Presentation on theme: "To Know from Kellas (2010) Tie b/w intergen. narrat’s & future Relat. Schemas Be able to provide examples of each subtype w/i the 4 main Memorable Message."— Presentation transcript:
To Know from Kellas (2010) Tie b/w intergen. narrat’s & future Relat. Schemas Be able to provide examples of each subtype w/i the 4 main Memorable Message supratypes : – Value Self (4 subtypes: independ&time, self-esteem&don’tsettle, progressive sex/rel views, more than 1) – Charac’s of good rel. (5 subs: good qual’s, behav expect, emot/intim expect, homogamy, extend family) – Warnings (3 subs: general, pers regret, judg/expect females) – Sanctity of love (2 subs: virgin&morals, the “one”) 3 main implications drawn from results Discussed
CIRCUMPLEX MODEL (Olson, 2000) Patterns & Environment Largely based on Cohesion/Flexibility dimension of family systems theory COHESION – Ability to FLEXIBILITY – Ability to
How to ID a Family System TYPE COHESION –Emotional bonding twrd one another FLEXIBILITY –Amount of change in leadership, roles, rules COMMUNICATION –Group norms Listening Speaking Clarity Self-disclosure Continuity-tracking (meta-comm.) Respect Regard
COMMUNICATION! – Continuum: Open to Closed (same as boundary permeability covered next lecture )
COHESION types/levels – Extreme, emotional separateness & Little involvement b/w – Lot of personal separateness & indep. – Indiv’s “do their own thing” & have separate interests – Some emot. separateness but not as extreme – Time apart important, but some together & some joint decision-making – Activities/interests generally separate but few are shared – Some emot closeness & loyalty – Time together more important than time apart; Emphasis on togetherness – Separate friends, but also shared – Extreme emot closeness & loyalty demanded; Indiv’s very depend & reactive – General lack of personal separateness & little privacy permitted – Energy of indiv’s mainly focused inside family & few outside friends/interests
Family Communication Patterns (Chaffee et al., 1971) – Values open, controversial discussion – Kids stimulated to express ideas, even if disagree – Stresses mainten. of harmony & IP relations – Kids encouraged to avoid controversy & repress anger Pros? Cons?