6. Calidad de la información (O)
6.1 Alcance o ámbito (O)
1. Cross-generational coalitions (i.e. mother-father-child triangles) are associated with child behaviour problems.
In studies of adolescent antisocial behaviour, differences in dyadic interaction between families with a child with behaviour problems and families with a well adjusted child have been evaluated.
Empirical studies show that on average:
• Children with behaviour problems are more aligned with their mothers and more disengaged from their fathers than are the well-adjusted adolescents.
• Parents of children with behaviour problems have more discordant relations than the parents of well-adjusted adolescents.
• Within families of well-adjusted adolescents, the parents are more supportive of each other than the adolescent. This suggests that strengthening the parental dyad through the resolution of marital problems, and promoting more positive father-adolescent relations will weaken the cross-generational coalition and ameliorate the symptomatic behaviour.
In another study , the family triangle was defined as a family systems construct used to describe family
communication patterns in which a dyad cannot cope with demands for intimacy or conflict resolution. As such, triangles occur to reduce tension between two people, but are problematic because they do not provide solutions.
2. The authors reviewed three family triangles:
• Triangulation: occurs when a parent demands that a child side with her or him against the other parent. • Detouring: occurs when spouses ignore the issues in their own relationship and focus on the child's issues. • Cross-generational coalition: exists when one parent sides with a child against another parent.
This differs from triangulation because it is the parent who initiates the coalition and the attachment between the parent and the child exceeds that between the parents.
All three family triangles are considered to have negative developmental effects on the child.
• They create a false sense of attachment and security and do not give the child the opportunity to develop a healthy separate identity. For this reason the study considers the "impact of cross-generational coalitions on interpersonal intimacy and view intimacy as a developmental task relevant to young adults"
• Children with a cross-generational attachment have larger intellectual-intimacy, emotional-intimacy and sexual-intimacy discrepancy scores.
• Cross-generational coalitions also affect the ability to successfully negotiate psycho-social developmental tasks. Tests reveal that, even while away from home, children are still affected by the family triangle.
• "Detriangulating" can contribute considerably in resolving intimacy issues. Detriangulating involves: a) not talking with one parent about the other parent,
b) teaching the client about triangulation patterns,
Because the family is not a static entity, a change in one part of the system affects the actions of all others involved. Bowen sometimes worked with one member of a conflictual dyad (or couple). He did not require that
every family member be involved in the therapy sessions.
Bowen tended to work from the inside out: Starting with the spousal relationship, he helped the two adults establish their own differentiation.
As a therapist, he attempted to maintain a stance of neutrality. If the therapist becomes emotionally entangled with any one family member, the therapist loses effectiveness and becomes part of a triangulated relationship.
Bowen maintains that, to be effective, family therapists have to have a very high level of differentiation. If
therapists still have unresolved family issues and are emotionally reactive, they are likely to revisit those difficulties in every family they see.
3. Vogel, E.F. and Bell, N.W. (1968). The Emotionally Disturbed Child as the Family Scapegoat. The purpose of this study was to learn more about how "the emotionally disturbed child used as a scapegoat for the conflicts between parents and what the functions and dysfunctions of this scapegoating are for the family." (p. 412) When parents experience crises for which they have no adequate coping mechanisms, they look for ways to
discharge some of the tension. One of the most common methods is to involve a third person. When the third person is their child, parents often project their problems on to the child. They focus their attentions on the problems of
the child so they can avoid the pain of admitting their own problems. This is what Vogel and Bell call "scapegoating".
There were many reasons why the child was selected as the scapegoat.
• First, the child was relatively powerless to leave the family nor to counter the parents triangulation. The child's personality is very flexible and adopts quickly to the assigned role of scapegoat.
• The child has few task which are vital in the maintenance of the family. "The cost in dysfunction of the child is low relative to the functional gains for the whole family."
• Often, the chosen child would best symbolize the parental conflicts. For example, if the conflict was over achievement, the child who stood out most (for either over- or under-achieving) would be targeted.
• Children were also picked because they possessed the same undesirable traits (either physically, behaviourally or emotionally) as the parent.
• The study also found that the scapegoated child had a (considerably) lower IQ than the other children. Many had physical abnormalities.
All of the parents reported having had tensions since early in the marriage.
Once the child is selected she or he must carry out the role of the problem child. The authors found that the problem behaviour was reinforced through inconsistent parenting.
The dysfunction would be both supported and criticized. In some cases, parents would encourage opposing types of behaviour. In other instances parents promoted different norms. This set up a self-perpetuating cycle which
"normalized" the child's problems. The dysfunction became part of the family.
The families used rationalizations to maintain the equilibrium attained when the child took on the parents' problems. • One rationalization was that the parents, rather than the children, were the victims.
• Another was to emphasize how fortunate the child was, because their life was better than the parents. The parents felt justified in depriving the children of things they wanted and then used the complaints to reinforce the scapegoating.
• Another common belief was that the child could behave if she or he wanted to. This rationalized sever punishment.
The authors point out that there are both functions and dysfunctions of scapegoating.
• For the parents, scapegoating serves to stabilize their relationship. They were also better able to live up to the societal expectations of a happy marriage. Scapegoating permits the family to maintain its solidarity. At the same time, communities can scapegoat the family with the dysfunctional child.
• One of the dysfunctions is that scapegoating creates "realistic problems and extra tasks" for the family. Another is that the child often becomes very adept at fighting back and usually directs their aggression towards the ever- present mother.
4. Marks, S. (1989). Towards a systems theory of marital quality.
Marks (1989) suggests that relationships can be understood in terms of two intersecting triangles. He has borrowed Margaret Mead's concept of "I" and "me" in describing the nature of the triangle. The "I" is the presentation of the self at that moment or in that situation. This contrasts with the "me" which is an organization of tendencies. The situation brings the "I" out of the "me". The triangle is three points and those can be understood as three tendencies, or three "me" corners. At any given moment one corner will be the focus of energy. That corner will then be the "I", the present manifestation of the tendencies. In therapy, the placement of the"I" structures the future.
Each triangle has three corners.
1) The first corner is the Inner-self (I-corner), the driving force.
2) The second is the Partnership (P-corner) corner. This coordinates the self with a primary partner.
3) The third corner is any area where the self concentrates energy that is different from the first two corners, eg job, children, religion, friends etc.
Marks' conception differs from Bowen's view of triangles in marriage. Bowen sees the couple as two corners of the triangle. The couple uses the third corner as a buffer against their tension. The third corner provides a distraction and relieves the marital pressure. In a marital therapy situation, the therapist can act as the third corner.
The "Three Corners" model is a systems theory of the self in marriage. A traditional concept in marriage therapy is "marital quality". Marks states "Quality of marriage is a consequence of the way married selves are systematically organized. A person whose "I" maintains some regular motion around and between all three corners has a
high quality marriage."
The article introduces seven different manifestations of the dual triangle construct.
The first three are low quality relationships. These are characterized by a concentration of energy on one corner without a flow of energy to all parts.
1) The first triangle is the "Romantic Fusion", wherein all the energy is focused on the P . This is the traditional beginnings of a relationship. This becomes unhealthy after a while because other areas of the self are neglected. 2) The second is the "Dependency-Distancing" relationship. This is a traditional unhealthy female-male situation
where the woman places energy on the partner and the partner (the man) places energy on the 3rd corner, usually work.
3) The third is the "Separated" relationship where both people focus their energy on their 3rd corner. Marks says that while this can be very healthy and stable, as a marriage is concerned it is low quality.
The last four triangles represent high quality marriages.
There is a radical shift in the conception of the triangle. Because there is a constant flow of energy, the three points are connected by rounded lines, making a circle. This represents uninterrupted energy flow between the "me's". In a high quality marriage there is a multiplicity of healthy connections which are as dynamic and fluid as the energy. 4) The fourth is the "Balanced Connection" which has an equal concentration of energy.
5) The fifth is "Couple Centered". The energy is focused on the P , but differs from the second triangle in that the other "me's" receive energy.
6) The sixth is "Family Centered". Both people focus their energy on the family, which would be a joint 3rd interest.
7) The seventh is "Loose". The energy is focused on the 3rd , without detriment to the stability of the couple because, again, there is a steady flow of energy to the other corners.
Marks' (1989) concept of the self as a triangle is very useful and deserves more attention. A useful application would be in Slater's (1994) article on triangles in committed lesbian relationships. In his article, Marks does not discuss the possibility of energy revolving around the "I". This might reflect an assumption that there is a sufficient concentration on the "I" naturally, that the inner-self is the base of all the external interactions. This assumes a degree of differentiation that, developmentally, is traditionally more male than female. Slater points out that the affected partner needs consolidate her sense of identity and perceive it as originating within herself. This would result in the "I" in Marks' model to be the focus of energy. Without this option, the therapist would concentrate the affected partner on the "P" and miss the opportunity for individual growth.
Criticisms on the triangle theory
As exciting and varied as triangle theory is, there are valid criticisms. One is that the majority of the studies focused on dependence as being the dominant catalyst for problems. A good example is West (1986) who states : “In this enmeshed situation the child seems to experience a distorted sense of attachment, involvement, or belonging with the family and fails to experience a secure sense of separateness, individuality or autonomy. “
This implies that independence is more important than attachment, and given what we know about gender roles, that male characteristics are more important than female characteristics. The possible gender bias could be addressed by a study on the role of an overly-detached family member on the creation of triangles. This would look at the role that stereotypical male behaviour has on the other two members.
S
Saallvvaaddoorr
MMiinnuucchhiinn’’ss
SSttrruuccttuurraall
ffaammiillyy
tthheerraappyy
II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Structural Family Therapy (SFT) is a method of psychotherapy developed by Salvador Minuchin which addresses problems in functioning within a family. Structural Family Therapists strive to enter, or "join", the family system in therapy in order to understand the invisible rules which govern its functioning, map the relationships between family members or between subsets of the family, and ultimately disrupt dysfunctional relationships within the family, causing it to stabilize into healthier patterns.[1] Minuchin contends that pathology rests not in the individual, but within the family system.
SFT utilizes, not only a unique systems terminology, but also a means of depicting key family parameters
diagrammatically. Its focus is on the structure of the family, including its various substructures. In this regard, Minuchin is a follower of systems and communication theory, since his structures are defined by transactions among interrelated systems within the family. He subscribes to the systems notions of wholeness and equifinality, both of which are critical to his notion of change. An essential trait of SFT is that the therapist actually enters, or "joins", with the family system as a catalyst for positive change. Joining with a family is a goal of the therapist early on in his or her therapeutic relationship with the family.
Contents
• 1Family Rules
• 2Therapeutic Goals and Techniques • 3See also
• 4References