The Wives Data and Faces Iv: Making Things Appear Simple

Cohesion, Satisfaction With Family Bonds, and Emotional Well‐Being in Families With Adolescents

“…One such characteristic that has received attention as a predictor of well‐being in the family is familial cohesion (Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985). Indeed, familial cohesion, defined as the degree of togetherness or closeness or emotional bonding that family members have toward one another, was found to be correlated with interpersonal well‐being and satisfaction in adults (e.g., Green, Harris, Forte, & Robinson, 1991a, 1991b). Also labeled closeness‐caregiving, the most important elements of the concept of high cohesion include warmth, nurturance, time together, physical intimacy (affection), and consistency (Green & Werner, 1996).…”

FACES III and the Kvebaek Family Sculpture Technique as Measures of Cohesion and Closeness

“…Earlier studies using FACES III have not always made clear the distinction between individual, dyadic, and family levels of functioning in their choice of instruments. For example, Green et al . (1991a, b) used only measures of marital satisfaction and personal well‐being as dependent variables for the assessment of the validity of FACES III.…”

Beyond the Circumplex Model: I. A Moratorium on Curvilinearity

“…Cohesion and Adaptability continue to be the major dimensions and Communication the facilitating variable, and their definitions remain unchanged. However, given the findings of two extensive studies (Green, Harris, Forte, & Robinson, 1991a, b), and the cumulative evidence of supporting studies, Olson has conceded: “There is considerable evidence that FACES III is a linear measure” (Olson, 1991, p. 74).…”

“…The extensive use of Olson's model and the FACES instruments in research studies has produced an ongoing debate surrounding the curvilinear nature of Cohesion and Adaptability in the model (Anderson & Gavazzi, 1990; Beavers & Voeller, 1983; Ben‐David & Sprenkle, 1993; Day & Hooks, 1987; Eckblad, 1993; Fristad, 1989; Green, 1989; Green, Harris, Forte, & Robinson, 1991a, b; Green, Kolevzon, & Vosler, 1985a, b; Hampson, Beavers, & Hulgus, 1988; Kuehl, Schumm, Russell, & Jurich, 1988; Miller, Epstein, Bishop, & Keitner, 1985; Olson, 1989, 1991; Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, et al ., 1983, 1985; Olson, Portner, & Lavee, 1985; Perosa & Perosa, 1990; Pratt & Hansen, 1987; Thomas & Cierpka, 1989; Thomas & Olson, 1994). The term “curvilinear,” is used by Olson to describe the inverted “U” relationship between a variable and some standard.…”