Multidimensional Family Development Theory, Study Guides, Projects, Research of Family Sociology

Download Multidimensional Family Development Theory and more Study Guides, Projects, Research Family Sociology in PDF only on Docsity!

Running head: MULTIDIMENSONAL FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THEORY 1 Multidimensional Family Development Theory: An Evolution of Family Development J. Scott Crapo Kay Bradford Utah State University

Abstract The general concept of family development seems to persist, despite the criticisms of family development theory and the difficulty in applying it to modern families. We aim to take further steps in the evolution of family development theory, and propose the multidimensional family theory. Addressing issues and criticisms that have plagued the theory, this evolution includes theoretical modifications that might provide greater flexibility to the theory of family development, while retaining useful concepts and propositions established by previous scholars. We break down the composite stages into their individual parts, and derive four dimensions of development: individual (biological), couple, vocational, and generative/childrearing. We discuss each of these dimensions and how they develop. We further discuss their relationship within an individual, and how they reciprocally interact across the entire family. Roles and stages are discussed within the context of these dimensions of development. We examine the feasibility and utility of retaining stages, stage comparison, and family tasks, while still allowing for family individuality and uniqueness in matters of development. The link between process and structure in terms of development is posited. We propose common language for discussing issues related to family development in areas as diverse as multi-partner fertility and disability, and vocabulary to the relationship between structure and process. We discuss how the theory can be applied in research, touching on how the theory can generate hypotheses, promote research questions, guide methodology, make predictions, and explain observed phenomenon. Practical application in terms of counseling and education is discussed.

History and Background Family development theory emerged as part of efforts to address “family disarray” in the post-World War II years (Duvall, 1988, p. 127), and as such became one of the first theories that specifically focused on families. Family development theory exists as a hybrid of family sociology and human development within family context, and thus its roots extend earlier than the theory itself (Duvall, 1988). Even in the mid- 20 th^ century, during the active formulation of family development as a theory, its components were not new. For example, family developmental stages were integral early in the 2 0 th^ century to Rowntree’s (1906) study of poverty among working families in rural England. Moreover, Duvall’s conceptualization of development stemmed from individual patterns and processes of human development. These included key periods of physical development, longitudinal personal development (including biological and environmental aspects), and even personality, psychosocial, cognitive, and moral development (Duvall, 1988). In order to use these concepts to speak to the family, Duvall (and others) formulated family development theory, and focused much of the theory on the family life cycle and family developmental tasks (Duvall, 1957). Family development theory is built on the idea that families develop in a manner similar to individuals (White, 1991), and that there is a universal nature to the way a family develops (Duvall, 1988). The development of the family consists of the family life cycle, a series of stages that encompass roles and tasks (Duvall, 1957). The most common parsing of these stages are the eight put forth by Duvall (1957): (1) beginning families (the establisment phase), (2) childbearing families (the transition to parenthood), (3) families with preschool children, (4) families with school children, (5) families with teenagers, (6) families as launching centers, (7) families in the middle years, and (8) aging families. Over the years, there have been other

attempts to parse out stages of the family life cycle, but most in use today (e.g. Davies & Gentile, 2012 ) are derivations of the eight posited by Duvall (1957). Criticisms There have been three overarching criticisms aimed at family development theory: an assumption of universality, a focus on a single generation (Lazsloffy, 2002), and a lack of scientific utility (White, 1991). To put it succinctly, the theory has been criticized as being nothing more than an outdated description of the mid 20th^ century middle-class, heterosexual, white family. It is notable that its key scholars theorized at least somewhat about family diversity, examining various longitudinal trajectories of premaritally pregnant intact families, single parent families, and ‘reconstituted’ families (Hill, 1986). From a hermeneutic perspective, family scholars at that time dealt with the realities of families impacted by war (e.g., the stress of a father’s absence or abrupt presence; a mother’s reluctance to give up vocational independence). The challenges of devising a theory adaptable to varying family situations was salient during the theory’s formation. However, the “modal intact family type” (Hill, 1986, p. 27) was the theory’s family structure of reference. This remains the case in the theory’s core conceptualization, resulting in the relatively fixed concepts and propositions of family development theory Despite attempts to adapt family development theory to diverse family structures and processes (i.e. White, 1991), family development has been viewed from the perspective of family time: that is, in terms of stages that emerge from the physical, psychological, social demands of family members and of society (Hill & Mattessich, 1979). The couple relationship was integral to the stages of family development, with the couple’s relationship largely viewed as composite with childrearing, work, and individual development, with stages defined by marriage, childbirth

consider the development of more than one family at a time; there is no provided means to compare across the idiosyncratic development of families. Multidimensional Family Development Theory Building on the work of scholars before us, we propose an evolution to family development theory. This evolution is designed to provide greater flexibility while retaining useful concepts and propositions established by previous scholars. We hope our modifications to the theory will address concerns of scientific usefulness while still allowing for a more comprehensive view of the family and diverse family deveolpment. Dimensions Integral to Duvall’s original eight stages are actually four main lines of development. In family development theory, these four lines were posited to be composite and relatively universal across time. Separating these developmental elements into discrete but connected dimensions of development would allow for retention of these key facets of development, but allow them to covary and thus reflect diversity of family structures and processes, within and between families. We thus propose that there are at least four fundamental dimensions of family development: (1) individual, (2) couple, (3) vocational, and (4) generative/childrearing. We propose that development can occur in each of these dimensions, and that development in any given dimension is not necessarily composite with the other three—although there is reciprocal influence between the dimensions. Further details of each of these are discussed below. Ontogenesis drives these developmental dimensions, while social forces shape them. Thus, although we believe the overall concept of these dimensions are fairly universal, and derived from the self, the specifics of how they function can vary according the cultural and historical timeframe in which the individual and family develop. Coupling and generativity

(Erikson, 1950), for example, may look very different in various parts of the world. It will be up to empirical work to identify what, if any, universals there are across cultures within each dimension. However, as most research is framed within the culture of the researchers and participants, we feel that this is not a major limitation of the theory, but a reflection of the nature of research. We recognize that emic work (from various specific cultural perspectives; Berry, Poortina, Segall, & Dasen, 1992) is warranted for any theoretical endeavor. However, we acknowledge our own cultural views and the social forces that influence us in the industrialized West, specifically the U.S. We thus take an etic view, theorizing relatively universal components that can later be transported and tested as a first step in cross-cultural work. Stages and Roles. In the original form of the theory, stages emerged chiefly from roles, which in turn were largely driven by the biological, psychological, and social needs of family members (Hill & Mattessich, 1979). Stages were thus amalgams of coupling, childrearing, vocational elements, and of aging (Duvall, 1957). Later updates to the theory attempted to refine this formulation and make the theory more flexible. For example, White (1991) focused on transitional events, which he considered the markers for stage change. A transitional event was an event that changed the roles of family members, and thus changed the stage the family was in (i.e. the birth of the first child to a couple changed roles from just husband and wife to father and mother; White, 1991 ). While White (1991) did not create stages himself, he called for an empirical construction of a comprehensive list of stages, based on transitional events. Laszloffly ( 2002 ) abandoned stages and focused on roles in the context of the process of crisis resolution, with the idea that crises in a family’s life lead to changes and adaptations in roles. We build on these previous conceptualizations. We also borrow the concept of recursion from family systems theory (Becvar & Becvar, 2006), in that roles and stages are reciprocally

1998). However, in life course theory, a person’s trajectory refers to an overall direction of an individual’s life, whereas in MFDT, trajectories are restricted to the particular dimension of development they describe. A trajectory, then, represents the history and current direction of development within the space of one of the four dimensions. Trajectories are shaped by developmental events that alter the developmental pathway (Elder, 1998). These events represent life changes that alter how an individual progresses in that dimension. As such, a developmental event is derived from the transitional events posited by White (1992), and related to the crises posited by Lazsloffly (2002). A particular difference that needs to be noted here is that transitional events and crises are an aspect of the whole family, whereas developmental events relate to a particular dimension of an individual’s development. As an example, two commonly studied developmental events in the vocational dimension of development are dropping out of school (e.g. Lansford, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2016) and completing an education (e.g. Wojtkiewicz, & Holtzman, 2011). It is important to note that the events that shape a person’s trajectory then alter the possible future shape of that trajectory, without committing the individual to a specific path. Thus, a trajectory within a dimensional space reflects the duality of determinism and non-determinism in the accumulation of changes that makes up development. It is also important to note that developmental events are not necessarily in a chronological or other fixed order, and that these trajectories will have commonality across individuals while still maintaining uniqueness to each individual. To continue the above example in the vocational space, many individuals enter the workforce after completing education. However, the education, the job, and the length and effort of attaining each are unique to each

person. Additionally, some lose their jobs, others transfer jobs, and others may keep that first job their entire life. Individual (biological) development****. The dimension of individual development deals with the growth, maturation, and development of the individual as a person, including the psychosocial and biological aspects. It is thus primary in driving the other dimensions of development, although the other dimensions have impact. Some of the clearest events are birth and adolescence, and other normative markers for growth. Developmental events can also include non-normative experiences, including disability and accidents. There already exists in the human development field a large number of theories that organize and predict many aspects of this dimension of development (e.g. Erikson, 1950; Piaget, 1952; Bandura, 1986; etc.), though many of these theories also blend in aspects of the other dimensions of development rather than keeping them separate. While the organization used by these theories could be conceptually useful in considering the individual (biological) developmental dimension, we consider life course theory (Elder, 1998) as the most applicable theory of human development. This is largely because life course perspective deals with time (and thus aging), linearity, history, and trajectories. Regardless, the important aspect to remember for MFDT is developmental events shape the trajectory within this dimension. Couple development****. We have labeled the dimension of the development of intimacy, romantic relationships, and partners as couple development. We recognize that this term carries with it assumptions of a Western culture, and that the aspects of development we describe are culturally bound. However, we believe that aspects of couple development are likely at least somewhat universal, and that these concepts can be extended to other cultures so long as the trajectories mapped are consistent with the time and place of study.

Generativity / Childrearing****. Historically, in terms of family development theory, generativity and childrearing has been the primary defining feature of family life cycle stages. Most operationalization of stages has used the age of the eldest child (Duvall, 1988). In MFDT, the dimension of generativity extends beyond just childbearing, and closely resembles the notion of generativity as put forth by Erikson ( 1950 ). The most commonly studied trajectory of generativity within the family literature is that of childrearing, including events such as the birth of the first child (e.g. Porat‐ Zyman, Ben‐ Ari, & Spielman, 2017), adoption (e.g. Foli, South, Lim, & Jarnecke, 2016), and child loss (e.g. Fouts & Silverman, 2015). Included in this set of trajectories are other events commonly associated with family development theory, such as launching children (helping them move out of the home and into a certain level of independence; Duvall, 1957 ), and having grandchildren. However, generativity can include other events that shape the trajectory within this dimension, such as running foster care, placing a child for adoption, or becoming an aunt or uncle. Single dimensional stages. At their most basic level, roles and stages emerge from within the single dimensional space. There is temporal time between developmental events within each of the four dimensions. During this time, the individual will have a role within that dimension that typically reflects the relative stability of being between events as well what the previous event was—and/or the normative expectation for the next developmental event (i.e. student or newlywed). Inherent within these roles are the needs and/or responsibilities that the individual has to progress developmentally, which needs and/or responsibilities comprise the single dimensional stage. At this low level, roles and stages are functionally interchangeable. For example, within the individual (biological) dimension, one could be a toddler, which denotes both a stage and a role, which stage and role reflect very different needs and responsibilities than

an adolescent. With this richer understanding of the single dimensional space, we can now recursively redefine developmental events as changes in a person’s life that alters the role (and thus the stage) of one or more dimensions of development. Multidimensional Space The four dimensions of development are non-composite. However, the four dimensions do not exist in isolation, but comprise a larger dimensional space that reflects the needed aspects of family development within the individual. Thus, within each individual, these four dimensions of development interact to create a multidimensional space of development. This happens because each dimension of development is partially dependent on the others, and changes in one dimensional trajectory can influence the others. Because all four dimensions are in existence simultaneously, the influence of each on the others is reciprocal in nature—there is no direct, linear causality among the four dimensions. For example, generative behaviors when an individual is young are likely to be different from when that same individual is older, which shows how the dimensions may be partially dependant on each other. However, the development of generativity at a younger age will likely influence whether and when that individual couples, which can in turn influence physical health and lifespan expectancy (Su, Stimpson, & Wilson, 2015 ). Multidimensional stages. Just as the single dimensional spaces interact to generate a multidimensional space, the roles in all four dimensions also interact to create a multidimensional stage. The interaction (or reciprocal interplay) of these roles represents a person’s personal stage. A person’s personal stage reflects the needs and/or responsibilities that the individual has to progress developmentally across all four dimensions, and thus incorporates the interdependent and reciprocal nature of the roles that emerges from each dimension.

It is easy, at this point, to feel as though the number and possibility of stages is so large and undefined as to be unwieldy at best, and unusable at worst. The operationalization and benefit of conceptualizing stages in this way is discussed in further detail later in this paper. For now we simply restate it is possible for families and individual to be in multiple stages at once, and emphasize researchers can and should focus on the stage(s) that most effectively relate to the developmental phenomenon under consideration. Laszloffly’s (2002) process of role change is also subsumed in the idea of hyperdimensional stages. As stages are defined by roles, the way that a family transitions between roles is also how they transition between stages. The change in one person’s developmental trajectory rarely, if ever, has an isolated effect, and as a result, the crises a family experiences that shape the family level stages are typically one or more developmental events occurring in one or more family members. We therefore consider Laszloffly’s (2002) crises within MFDT a more comprehensive expansion of White’s (1991) transitional events. Family Developmental Tasks Perhaps one of the most defining features of the hyperdimensional space is that of family developmental tasks, which tasks are balancing the developmental needs of each dimension of each family member. In order to develop in a healthy, or culturally acceptable, way, individuals need access to resources, help, and opportunities to have appropriate developmental events shape their trajectories. The need for appropriate developmental events within each dimension is shaped, in part, by the other dimensions within the multidimensional space. It follows naturally that a similar pattern then emerges in the hyperdimensional space. However, different needs can weigh in at different levels of importance, and it is possible for some needs to not be met as a result. Each family must learn to balance the needs within their own hyperdimensional space. As

an example, it doesn’t matter whether it be a young heterosexual couple with young children, a single parent of teenagers, an uncoupled uncle living with family, or an older lesbian couple that chose to never have children, every member of each family has needs within his or her own spaces of development. The developmental task that faces the family as whole, then, is to balance and meet these (sometimes competing) needs. Alignment and Misalignment Alignment vs. misalignment refers to the interaction of dimensions within multi- and hyperdimensional spaces. Alignment is theorized to occur to the extent that development in each of the dimensions is relatively congruent. This occurs in reference to the trajectories within each developmental space. Because the multidimensional space is made of how these trajectories depend on and influence each other, it is possible for the multidimensional space to become misaligned. In other words, relative to one dimension, it is possible that events in a second dimension will come soon, late, or in some other asynchronous way, and thus conflict with events in a different dimension of development. For example, a young teen may have a child with someone to whom s/he is not partnered. It is likely the teen would thus lack symbiosis and interdependence from the couple dimension (Bader & Pearson, 1983), and would be in relatively early vocational development, thus signaling a degree of misalignment which may possibly (but not necessarily) reduce the adolescent parent’s ability to meet their own developmental needs and that of the new child. Alternatively, a couple in their early thirties with relational interdependence and more established vocational development would be more likely to have alignment on all four dimensions. The concept of alignment and misalignment carries through to the hyperdimensional space. Misalignment within one family member’s multidimensional space will influence the

their development. For example, a decoupling following a formalized commitment (divorce would be one such case) is different than a decoupling following a short coupling that had no courtship—and the timing of childbirth in this process would also be of great importance. In order to consider how the history of development influences a family structure requires that researchers also consider the length of time between events as well as the ordering of events. One major advantage to this conceptualization of process and structure is it allows for the great work being done in the family structure literature to be considered in the light of a developmental theory. Take the divorce literature as an example. Originally, the divorce literature made sweeping comparisons of outcomes of divorced families to “intact” families (Amato, 2010). More recently, scholars have been paying attention to many of the nuances involved in divorce, such as levels of hostility that existed before the divorce and the type of copareting strategies used afterward (Amato). Using the mechanisms outlined in the SFD model, and the trajectories outlined in this paper, it becomes possible to talk about the processes that led to the divorced family structure in terms of family-level development. Diverse child outcomes could then be framed within a developmental context. This could benefit the field by giving common language to discuss, and additional constructs to investigate, this phenomenon. What is more is that the use of MFDT would also allow researchers to investigate how similar aspects of development (the timing of events and the nature of the crises) influence other questions related to structure, such as multipartner fertility, serial cohabitation, intentionally single parent families, and more. Summation: Core Assumptions Below is not a list of all of the assumptions associated with family development theory, but are the assumptions most directly connected with the evolution of it presented in this paper.

The fundamental nature of family development is the interdependent, interrelated nature of two or more linked people in their own human development stages. This assumption is what gives rise to the dimensions of development and the single, multi-, and hyperdimensional spaces. Though driven by ontogenesis, development, including family development, is shaped by social forces, cultural norms, and historical context. As expounded on above, this carries implications for the developmental events that are available and important, what is considered aligned or not, and other ways that development influences outcomes and future development. Empirical work is required to delineate the extent of said influence. Current development is, in part, a result of the history of development. In other words, current development is a result of what developmental pathway events have happened when, and in what order, in relation to other dimensions. Because each family’s development is unique, each family will be unique; however, similarities and differences in the developmental trajectories of various families allows for comparisons and investigations of the impact of development on both familial and individual outcomes. This is why we look at process, timing, stages, and structure. Patterns of similarity and patterns of difference both aid our understanding of families and how they develop. Research Application Shifting lens approach Families are diverse and complex, and one of the shortcomings of previous versions of family development theory is that they failed to allow the researcher flexibility in approaching the family. Because of the complex possibilities that exist in our conceptualization of stages, we propose here what we are calling the “shifting lens” approach. In the most basic form, this means that we are not planning on outlining particular or important stages. Rather, stage construction is