Fourteen normal and 14 disturbed family triads attempted to reach family decisions about problem situations over which they had initially completely disagreed. A series of outcome and process measures delineating their differential power structures was formulated. Disturbed families were impaired in their ability to reach group decisions, shared relatively equally between members in the frequency of decisions "won" and amount of support received, were impaired in coalition formation, and showed weakness in the (parental) relationship having the greatest potential for unitary action. Normal families were able to form coalitions and reach mutually acceptable solutions, and a clear-cut power structure emerged where the father was in ascendency, the mother ranked second, and the child last.
Disturbed and normal family triads were compared in their time spent talking during family discussions, number of action units initiated during these discussions, and agreements over questionnaire items independently completed prior to discussion. Normal family systems manifested significantly longer discussion times, and the individual family members could be more clearly differentiated from each other in their time spent talking. Number of action units initiated did not differentiate the family systems, but normal family members could again be discriminated more clearly from each other. Normal families also achieved significantly higher agreement scores on the prediscussion questionnaire. The relationship of these findings to earlier results reported by this author and comparisons with other evolving models of family interaction processes were discussed. Several investigators in the area of family interaction and psychopathology have begun to formulate models of disturbed and normal family functioning based upon hypotheses de
The double-bind hypothesis and the evidence to support it are critically reviewed. Little theoretical agreement exists about the elements required to generate double-bind situations or the relevant interactional parameters of double-bind communication. The research literature fails to support the assumptions and predictions of the theory. The very existence of a double-bind phenomenon is open to serious question, and it is axiomatic that assertions concerning its differential association with schizophrenic and normal communication processes and its etiological connection with the schizophrenic thought disorder are extremely tenuous. The tenets of the double-bind hypothesis require further limitation, clarification, and operationalization for it to become a reliable phenomenon capable of empirical validation.
Chapman's "response bias" theory of word association behavior predicts a hierarchy of responses in schizophrenic associations, whereas Broen's "response interference" theory does not. The existence of a "true hierarchy," (i.e., at least three ordered levels of responsiveness) was explored in 30 schizophrenics along with 30 alcoholic controls under conditions of high-, medium-, and low-associative distraction. Schizophrenics manifested significantly more associative errors at successive levels of associative distraction, and their error curve almost precisely approximated a straight-line function. These results were interpreted as supporting the notion of hierarchical responding central to Chapman's theory as well as independently replicating earlier studies of schizophrenic word association behavior. 1 The authors wish to thank the St. Louis State Hospital (Patrick J. Gannon, M.D., Superintendent) and the St. Louis chapter of Alcoholics Anonymous for permitting subject recruitment within their respective agencies. Greg A. Roberts assisted in raw data collection and manuscript preparation, and Stanley Kary provided statistical consultation. Requests for reprints should be sent to Margaret
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.