In this chapter a variety of models of marital, family and interpersonal functioning will be discussed which can be loosely brought together under the umbrella of communication theories. No one of these models has received sufficient empirical support to gain acceptance as "the" communication theory. All of the models are commonly referred to in the family study literature. The models are not mutually exclusive. In some respects they represent different perspectives of the same phenomena and have some overlap with each other.

Many of these models have been developed and applied by individuals who have worked at the Mental Research Institute (MRI) in Palo Alto, California. Among this group are Gregory Bateson, Don Jackson, Paul Watzlawick and Virginia Satir (Broaderick, 1982). Their professional disciplines include anthropology, medicine, psychology and social work. An example of a psycholinguistic model has been proposed by Bandler and Grinder (1975). Erik Berne's crossed and parallel transactions and his theory of games center on communication (1961). Rogers and several of his students have suggested working models of communication relevant to couples and families (Gordon, 1970; Bach & Wyden, 1969). Dreikurs (1964) has offered several practical approaches for couples and family communication from an Adlerian, individual psychology perspective.

Although there are clear differences among the proponents of these communication models, they all agree that communication plays a central role in family and marital functioning. All of the model builders discussed here have also recommended changing some aspect of communications among family ì members as a major method of changing marital and family functioning. These models will be examined next. Together these models focus on a variety of aspects of the communication process.

Basic Axioms

Watzlawick, Bevin and Jackson (1967) have described a series of tentative axioms of communication. The first axiom is that one cannot not communicate. Every action or non-action sends some kind of message. Silence may be interpreted as rebuff, agreement, snobbishness, ignorance and much more. A touch may signal caring, force, opposition, etc. "I love you" may communicate "Love me back," "I need you," "Do it my way," among many other possible meanings. Communication may take place even when it is not intentional or consciously reasoned, or successful. Communication may come in the form of a single unit or message, in a series of messages which might be called an interaction, as well as still higher level units of communication such as a pattern of interaction. If one cannot not communicate, then the nature, structure, function and content of communication become even more important to study and understand.

All meaningful communication is circular in that there is a mutual influence between sender and receiver. The message I want to communicate may not be the same as the message you perceive from me. Further, my perception of your response to my message may not be the response you intended to communicate. In the flow of communication, who is designated as sender and who as receiver is often an arbitrary determination. In any case communication is a simultaneous mutual influence process (Reusch, 1973). This process takes place in a specific context which acts to add structure and role expectations. The fact that communication is at times clear and well understood is enhanced by the feedback and correction elements of communication. The circular nature of communication allows opportunity for revision and clarification. "Would you please repeat that?" "I'm not sure I understand what you mean." "Would you elaborate?" "Please define what you mean by...." "I thought you were saying...."

Second, communication not only conveys information, it also attempts to define the relationship between sender and receiver. Reusch and Bateson (1951) labeled the information or content portion of a message the report. They labeled the relationship defining aspects of the message the command. The command aspect of a message suggests how the sender views her-self, how the sender views the receiver, how the sender imagines the receiver views the sender, etc. Watzlawick, et al. (1967) suggest that often the relationship aspects of the communication are sent and received without the full awareness of either sender or receiver. When a fellow asks a woman for a date, he may also be communicating his self-confidence, his assertiveness, his willingness to play an active role, his positive view of the woman. All of this communication takes place without reporting these attitudes in words. Since the relationship aspect of communication is communication about communication, it is said to be metacommunication. Successful communication is intimately linked to appropriate metacommunication. If I say I care about you while at he same time nonverbally withdrawing from you, I may be sending a very confusing message.

The third axiom is punctuation. The outside observer may view a communication between two people as a stream of uninterrupted interchanges. The participants however, often divide up these interchanges into an arbitrary stimulus-response groupings. Such divisions are called punctuation. Verbal communication events are thus organized by punctuation much like it is in written interchanges. In each culture there are many shared conventions of punctuation. Punctuation may also be used to attach rather idiosyncratic meaning to a message. It is possible that considerable reality distortion can take place through the arbitrary misuse of punctuation. For example, one may observe a couple exchanging critical remarks in a negative escalating spiral. However, when queried, each spouse maintains that the other "started it" and they are just protecting themselves from the "attack" of the other. The third communication axiom suggests that "the nature of a relationship is contingent upon the punctuation of the communication sequences between communicants" (Watzlawick, et al., 1967, P. 59).

Fourth, some communication theorists have drawn the helpful distinction between digital and analogic modes of communication. Digital communication is the content and is usually verbal. Digital communication has a highly complex and powerful logical syntax. However, digital language lacks adequate semantics in the field of relationships. Analogic communication is mostly nonverbal. It possesses the semantics of relationships, but it's syntax is too weak for the unambiguous definition of the nature of relationship. In a masterpiece painting the use of color and perspective communicate to the viewer analogically. The content of the scene is more digital in its communication.

Even communication within the human organism has digital and analogic likenesses. The electrical firing of a neuron can be viewed as digital in its expression. The neuron either "fires" or it does not. On the other hand hormones are secreted into the organism's system in varying amounts and at varying rates. This is more consistent with the analogic mode. Every message has its digital and analogic components. Many aspects of relationship defy digital description and thus remain somewhat ambiguous. For example, how does one adequately describe in words the passion, excitement, warmth and caring of love? Words often fail. Haley(1963) points out that when the analogic communication of courtship meets the digital communication of the formal marriage ceremony (and marriage contract), the couple may struggle with whether they stay married because they wish to or because they must (p. 119).

Fifth, interactions can be viewed as symmetrical, complementary, or parallel. Symmetrical interactions are marked by sameness. Each person in an interaction uses a similar strategy. Competition and fear of losing are heightened. For example, a mother and son may continually interrupt each other in an effort to express themselves fully. In this instance both use the identical strategy to try and get what they want (the attention or agreement of the other). Problems can occur with the escalation of sameness, such as in a quarrel.

Complementary interactions suggest role opposites: "top dog" - "underdog," quiet - talkative, dominant - submissive, active - passive, clean - sloppy. In complementary communication the opposite strategies fit together, they complement each other. For example, in a functionally negative interaction between a couple using complementary interactions one spouse may criticize the other while the second responds to the first with silence. Problems develop in complementary interactions as they become increasingly rigid.

Bateson (1935) has suggested a third form of interaction described as parallel. Parallel interactions are neither symmetrical nor complementary. Each person responds differently in the interaction but the difference is not the opposite. There is greater variation in parallel interactions. When one partner is discouraged the other may respond with calmness. When one person is distressed the other may be comforting. Parallel interacting couples appear to manifest greater independence. Their choice of response seems to fit the situation but it is not bound to the oppositeness of the complementary form. Barke' (1983) in his review points out that some authors postulate that parallel communication is a "higher order" communication form than either the symmetrical or complementary forms. However, Barke's own research does not support this higher order hypothesis. No problem aspects of the parallel form are apparent in contrast to the escalation and rigidity concerns of the symmetrical and complementary forms respectively.

There is a tendency to try and classify couples or families according to one of the three interaction forms. This activity may have some merit in examining dysfunctional couples or families where inflexibility abounds. However, many couples find themselves using all three interaction forms depending on the elements of a specific situation.

The sixth axiom suggests that in any communication the message sender perceives some kind of response from the receiver. Such a response is perceived as either acceptance of the communication, rejection of the communication or disqualification of the message. Here the link between self-esteem and communication seems obvious. Hanks (1974) wrote succinctly, "Every human being is trying to say something to others, trying to cry out, 'I am alive. Notice me! Speak to me! Confirm for me that I am important, that I matter'" (p. 91). Both acceptance and rejection of a communication have affirming aspects. Both indicate, "I'm listening. You're worth listening to. What you say makes a difference to me." Of course almost everyone would like others to accept our communication. It feels especially affirming to the message sender. There is also a place for rejection of a message. Such feedback can be useful and growthful. "Even though I disagree with what you said, I care enough to respond to you. You deserve my feedback. You can 'handle' my disagreement with you." Response to a sender's message includes both report and command, both digital and analogic levels of communication.

The disqualification response gives the message, "You are not important. I don't have time for you. You don't matter. Your feelings don't matter to me. I'm not interested in your ideas. You have no influence with me. You are unimportant and impotent." Watzlawick, et al. (1967) postulate that such communications given frequently by significant others around central or ego important issues may not only prevent or inhibit the development of self-esteem, but may lead to confusion and increase the probability of psychotic behavior. "Bizarre" behavior may be an attempt to deal with consistent disqualification.

Self-Worth and Communication

As suggested above our own sense of self-esteem is affected by how others respond to our communication, whether with acceptance, rejection or disqualification. It is also the case that our perceptions of others and our communications to others are affected by our own self-worth. Satir (1972) distinguishes between low "pot" and feeling "low." Pot is equated with self- esteem by using the analogy of a pot which contains a liquid, our sense of self-esteem. Daily fluctuations in mood occur. One says, "I feel great," or "I'm really down today." But beyond these common ups and downs are the more stable feelings one has about himself. Satir would say high "pot" or low "pot". This is a more enduring sense of self. Its fluctuations or changes tend to occur over longer periods of time. Feelings of self-esteem may be the product of many daily bits of communication and interactions, successes and failures as the individual perceives them.

When one's evaluation of self balances strengths and weaknesses in a reasonably accurate reflection of self-worth, it is easier to see the value and worth of others. Communication tends to be more positive, supportive and constructive. One's capacity to demonstrate empathy increases. "I'm beginning to understand the pressure you've been under." "You really did well on the exam." "I really feel you can accomplish your goal." Low "pot" not only results in one feeling self-doubt, but also makes it easier to be critical of others. "You're always boasting." "Can't you do anything right?" Effective communication in relationships can form a solid base for building self-worth in both the individuals who are communicating. Poor communication can increase self-doubt and distort our perceptions of self and others.

In meaningful relationships the activities which build self-worth in one may hinder or prevent the building of self-worth in the other due to conflicting priorities. For example, one spouse may come to view his or her profession as the number one priority. While the second spouse places the first spouse and children in the number one priority. Such a situation increases the chances for communications which do not enhance either's self-esteem. "All you can think of is your stupid job. You never have time for the children and me." "You're so busy with the kids, when do your have time to care about what I'm doing?"

Two forms of poor communication in response to others are the fight and flight reactions. In the fight reaction one attempts to defend oneself by taking control and attacking others. In football, but not in effective communication, the best defense may be a good offense. Blaming others is one way of getting the attention off of oneself and focusing it on others' inadequacies. In this reaction one "puts down" the other's worth. The flight reaction is equally unhelpful. One's communication turns against the self. One's weaknesses take on disproportionate importance. Strengths are minimized or forgotten about. Also the other person is "put down" through silence or implied guilt. Flight responses may also lead to such unhelpful patterns of interaction such as "poor me" or "ain't it awful" (see the discussion of "games" below). Both fight and flight forms of communication decrease the probability of appropriate feelings of self-esteem in both self and others (Calden, 1976).

Uniqueness

What one means to communicate may not be what the other understands. One reason for this potential problem in communication is that each person is unique. Each person's life experiences are exactly like no one else's. For example, in one family who places great value on calmness, raising one's voice somewhat may signal considerable anger. In a second family "discussing" loudly and with considerable fervor is a signal of interest and engagement. If an offspring from each of these two families begin to date each other, difficulties in communication may arise simply because of the differences in background experiences (uniquenesses). If the child from the second family enters the discussion intensely, the child from the first family may interpret the intensity as anger. On the other hand, the failure of the child from the first family to respond with intensity may be seen as disinterest by the child of the second family. Such communication challenges are extremely common when the content of the discussion has important relationship and affective consequences. Such miscommunication is not intentional or planned, it occurs because of the unique connotation attached to messages as a result of particular life experiences.

The emotional state of the communicators also affects the accuracy of the communication process. If I am angry and especially if I am angry with myself, I find it much easier to find fault with others, to see everything the other does as wrong. Freud called this process projection and suggested that it was one of the most basic defenses people use. On the other hand, when I feel good about myself, when my sense of self-worth is high, then it is easier to see the positive in other's behavior. It is easier to be more accepting and empathetic. Of particular importance, it is easier to "read" more accurately the other person's communications because "I" am less defensive and more open to both the digital and analogic aspects of the message.

Acceptance of the person with whom one is communicating increases the probability of accurate message exchange. It is possible to disagree with the content of the message while at the same time affirming the person sending the message. The opposite of this occurred in ancient Greece when the king killed the message bearer because he didn't like the message that a battle was being lost. The ability to separate message from sender may depend upon a higher level of moral development as suggested by Kohlberg's (1964) stages of moral development. If one's view of social interaction is based on equal exchanges, one may have more difficulty separating message and messenger. On the other hand if one's view of social interaction includes a set of higher order principles such as the "golden rule," then separation of message from messenger becomes more likely.

Principles of Emotion and Communication

Which Facilitate or Hinder Effective

Relationship Development and Maintenance

Burr (1976) has suggested a series of principles which link together aspects of communication and emotion. The Emotionality Principle states that when emotions are intense, the greater the intensity, the less rational control people have over their behavior. Similarly, the less the intensity of emotions, the greater the control people have over their behavior.

Closely linked to the Emotionality Principle is the Rationality Principle which indicates that the greater the rational control over behavior, the greater the quality of verbal communication, and vice versa. The relationship of rational control and quality of verbal communication is curvilinear, meaning that once a moderately high level of rational control is reached there is no further increase in the quality of communication.

In fact at very high levels of rational control defensiveness may come into play and lower the quality of communication. Several implications stem from the Emotionality and Rationality Principles. First, being able to recognize one's own level of emotion, especially when intense, may open up more alternatives for quality communication than waiting until the emotional level is very high. Second, being able to recognize the emotional level of others' responses, at least when they are intense, may also increase the probability of quality communication. For example, in such a situation the person recognizing the other's high level of emotion may choose to postpone the discussion of differences until emotions are at a more moderate level. Third, when emotions become intense it may be appropriate to find a "safe" way to vent the emotions before proceeding with further communication. For example, one husband took a walk around the block in the cool night air to calm down before continuing a discussion with his wife. When the discussion continued, he was then in greater rational control and the quality of the communication improved. Fourth, in moderate doses it may be helful to discuss feelings of frustration, anger or anxiety in the family setting as a means of gaining greater understanding and control regarding such feelings.

The Trust Principle suggests that the greater the trust an individual perceives in a relationship, the greater the willingness to communicate about important emotions. The less the trust the less the willingness to communicate about important emotions. Trust is often developed out of experiences with the other person which communicate trust. Behavior that communicates trust is more powerful than verbal expressions suggesting trust especially if trust has been questioned. Time for trust to develop is also necessary.

Like the Trust Principle, the Concern Principle indicates that the greater the concern an individual perceives from another, the greater the willingness of the first individual to communicate about important emotions. The less perceived concern, the less willingness to communicate about important emotions.

The Norms-Emotion Principle suggests that the more a person's norms prohibit communication about emotions, the less willing the person is to communicate about important emotions and vice versa.

The amount of self-esteem influences the amount of anxiety individuals experience. This Self-Esteem Principle is an inverse, curvilinear relationship, meaning the greater the self-esteem, the less the anxiety up to a reasonably high level of self-esteem. After the reasonably high level of self-esteem is reached, no further reduction in anxiety takes place.

The Defensiveness Principle hypothesizes that the greater the amount of anxiety due to lowered self-esteem, the greater the probability the individual will use defensive behaviors called "defense mechanisms."

The use of defense mechanisms frequently has an adverse effect on the quality of verbal communication. This is the Defensive-Communication Principle.

Finally, the Anxiety Principle links the amount of anxiety an individual experiences due to lowered self-esteem to the extent behavior is rationally controlled. The relationship is inverse in that the greater the anxiety, the less the rational control.

If the goal is rational communication, these principles suggest the importance of moderate levels of emotionality, high levels of trust and concern, norms which allow the expression of emotions, at least moderate self-esteem and low levels of anxiety. Experiences which facilitate these factors will enhance the quality of communication.

Three Basic Rules of Effective Communication

The first basic rule of effective communication is awareness of self. It is important to tune into one's own thoughts, feelings and wishes. Become aware of behaviors which signal certain feelings. For example, when you're angry does the hair on the back of your neck stand up? Do your cheeks flush? Do your muscles tense up? Does your stomach "turn over?" What other behaviors signal anger for you? If one can become aware of these signals of affect, then one can more easily recognize the presence of the affect itself. Once a thought, feeling or wish is recognized it becomes easier to take responsibility for it, to own it. No one can make another feel, think or wish something. Instead each person decides consciously or unconsciously to think this, feel that, or wish the other. On occasion almost everyone feels embarrassed, sad, humiliated, angry, etc. Such intense feelings may be momentary or they may persist. If such negative feelings persist, it becomes important to find an appropriate way to express them and direct them. Supression of persistent negative feelings may result in such feelings, thoughts or wishes being expressed in an indirect and obtuse, often unconscious way. Sarcasm is an example. By owning such feelings one has available more options and skills to find societally acceptable means for dealing with such feelings, thoughts and wishes. One's sense of self-control is increased when one has developed a clear sense of self. Unconscious expressions often fail to accurately reflect the circumstances and fail to fully resolve the problem. A child who is criticized by his or her father in the presence of the child's peers, may unconsciously act in such a way as to annoy the father on future occasions. However, a direct discussion of the situation with the father, when the father and the son are alone, may help to resolve the difficulty and improve future communications.

When expressing negative feelings directly, it is helpful to use "I" rather than "you" statements. "I feel offended by your comment," rather than, "you are offensive to me." "I wish I could communicate my thoughts more clearly to you," rather than, "you just don't understand!" Often anger means that one is hurt inside. Expressing the hurt rather than the anger, especially with "I" statements, may facilitate understanding and resolution of the problem. Gottman, et al. (1976) recommend a refined procedure using "I" statements. The procedure is called leveling. Leveling statements always take the form, "When you do X, in situation Y, I feel Z." For example, "When you don't answer me while we're eating a meal together, I feel you aren't listening and think what I have to say is unimportant."

Bad mood warnings may help decrease unnecessary disagreements. "Could we talk about this tomorrow evening at 8:30. I'm feeling under a lot of pressure to finish this frustrating report tonight." In this example it is essential to follow through with the appointment. As one becomes more aware of herself the capacity to communicate and understand increases.

The second rule of effective communication has two components: first, tuning into the feelings of others and second, building the others' feelings of self-worth. One can tune into the feelings of others by listening actively and attentively. One can also ask "tune in" questions, "Do you mean....?" Mirroring back the feelings associated with another person's communication indicates being tuned in. "Wow! I'll bet that was frustrating." It is also helpful to pay close attention to body language and other analogic aspects of communication. One can build the self-worth of others by giving positive "strokes," by expressing appreciation, by affirming the person even when one disagrees with the content. "What a great idea." "I really appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this matter." "I'm not sure I agree with you, but your idea raises some issues I need to consider." It is also helpful to encourage others to express both positive and negative feelings. Such "open" communication builds trust and communicates equality and respect.

Use matching verbal and nonverbal communication. The intended message said in words should match the relationship (command) message which is usually expressed nonverbally. Matching messages are usually clear. Nonmatching messages tend to be unclear and may create double binds which cause confusion and hinder good communication.

The third rule of effective communication is that I can only change me. In marital and family situations too often the message sender is seeking to "force" a change in the receiver. This almost never works and even if it does work, has many unhelpful side effects. This does not mean one should not try and persuade others to her way of thinking. But each person deserves the right to choose within the limits of her capacity to choose. The following questions help to focus attention on what one can do. What am I doing that contributes to the problem? An honest answer can open up many courses of action for that individual. What can I do to improve the situation? Even where it is obvious that the other person shares some responsibility for the problem, there is often much the first person can do to resolve the issue. How can I change? Can I cut down on defensiveness? Can I accept responsibility for my mistakes and shortcomings? The following dialogue illustrates the appropriate use of these three basic rules of effective communication.

Styles of Communication

As individuals interact in marital, family and other long-term situations, styles of interaction develop. These styles are influenced by roles, but are not constrained by roles. Styles of communication are reflected in body posture, nonverbals such as gestures and other mannerisms. Such styles also have a strong emotional component. They communicate feelings. Satir (1972) has suggested four styles of communication. If any one of these styles becomes constant and rigid, problems in communication arise. The blamer communicates, "I'm ok. You're not ok." Like a football team, the blamer improves the defense by improving the offense. There are appropriate times to be critical and to place blame where it ought to be. However, the constant use of this communication style blocks effective communication, creates arguments and reduces family and marital satisfaction. Not only does the blamed person suffer, but so does the blamer.

The placater communicates, "You're ok. I'm not ok." Here again there are appropriate situations to admit fault, to take the blame. But as a consistent style, such individuals are avoided. Others feel guilty around them. Sometimes taking the blame is a defensive maneuver to hide even more tender feelings of poor self-esteem. Both the placater and the placated suffer. Satisfaction and effective communication are reduced.

The computer communicates, "I'm ok and you're ok." On the surface this looks great. Often it is. There is a time for more discussion, not making a decision too quickly, getting more facts, being patient, etc. However, there is also a time for action. When the computer continues to "compute" problems may be avoided, time wasted, the quality of interaction lowered. In these cases computing may be a means of defending against some hidden anxiety.

The distracter communicates, "I'm not ok. You're not ok." A healthy use of distraction is humor. In a tense family interaction humor may brake through the tenseness and open up fruitful, effective communication. However, if a person is rigid in the use of the distraction style, effective communication may be hindered. The class clown is a moderate example of an unhelpful distracter style. Bizarre behavior is a more extreme illustration.

When an individual uses each of the four communication styles in appropriate situations, Satir (1972) calls this leveling or being real. There are many appropriate times for each of the communication styles. However, when one style becomes the dominant, almost exclusive style, effective communication in the marital and family setting is reduced.

Psycholinguistics

Psycholinguistics is "the study of the psychological functions of language and of the effects of language on individual and group relationships. Its primary functions are to promote communication, to enable us to use concepts as tools of thought, to study language as a medium for the expression of feelings and emotions, and to enable us to build a body of literature that enriches human life" (Goldonson, 1984, p. 603). Language influences thinking and thus, communication (Bandler and Grinder, 1975). What does a person mean who says, "I like your hair?" Is it the length, the color, the style, the texture that is liked? All of these? None of these? Often language only expresses a part of a thought. Further communication is needed to fully understand the thought. Words express only part of the underlying message, the deep structure. Nonverbals express only part of the underlying message. The verbal and nonverbal aspects of the message together form the surface structure. Even together the verbal and nonverbal aspects of the message may express only a part of the thought.

The surface structure of a message may represent a generalization, a deletion or a distortion of the underlying deep structure, thought or message. A young child may call any adult male "daddy" until he differentiates his father from all other men. This is a generalization. With deletions one may pay attention to certain aspects of experience while avoiding others. A teenager may tell her parents or friends how "wonderfully handsome John is," while failing to think about or communicate the fact that John is also irresponsible. Distortion occurs when we allow ourselves to make shifts in our experience of sensory data. Mom tells her young son to put on his coat before going to school. The child responds by walking out into the brisk fall air and says, "I don't need a coat. It's not cold at all." Generalization, deletion and distortion may occur at the level of thought or communication.

Our thinking and thus our communication is limited by neurological constraints, social constraints and individual constraints. One cannot see in the absence of light. Really loud sounds may damage hearing. The data of life which we take in through our senses is limited by the nature of these mechanisms.

Society and the family in particular teach us certain perspectives. For example, is a policeperson viewed as a friend or helper, or is a policeperson viewed as the enemy, a "pig?" The view one has about policepersons is often influenced by the attitudes of parents, siblings and peers.

There are also individual constraints. Our unique personal history results in our personal perceptions being not quite like anyone else's. The message I intend to communicate may not be the same message you understand because each of us understands words, tones and nonverbals in somewhat unique ways. If I say that I am angry, does that mean I'm about to strike someone? Does it mean I'm somewhat more than frustrated? In part it depends on the unique meaning I give to the word "angry."

In long-term relationships the patterns of communication have often become well entrenched. Sometimes the surface structure may be very sparse in relation to the deep structure. A word or a nod may contain a paragraph of information. This brevity has the advantage of being able to communicate a great deal very quickly. However, at points of difference or conflict, there is an even greater likelihood of misunderstanding through generalization, deletion or distortion.

One metacommunication model psycholinquists have developed to describe the human linguistic process is transformational grammar. As the elements of the model are described below, examples from the work of Bandler and Grinder (1975) will follow. Appropriate communication has the quality of well-formedness. The sentence, "Even the president has tapeworms," is well formed. "Even the president has green ideas," is semantically ill formed. "Even the president have tapeworms," is syntactically ill formed. Interestingly, native born children often recognize the ill-formedness or well-formedness of a sentence even though they cannot explicate the rule that is followed or broken.

Messages have a constituent structure. For example, in the sentence, "The Guru of Ben Lomond thought Rosemary was at the controls," "The Guru" goes together. "Guru of," does not go together. "Rosemary was," goes together; "was at," does not. All language has a constituent structure in which elements of the message go together while other elements do not.

Logical semantic relations are developed in terms of completeness, ambiguity (or a lack thereof), synonymy, referential indices and presuppositions. "The woman kisses..." is incomplete. Kissed whom? "Maxine took Max's shirt off." Who was wearing the shirt? Without further elaboration, ambiguity exists. In the phrase, "My car," my is a referential indice. Presuppositions abound in language. "My cat ran away," presupposes that I have a cat. The elements of logical semantic relations assist one toward greater understanding or misunderstanding of the deep structure of another's message when only the surface structure is presented.

Surface structure.

The woman bought a truck.

Deep structure.

The woman bought from someone for some money.

a truck

How does one person come to understand the deep structure of another person's message? How does someone help another understand the other's own deep structure? As suggested above, recognizing the elements of logical semantic relations can be helpful. In addition on may need to challenge the deep structure of the other person through questioning generalizations, deletions and distortions. One may also challenge the reality reference of the deep structure. An excellent example of the latter occurs in the reality therapy approach of Glasser (1965). While working with adolescents in the Ventura School for Girls, he found that when approached about their unlawful behavior these adolescent inmates often played the role of being mentally ill. "Gee, Doctor, I'm confused." To such messages Glasser would respond, "You're not here because you're confused, but because you stole automobiles." Here he challenges the reality of the deep structure of the adolescent's message.

In order to make clarity out of chaos, one may challenge generalizations. An impoverished message may have words or phrases with no referential index and verbs which are incompletely specified. The child says, "I'm scared." The Mother responds with, "Of what, of whom?" In this example the noun arguments were challenged. One may also challenge the verb process aspects of the message. For example, "How does your bedroom scare you?"

One may also challenge deletions in order to clarify the deep structure of a message. With deletions it is often more helpful to pose a question than to fill in the deletion for the individual. For example, a wife may say to her husband, "What is it that stops you from trusting people?" This is a more helpful challenge than one which may raise defenses such as, "You don't trust people because you're afraid they'll turn against you."

It is also helpful to challenge distortions to clarify messages. The well-formedness of a communication may be at issue. For example, "George forced Mary to weigh 114 pounds." Only through further statements or queries can such ill-formedness be clarified. Many communications contain distorted presuppositions which, if effectively challenged, can clarify the deep structure of a message. "I realize that my wife doesn't love me," might be followed by, "What evidence do you have for your feeling that your wife doesn't love you?"

The natural flow of effective communication is filled with challenges of the types illustrated above. It is appropriate for such challenges to occur if the deep structure of a message is to be understood. The examples may give the impression that challenges create a sort of legalistic challenge/rebuttal pattern to the communication. This need not be the case at all. Since all of us communicate messages with a surface structure which may inadequately represent the deep structure, it is very appropriate for the hearer of the message to challenge the message in an effort to clarify the deep structure richness of the message. This challenge may be very nonconfrontive and, in fact, supportive of the message sender. "Are you saying that incident really frustrates you?" "It sounds like you really wish Betty would loose a little weight." "I hear you saying you're not ready to purchase a car at this time."

Some messages may have person specific affective meaning. "You received a grade of B." "Yes, I'm stupid." It can be helpful to identify for ourselves and others the kinds of messages, phrases and words which elicit strong affective responses. By becoming aware we may be able to catch ourselves and prevent ourselves from being pulled into a particular affective state automatically. Awareness may give a person more self- control options than when one is "caught" unaware.

There are times when it may be helpful not to clarify the deep structure of a message. This is particularly the case when the receiver of the message may act defensively toward the message. In such cases a metaphor may allow an individual to receive a message, while leaving to the receiver the responsibility for the interpretation of the deep structure. Because metaphors by design are ambiguous in that several interpretations are possible, the communicator of a metaphor risks misunderstanding. Metaphors should be carefully thought out to reduce the risk of misinterpretation. Longer, more complicated metaphoric communications may be in the form of stories, allegories and parables.

Parents may find it helpful to respond to their teenager with a story rather than a direct comment in an effort to help the teenager come to her own conclusions. A typical teenage frustration may be of the, "Why aren't we keeping up with the Jones" variety. Tales such as the tortoise and the hare may helpthe teenager or child to see some fallacies in comparing oneself or one's family with the neighbor's.

Some stories may have a more universal appeal. The "garden" story has much to offer as an analogy to the struggle and accomplishment of growth.

The Transactional Model

Berne (1961) has proposed a model of human functioning which begins with an intrapsychic structure not too dissimilar from that of Freud's. However, Berne also postulates the interaction of two individual's psychological structure in communications called transactions. Berne begins with three ego states which he calls the Parent, the Adult and the Child. The Parent state, not unlike the superego, is particularly influenced by the individuals own parents, their values, attitudes, prejudices and "shoulds". Within the parent ego state are three major components: the nurturing parent, the prejudicial parent and the critical parent. The parent "speaks" from a "top dog" perspective. Roles typical of the parent state include the teacher, the boss and of course the parent. The prejudicial parent is arbitrary, sometimes nonrational and often prohibitive. The nurturing parent manifests sympathy.

The second ego state is the Adult. Like Freud's ego the Adult moves toward "what works". This may involve compromise, negotiation and settlement. The Adult is well aware of the conflicting messages from external sources as well as the other two states within. Adult process work toward resolution. Adult relationships are equal and egalitarian in nature. The most obvious example is friendship.

The third ego state is the Child. The Child is a much more expanded concept than Freud's id. There are three subcomponents of the Child: the adapted child, the little professor and the natural child. The adapted child responds with compliance or withdrawal as if under the dominance of parental influence. The natural child responds with rebelliousness or self-indulgence. Play is an important quality of the natural child as is sexual behavior. The natural child is impulsive and pleasure loving. The little professor acts like the adult, at least temporarily, to achieve childish aims. The little professor also represents intuitive wisdom.

In the healthy functioning individual all three ego states are manifest ìwith the adult playing an executive role. Sometimes structural defects occur. When one ego state functions, but not the other two, the structure is fixed. When the adult ego state is too strongly influenced by either the child or parent ego state, the adult ego state is contaminated. When two ego states function, but not the third, the latter is decommissioned. The reader is referred to Berne (1961) for a more elaborate discussion of the ego states. For our purpose a critical contribution to communication is Berne's theory of transactional analysis.

A transaction is a communication between two individuals. According to Berne the most healthy kinds of communications (transactions) are complimentary and parallel. The ego state of a first person communicates with the ego state of a second person. The second person responds from the ego state spoken to by the first person and responds back to the same ego state from which the first person spoke. For example, a supervisor may say to the supervisee, "Would you please get me a hammer so I can drive this nail in farther?" The supervisee might respond, "Sure. I'll be right back." In this example the parent ego state of the supervisor communicates to the child state of the supervisee. The supervisee responds from the child ego state to the parent ego state of the supervisor. This example illustrates a parallel transaction. It is parallel because both individuals respond from the ego state which was addressed. Example one below illustrates the transaction.

Example 1 Example 2

P P P P

A A A A

C C C C

Superviser Supervisee Friend A Friend B

In the second example two friends are speaking to each other, both seeing each other as equals and communicating from the adult ego state. In parallel transactions the channels are open and the relationship is strengthened. The ego states of the two people communicating could be adult to adult, parent to child, child to parent, child to child, etc. Below are some more examples of such communications.

Example 3 Example 4 Example 5

P P P P P P

A A A A A A

C C C C C C

Husband Wife Parent Child Friend Friend

Sex Parenting Friendship

Less healthy communications or transactions are crossed or ulterior. In crossed transactions the ego state of person one directs his communication to an ego state of the second person. However, the response of the second person is either not from the ego state to which the original communication was directed, or the response is sent to a different ego state of the first individual than the one from which the first person spoke. In crossed communication the channels are closed and the relationship is threatened. Examples which three and four illustrate crossed transactions.

Example 6 Example 7

P P P P

A A A A

C C C C

Husband Wife Teenager Parent

In example six above the husband says to the wife, "It must have been a difficult day with the children." The wife responds, "How dare you criticize the way I deal with the children. You're never home to help with them!" In the seventh example the teenager says, "Jim and Mary are thinking about living together." The parent responds, "That's terrible! You'd better not even be thinking about that." In both of these examples communication cannot be clear because parallel ego states are not involved. Non-corresponding motives and defenses may be operating during such transactions.

With ulterior transactions there are two contrasting levels of communication going on simultaneously; usually one communication is at the social level, and a second is at the psychological level. Communication will be open or closed dependent upon whether the message exchange at the psychological level is parallel or crossed.

Example 8 Example 9

P P P P

A A A A

C C C C

Salesperson Customer Woman Man

In example eight the customer asks, "How much does that vacuum cost?" The salesperson responds, "I'm not sure you can afford this vacuum." To this the customer responds, "That's the one I'll take." At the psychological level the salesperson is communicating, "There's something wrong with you, with your earning power." The customer responds, "I'll show you I'm not inferior and can afford nice things."

Example nine illustrates a common situation among two individuals who are dating. Outside the woman's door, the woman says, "Would you like to come in and see a new painting I just acquired?" At the psychological level she may be saying, "Come in. I want to be more intimate with you." The man responds, "I'd love to see the painting." He may be also saying at the psychological level, "I want to be more intimate with you also."

Berne (1964) suggests that individuals may develop patterns of transactions that in the long run "hurt" one or both of the participants and maintain unhealthy relationships. He calls such patterns games. "...a game can be defined transactionally as a set of ulterior transactions. Descriptively, it is a recurring set of transactions, often reiterative, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or more colloquially, as series of moves with a snare or 'gimmick'" (p. 104). For example, the game "rappo" might be played as follows. The wife may be wearing a very seductive outfit late in the evening and make some initial moves which imply a desire for intimacy. If the husband responds positively, two endings are possible. In the "little rap" the woman may suddenly turn cool, communicating, "No thanks" or "You don't measure up." In the more destructive sequence some intimacy occurs to which the wife responds, "That wasn't much" or "What a letdown."

Teenagers sometimes try the game "poor me" when attempting to persuade their parents. "All the other kids are doing it." "I'm the only one who must be home at 11:00." Children often get into the game of "intelligence" with their siblings. The focus is, "I know something you don't" or "I can do something better than you." A fuller description of games and many illustrations can be found in Berne's (1964) Games People Play.

Berne suggests that individuals also develop larger patterns or life plans. He calls such plans scripts. Scripts are often unconscious and are developed during childhood. Because they are developed early in life, they may not accurately reflect the person's true strengths and weaknesses. They may also continue to exert an inappropriate influence long after life events have moved the person in a direction inconsistent with the original life script. Instead of revising the script, one may doggedly pursue a low probability sequence of events. Some themes for life scripts are tragic in nature. For example, the "Santa Claus" payoff suggests, "I must hurt now, but eventually I'll get a big dividend later." Life scripts can also contain many helpful themes and be a motivation for improvement, goal orientation and success. Realistic expectations and effective planning are key elements in the realization of healthy life scripts. Failure to understand one's own and other's scripts may create many difficulties in communication.

Nondirective Approaches to Communication

Gordon (1970) has applied to family functioning many of the basic principles asserted by Carl Rogers. In the context of warmth, empathy and congruence effective communication can be enhanced through active listening. Much miscommunication occurs because one or more of the individuals is not listening, not listening with the intent of really understanding or not communicating to the speaker that they are trying to understand what is said. In active listening the listener communicates through posture, nonverbals such as head nodding and brief reflective or interrogative statements that he is really listening. Picture a listener directly facing the speaker, attending attentively, nodding his head, and periodically saying such things as, "Hum," "I see," "Sounds frustrating," "Wow," "Could you give me an example?" "Does that mean ...?" "That was great!" These behaviors all suggest, "I want to hear what you say." "You're worth listening to." "You matter." "Your ideas matter." The communication of such concepts to the speaker are all a part of active listening. Be careful to note that interest does not need to be equated with agreement. It is possible to listen actively but disagree with the content of the message. For example one might say, "Although I have a somewhat different perspective about that, I really appreciate hearing your views." When individuals communicate "actively" they not only share a content message but also they share at the emotional level. Such sharing gives richness and vitality to marriage and family relationships. Couples and families seeking therapy because their marital and/or family relationships are not meeting their expectations, often report that they no longer take time to share with each other. A simple task for improving relationships is to calendar times each day to share. These times may be just 15 or 20 minutes, but they can have a great impact on the quality of the relationship. Such experiences tend to build trust, communicate caring and provide fundamental opportunities to grow in understanding.

When a couple or a parent and child disagree a variation of active listening can be helpful in improving communication. The technique is called echoing. The procedure for using echoing is as follows. One person initiates echoing by making a simple statement, communicating something about the disagreement.

For example, the wife may say, "I get really anxious when you don't come home at the time you said you would." Then the husband says what he thinks the wife was communicating. He keeps making statements until the wife answers "yes" to three of them. He begins his response with, "Are you saying . . . .?"

Notice how much more the husband understands about the wife's statement after getting three yeses. At this point the roles switch and the husband makes a statement to which the wife must make interpretations until the husband answers "yes" three times. If the problem has not been resolved through understanding alone, then other aspects of problem solving and conflict resolution can be used. The purpose of echoing is better understanding. It may seem mechanical at first, but if pursued whenever conflicts occur, many misunderstandings can be resolved.

Principles for Resolving Disagreements in Relationships

There are only five possible outcomes when differences exist between two or more people.

1. Everyone agrees to one person's perspective.

2. Everyone agrees to a compromise.

3. Everyone agrees to tolerate the difference.

4. The relationship can end.

5. No solution can be reached.

Agreement means genuine agreement with no serious resentments. Many individuals have disagreements but never reach a real solution. Instead, time reduces the sting of the disagreement until it resurfaces again in a slightly different set of circumstances. This cycle may repeat itself many times, each time hurting the participants and creating distance in the relationship. The principles to follow are intended to increase the probability of the first three outcomes.

Interpersonal Crisis Management.

When interpersonal disagreements result in intense negative emotions, family members should keep in mind the emotionality principle discussed earlier: When emotions are intense, the greater the intensity, the less the amount of rational control people exert over their behavior, and the less the intensity the greater the control. It is important for each family member to learn to identify the bodily signals that indicate increasing emotional intensity. Some people experience a tightening of muscles. Others become flushed. Still others feel their stomachs beginning to "turn." There are many other possibilities. Intense negative emotions have two components. First there is the energy component. Individuals in conflict should learn to get the energy out in a safe way, which will not hurt anyone or exacerbate the problem. For example, one man would leave the house and walk around the block. A woman would strike the empty bed with a large flat frying pan. (It makes a real racket.) Another man attached a punching bag to his basement ceiling and would hit the bag until he calmed down. Whatever the activity, it needs to be one that gets the energy out safely. Second, when in rational control, family members work out one of the three preferred solutions listed above with each other. It is vital for individuals in conflict to go on to this second step. Some people delay resolving the difference, once the energy of the situation has been reduced, only to have it surface again in a new context. Specific procedures for resolving differences are discussed in the next few pages.

Sometimes differences arise in a context in which there is no time for lengthy discussion. In these situations a decision must be made immediately. Imagine that it's five minutes to seven and John and his spouse must be at separate places at seven. Suddenly, the 17 year old daughter announces that she needs one of the cars to get to her basketball practice. There are only two cars in the family. What does one do? When a decision must be made immediately, the person "in charge" should arbitrarily make the best decision she can. A time should then be set to do a "post mortum" on the effects of the decision and develop a long term solution for future like situations. In the example above perhaps the wife is the "auto mechanic" of the family and, thus, in charge of the cars. She might say, "Dad, you take the Edsel, and Mary, you drive me to the committee meeting in the van. Then you go to your practice, Mary. Dad, if you could pick me up when your meeting is over, I think it would all work out." Of course there are many other resonable possibilities. The key is that all concerned recognize the immediacy of the situation and go along with the person "in charge." Later the family may decide to write down all evening appointments on a family calendar so that such problems can be anticipated and a more discussed and reasoned decision reached when schedule conflicts arise.

Gordon (1970) has suggested a "no lose" problem solving method. The steps of the method can be best carried out when a time to discuss the problem has been set aside and when emotions are less intense. Family members in conflict should proceed as follows:

1. Define the problem. State the concern briefly and succinctly.

2. Brain storm. Write down all possible solutions as suggested by anyone participating. No suggested solution should be criticized or excluded at this point.

3. Eliminate unacceptable solutions. If all solutions are rejected, return to step one. It may be helpful to briefly state why each solution was rejected. Often all solutions are rejected because the stated problem was not the real problem. For example, arguments about what time a teenager should come home from an activity are often really concerns about trust regarding alcohol consumption or sexual activity. If one of these latter concerns is the real issue, that issue must be discussed and then the time to come in issue can be resolved.

4. If after rejecting the unacceptable solutions, there is more than one acceptable solution left choose the best solution. This is a good situation for parents to allow children to choose the final solution. Since all of the solutions left are acceptable trust in the child's capacity can be demonstrated by allowing him to make the choice.

5. Implement the solution. Discuss when and how to implement the decision that has been reached.

6. After the solution has been implemented and is in operation for a while, follow up to see how the solution is working. Make refinements if necessary.

Bach and Wyden (1969) have suggested some additional elements to increase the effectiveness of problem solving in their creative rules for fair "fighting." They remind family members that "fights" should be held in order to reach a solution, not to gain a victory. The resolution of differences (fighting) is a necessary ingredient to the growth of any relationship. No physical violence is allowed in fair "fighting". The grieved individual should state the "gripe" in the form of a request not a demand. Make it a positive request. Use "I" statements.

No stamp collecting. Clear the air as soon as possible. Although "fighting" is scary, the resolution of conflict is only realized when family members persist with the process. "Fight" about one thing at a time. If the "fight" is a question of fact, then it is one's duty to get the facts. If the "fight" is a matter of opinion, family members in conflict must work toward one of the three preferred solutions. Don't play archaeologist. Focus clearly on the real issue of current concern. Don't dig problems up out of the past.

No hitting below the belt. No personal attacks or name calling. Why should family members use an atomic bomb when a squirt-gun will do? Remember, one is not out to destroy the enemy, but to discover the person with whom one is in "combat". One should state gripes in terms of behaviors, not states of being. "You didn't tell me you were coming home late and would miss dinner," instead of "You're nothing but a liar and a cheat!"

One cannot refuse to "fight". If something is important enough to one person in the relationship, it is worth "fighting" over. It is sometimes necessary to make an appointment to "fight" so that each can be prepared and reasonably calm. No leaving the "fight" in the middle, unless there is a mutual agreement to a truce and a time set aside to complete the discussion.

No third parties should be involved in setting or enforcing the rules. No friends or relatives opinions should be used just because they work in those other relationships. Discuss family members' roles, talents, preferences. Try to figure out what they are, how they are developed and how they are maintained. Only those involved in the relationship should be involved in the setting of the rules.

Don't play psychologist. Family members in conflict should not try to tell each other what the other is thinking or feeling or why one is doing something. This is covered by the most famous rule: Family members should never assume. Don't try to mind read, it's impossible, so ask instead.

Don't make speeches. One states the problem, and then lets the other person answer. If the other person states a point, the first person responds to that point before making a new point. Answer questions directly.

No emotional blackmail. "If you really loved me, you would . . . ." No fair using love or sex as a weapon or punishment or threat.

Two "ounces" of prevention. First, discuss each person's roles in the relationship. Who is "in charge" of what situations? In what circumstances can "in charge" be rotated? Roles may change as a function of time and changing interests also. Second, those family members care about the most deserve the best etiquette. Cultivate courtesy and politeness. Remember that profanity suggests lack of creativity in finding a more precise and cultured phrase.

Dreikurs' Family Council

It is extremely helpful to have a regular forum where family members can discuss concerns and make plans. Dreikurs, et al. (1976) call this a family council. It is a weekly meeting of all family members who are living "under the same roof." There should be a chairperson to facilitate the discussion and organize the agenda, and a secretary to write down the action items. These two positions should be rotated to all family members, except very young children.

Any family member can place an item on the agenda. Each family member is encouraged to speak up regarding every issue. No one should be punished for stating their opinion. Decision making can be done through consensus, near consensus or majority vote depending on the wish of the family.

Typical content of a family council might include calendaring, scheduling, use of the family car(s), us of other shared resources, specific family problems, teaching values, fun activities, vacations, project planning, and sharing experiences. Where appropriate the "no lose" problem solving method can be followed. A desert is often a welcome conclusion to the council. Some families try to plan a whole evening together. Family councils can begin even before a couple marries and continue on until all of the children have left home and one of the spouses dies.

Summary

Communication theories fit harmoniously with systems theory and have many elements of common history and early proponents. The principles discussed in communication theories have tremendous application to solving marital and family conflicts and to enhancing the growth of individuals in the marital and family setting. Since one cannot not communicate, understanding some rules of effective communication can greatly improve marital and family relationships. Not all of the principles discussed in this chapter are right for everycouple or family, but many will assist family members in reaching their personal and relationship goals and improve the quality of the process of growth. Family members are encouraged to try them out. They can be adapted to the unique needs of each family situation.

References

Bach, G. & Wyden, P. 1969. The intimate enemy. New York: Avon Books, 1968.

Bandler, R. & Grinder, J. 1975. The structure of magic. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books.

Barke', M. 1983. Personal communication. April.

Bateson, G. 1971. Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Chandler.

Berne, E. 1961. Transactional analysis in psychotherapy, a systematic individual and social psychiatry. New York: Castle Books.

Berne, E. 1964. Games people play. New York: Grove Press.

Broderick, C. B. 1982.

Burr, W. R. 1976. Successful marriage, a principles approach. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press.

Calden, G. 1976. I count -- you count. Niles Illinois: Argus Communications.

Dreikurs, R. & 1976.

Dreikurs, R. & Soltz, V. 1964. Children: The challenge. New York: Hawthron Books.

Glasser, W. 1965. Reality therapy. New York:

Goldonson, R. M. ed. 1984. Longman dictionary of psychology and psychiatry. New York: Longman.

Gordon, T. 1970. Parent effectiveness training. New York: Wyden.

Gottman, G. M., Gonso, N. J. & Markman, H. A. 1976. A couple's guide to communication. Champaign, Ill.: Research Press.

Haley, J. 1963. Strategies of psychotherapy. New york: Grune and Stratton.

Hanks, M. D. 1974. The gift of self. Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft.

Kohlberg, L. 1978. Revisions in the theory and practice of moral development. In W. Damon, ed. New directions for child development. San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 83-87.

Reusch, 1973.

Reusch, J. & Bateson, G. 1951. Communication: The social matrix of psychiatry. New York: W. W. Norton

Satir, V. 1972. Peoplemaking. Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behavior Books.

Watzlawick, P. Bevin, J. & Jackson, D. 1967. Pragmatics of human communication. New York: Norton.

Return to Psychotherapy with Families Table of Contents

Return to Dennis Karpowitz Home Page