sufficient), Achieve-ment Orientation, Organization(importance oforder), Control (rigidity of rules and pro-cedures). If families' self-descriptions werecongruent with those of clinically trainedobservers, differences would be expected be-tween families in the LoSc and HiSc groupswhich parallel the differences Lewis et al.(1976) found between adequate and optimalfamilies. Families in the HiSc group would beexpected to describe themselves as morecohesive, expressive and independent, lessorganized and controlled. Expectations aboutconflict are ambiguous since it would be ex-pected that there would be less anger in HiScfamilies, but that what anger there is would bemore likely to be expressed. No predictionscould be made about achievement orientation.The differences between self-descriptions ofthe HiSc and LoSc families did parallelthe dif-ferences Lewis et al. found between adequateand optimal families. These differences arepresented in Tables 2 and 3.Table 2 shows differences on the sevenscales of the Family EnvironmentScale: alsopresented are Moos' norms for 285 middleclass families (Moos, Insel &Humphrey,1974).HiSc family members described their familiesas more cohesive, moreexpressive of feelings,more independent (self-sufficient) and as lessorganized and controlled than did members ofLoSc families. Cohesion, expressiveness, in-dependence and a lackof rigidcontrol are seento be aspects of family climate conducive toimprovedfunctioning of the adolescent.Table 3 lists the items which discriminated




6/10

Table 2Differences between the Groups on 7 Family EnvironmentScalesaGroupMeansScalesb HiSc FES Normsc LoSc pd

Cohesion. The extent to which family members are 7.3 6.4 6.2 .05concerned and committed to the family and the degree towhich family members are helpful and supportive of eachother. (Table3, items: 6, 7, 8, &10)Expressiveness. The extent to which family members 5.4 5.4 4.4 .01are allowed and encouraged to act openly and to expresstheir feelings directly. (Table 3, items: 3, 5, &16)Conflict. The extent to which the open expression of 3.8 4.7 4.5 nsanger and aggression and generally conflictual inter-actions are characteristic of the family. (Table 3, items: 15&18)Independence. The extent to which family members are 6.7 6.7 6.0 .03encouraged to be assertive, self-sufficient, to make theirown decisions and to think things out for themselves.(Table 3, item: 1)Achievement Orientation.The extent to which different 5.4 5.6 5.7 nstypes of activities (i.e., school and work)are cast into anachievement oriented or competitive framework. (Item 9)Organization.Measures how importantorder and 5.1 5.3 6.4 .02organization are in the family in terms of structuring thefamily activities, financial planning, and explicitness andclarity in regardto family rules and responsibilities. (Table3, items: 12, 13, 14, 19, & 20)Control. Assesses the extent to which the family is 4.5 4.8 5.5 .06organized in a hierarchicalmanner, the rigidityof familyrules and procedures, and the extent to which familymembers order each other around. (Table 3, items: 2, 4, 11,&17)

aEach family's score was the average of family members' scores. Three of the ten Moos scaleswere omitted from the questionnaire due to time considerations.0Scale descriptions are quoted from Moos et al., 1974.CNorms based on 285 middle class families (Moos et al., 1974).dSignificance of difference between families in HiSc and LoSc groups, using 2-tailed test.

the two sets of families. The majortheme dif-ferentiating the two groups seems to be one ofcontrol. The item which generated the largestdifference between the two groups was:" 'Workbefore play' is the rule in our family."Eighty-threepercent of the people in the LoScgroupanswered true;45% answered true intheHiSc group.Triangulationand Adolescent Functioning

Triangulation is a term that refers to twotypes of coalition formation in the family. Thefirst is a type of scapegoating, in which thehusband and wife orient their interaction totalking about an outsider (a child) in order toavoid whatever is causing stress or anxiety be-tween them. The second type of coalition is across generational coalition in which onespouse forms a bond with a child, oriented

toward complaining about the other spouse.Both forms of triangulation are invalidatingtothe child because she is related to out of theneeds of the parents rather than out of em-pathy and respect for her own needs.Because both types of triangulation are in-validating to the child, both are expected to in-terfere with the development of her self-concept and to restrict her social and emo-tional development. It was thus hypothesizedthat girls who where triangulated into scape-goating or cross generational coalitions wouldbe more likely to be found in LoSc familiesthan in HiSc families.Because scapegoating and coalitions arerelatively difficult to observe, indirect mea-sures of each were constructed. The investi-gators expected that in any long term coalition(eithera cross generational coalition or a coali-




7/10

Table 3Items on the Moos Family EnvironmentScale on Which Members of HiScFamilies DifferedSignificantlya from Members of LoSc Familiesb% of FamilyMembers MarkingTrueHiSc LoSc Item54 22 We come and go as we want to in our family.65 40 There are very few rules to follow in our family.64 40 We say anything we want to around home.53 33 Family members are rarely ordered around.67 48 Money and paying bills are openly talked about in our family.90 74 Family members really back each other up.92 79 There is a feeling of togetherness in our family.98 88 Family members really help and support one another.45 83 "Workbefore play" is the rule in our family.31 61 We rarelyvolunteer when something has to be done at home.45 73 You can't get away with much in our family.45 69 Each person's duties are clearly defined in our family.42 64 Activities in our family are pretty carefully planned.38 57 Family members make sure their rooms are neat.15 34 Family members sometimes get so angry they throw things.56 75 It's hard to "blow off steam" at home without upsetting somebody.56 74 There are set ways of doing things at home.33 51 Family members sometimes hit each other.65 82 Being on time is very important in our family.67 83 Dishes are usually done immediately after eating.ap < .05, two-tailed test.bHere the unit of measurement is each individual. The answers of all individuals in HiScfamilies are compared with the answers of individuals in the LoSc families. Therewere a total of63 items on the questionnaire.

tion in which the parents distance the adoles-cent), the allies in the coalition would tend tobecome more similar to one another and moredissimilar from the excluded person. This isbecause persons in the coalition are more like-ly to share their perceptions and attitudes witheach other, including those about the family.Also, since they define themselves as similarto each other and different from the outsider,they are more likely to accept each other'sperceptions and reject the outsider's views.The same process would lead the person tri-angled out to define self as seeing things dif-ferently from the other two. Evidence of scape-goating and cross generational coalitions weresought in the perceptual/attitudinal con-gruence among different pairs of familymembers.To test the hypothesis it was assumed thatthe pattern of differences in how family mem-bers described the family climate (on the true-false Family Environment Scale) would be amanifestation of their perceived closeness ordistance from each other. A scapegoated childwould be drawn into the position of increaseddisagreement with the parents as differences

between child and parents are focused on andreinforced in this triangulation.When the childis in a cross generational coalition with oneparent, to the exclusion of the other, therewould be exaggerated disagreement betweenthe child and the excluded mate.To test the hypothesis, three dissimilarityscores were developed: one for the husband-wife dissimilarity (HW), and one for thedissimilarity between the identified adolescent(the one for whom we have psychological data)and each parent (husband-adolescent, HA;wife-adolescent, WA).The dissimilarity scoreswere found by calculating the proportion ofitems the two people disagreed on from theFamily Environment Scale. Our interest wasnot in how much family members disagreed orin whether some families had more or lessdisagreement than other families but in therelative amounts of disagreement betweenfamily members. Scapegoating and coalitionscores were thus developed using the amountof disagreement between the two parents as abaseline. A scapegoating score was calculatedfor the identified adolescent by finding thedissimilarity of the child from both parents




8/10

relative to the HW distance; i.e., (HA +WA)/HW.This score thus represented the ado-lescent's isolation from parents; the more dis-tant she was from both parents relative to theinter-parent distance, the higher the scape-goating score. A coalition score was calculatedby finding the imbalance in the child'sdissimilarity from the parents relative to theHWdissimilarity (dividingthe HWdistance intothe absolute value of the difference betweenthe two parent-child dissimilarities IHA-WA I/HW.Thus the closer the adolescent toone parent relative to her distance from theother parent, the higher her coalition score.The HiSc and LoSc adolescents were thencompared on each measure. The two groupsdiffered significantly in the predicted directionon each measure. On the scapegoatingmeasure, LoSc adolescents scored higher(more distant from parents) than the HiScadolescents (t(28) = 1.97, p < .05, one-tailedtest). And on the coalition score the LoScadolescents again scored higher (more lop-sided in the degree to which their perceptionswere in agreement with one parent relative tothe other parent) than the HiSc adolescents(t(28) = 1.85, p < .05, one-tailed test).Husbands and wives were marginallymore dis-tant from one another in the HiSc group, butthe difference was not significant. There isevidence, then, for a more distant and lessbalanced relationship between adolescentsand their parents in the LoSc group.

The scapegoating and coalition scores areinformative, but do not provide a clearclassification of families to mutuallyexclusivecategories. For one thing, because of thenature of the scores used, a given adolescentcould have high scores on both measures: becloser to the one parent than to the other andat the same time be quite distant from bothparents. Clinically,however, one would not ex-pect to find a particularadolescent involved inboth kinds of triangulation. To clarify theserelationships, a classification of families andadolescents was constructed. Each distance(HW, HA, WA) was first recomputed as apercentage of the total distance (HW + HA+ WA). Those families in which the smallestdistance was within 10 percentage points ofthe largest distance (e.g., if the distances were28, 35, and 37) were classified as "balanced."

The remaining families were classified as"scapegoating" (the adolescent was fartherfrom both parents than they were from eachother), "coalition" (the adolescent was closerto only one parent than the parents were toeach other), or "adolescent close" (the adoles-cent was closer to both parents than they wereto each other). These data are presented inTable 4. This table shows clearly the pre-dominance of adolescents in scapegoating orcoalition relationships in the LoSc families andthe greater number of balanced relationshipsin the HiSc families. Inthe LoSc group, 40% ofthe adolescents can be described as involvedin scapegoating relationships, and 33% can bedescribed as partof a cross generational coali-tion.

Table 4Adolescents in DifferentRelationship Patterns with ParentsaLoSc H Sc

Scapegoat 400% 130%Coalition 33% 13%Adolescent Close 7% 13%Balanced 20% 60%aSee text for definition of categories.

Of further interest is the nature of thesecoalitions. Four of the five cross generationalcoalitions formed by the LoSc adolescent girlswere with their fathers. On the other hand,bothcoalitions by the HiSc girls were with theirmothers. Thus concern about the problemscaused by cross sex, cross generational coali-tions is supported by these data.The question arose, what about the siblings?Ifone child took the role of scapegoat or coali-tion partneras the family solution to maritalstress, did other childrenadopt similarroles? Ifone child was triangled,did the others go free?The data suggested a difference for scape-goating and for cross generational coalitions.There was no difference between adolescentsand their siblings on the scapegoatingmeasure; i.e., the same pattern persists. Sib-lings in the LoSc families were more distantfrom their parents than were siblings in theHiSc families. The difference between meanscapegoating scores for siblings in the HiScand LoSc groups was the same as the dif-ference between means for the identified




9/10

.40

.35co0c o 30HiSc0 30C-,0

.25c,(/3 LoSc0

.20Identified SiblingAdolescent

Figure 1. Cross generational coalition scores for high and low scoring adolescents and theirsiblingsaComputed by I HA-WA . See text for discussion of this measure.HW

adolescents in the two groups. However,variance was higher for siblings, and the dif-ference between the group means was notsignificant (t(28) = 1.58, p < .20, two-tailedtest).The data presented a different story,however, for the cross generational coalitiondata. The pattern of those data is presented inFigure 1. Using a one-way analysis of variance,the interaction is significant (F(1,28) = 5.77,p < .05).The siblings of the LoSc adolescentswere less likely to be involved in cross genera-tional coalitions than were the siblings of theHiSc adolescents, though this difference wasnot significant. In the case of such coalitions,then, the data supported the notion that if onechild takes this particular role in the familysystem, the other childrenwere left free to takeother roles and thus to develop more fully and

be less constrained by the needs of the maritalsystem.Summaryand Implications

Two groups of unlabeled (normal) familieswere studied to evaluate the effects of familyclimate and the role of the child on the child'sdevelopment. Families were selected throughlocal high schools, and were middle class,white, intact families with two or threechildren. In one group each family containedan adolescent girl who scored high on a num-ber of psychological and social measures; inthe other group each family contained anadolescent girl who scored low on thesemeasures.Family members that described their fam-ilies as more cohesive, more expressive of feel-526 FAMILY RELATIONS October1982



10/10

ings, more independent (self-sufficient) and asless organized and controlled tended to havean adolescent girl who scored high on thepsychological and social measures. Thesefindings confirm the importance of the familyenvironmentfor the development and function-ing of the adolescent girl.The results suggestthat when working with an adolescent girl ex-periencing personal or interpersonaldifficulty,one should explore the hypothesis that herhome environment is one in which efforts forcontrol and order are highly salient to familymembers, with less than optimal levels of trust,cohesion, expression of feelings, and flexibili-ty.Other results reported here demonstrate theimpact of the adolescent's particularrole in thefamily system on her development and func-tioning. Girls who were in the position ofscapegoat, or who were involved in a crossgenerational coalition with one parent, werelikely to score low on the psychological andsocial measures. The data also suggest that,for an adolescent girl, a cross generationalcoalition with her father is more detrimentalthan a coalition of the girlwith her mother.Andit appears that when one adolescent is tri-angulated into a cross generational coalition,siblings tend to escape this role. This resultemphasizes the point that the adolescent girlin a cross generational coalition is filling afunctional role in the family.It is assumed that scapegoating and crossgenerational coalitions form in orderto accom-modate stress in the marital relationship.Maritalsystem stress may also be the sourceof the strained family climate described byfamily members in the low scoring group. Thisrestrained and restricted family climate, andthe development of scapegoating and cross-generational coalitions may be functional forthe preservation or functioning of the marital-family system. That is, this climate and struc-ture may arise out of the family members' at-tempts to sustain the marriageand the family.

But the data here demonstrate the relative in-abilityof this kind of system to nourish the per-sonal development of the adolescent daughterand may indicate the importance of familysystem awareness when working with theseadolescents.

REFERENCESAnonymous, Toward he differentiationof a self in one's ownfamily. In J. Framo, (Ed.), Family interaction. New York:Springer,1972.Haley, J. Towarda theory of pathological systems. InG. Zuk&J. Boszormenyi-NagyEds.)Familytherapyand disturbedfamilies. PalaAlto:Science &BehaviorBooks, 1967.Hess, D., &Handel,G. Familyworlds. Chicago: Universityof

Chicago Press, 1959.Jackson, D. D. The study of the family. In N. W. Ackerman(Ed.), Familyprocess. New York:Basic Books, 1970.Jackson, D. D. Family rules: Maritalquid pro quo. In P.Watzlawick&J. H.Weakland Eds.),The nteractionalview.New York:Norton,1977.Jacob, T. Familyinteraction in disturbedand normal amilies:A methodological and substantive review. PsychologicalBulletin, 1975, 82, 33-65Lewis, J. W., Beavers, R., Gossett, J. T., &Phillips, V. A. Nosingle thread.New York:Brunner/Mazel, 976.Loevinger,J. Meaningand measurementof ego development.AmericanPsychologist, 1966, 21, 195-206.Loevinger,J., & Wessler, R. Measuring ego development 1:Construction and use of a sentence completion test. SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass, 1970.Moos, R. H. Family environment scale. Palo Alto:ConsultingPsychologists Press, 1974.Moos, R. H., Insel, P. M., & Humphrey,B. Family, workandgroup environment scales manual. Palo Alto: ConsultingPsychologists Press, 1974.Raush, H. L., Barry,W. A., Hertel,R. K., &Swain, M. A. Com-munication,conflict and marriage.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass, 1974.Schattschneider, E. E. The semi-sovereign people. A realist'sviewof democracyinAmerica. NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston, 1960.Schmidt, S. A. Special treatment applications: United front,acting-out adolescent, and only-adopted-child amilies. InC. H.Kramer,B. Liebowitz,R.L.Phillips,S. A.Schmidt, &J.Gibson (Eds.), Beginning phase of family treatment.Chicago:The FamilyInstituteof Chicago, 1968.Vogel, E. F., &Bell, N. W. The emotionallydisturbed child asthe familyscapegoat. InN. W. Bell & E. F. Vogel (Eds.),Thefamily.New York:The Free Press, 1968.


family climate and the role of the the adolescent

Documents