Family Systems Theory

Family systems theory demonstrated that children's and adolescents' dysfunctional

behavior often serves important functions within a larger system, usually that of the
family.

From: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2001

Related terms:

Childhood Obesity, Coping Strategies, Family Functioning, Behavior Change, Men-

tal Health, Obesity, Family Therapy, Child Parent Relation, Family Conflict

View all Topics

Family Systems
W.H. Watson, in Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition), 2012

Family Systems Theory

Family systems theory is an approach to understand human functioning that focuses
on interactions between people in a family and between the family and the context(s)
in which that family is embedded. Family systems theory has been applied to a wide
variety of areas including psychotherapy in general and family therapy in particular
(working from a systems framework with emotional, behavioral, or relational symp-
toms in individual, couples, and families); school systems; community problems
(e.g., working with polarized disputes and facilitating ‘difficult conversations’ as in
the Public Conversations Project, peace studies, nonviolence training); organizations
(consulting, leadership training, coaching); and health care (medical family therapy
– tracking the emotional dynamics of illness and facilitating collaboration among
patients, families, providers, and health care systems).

According to a family systems perspective, an individual's functioning is determined

not so much by intrapsychic factors as by a person's place in the system(s) in which
he or she finds himself or herself, subject to the pushes and pulls of the sys-
tem, including competing emotional demands, role definitions and expectations,
boundary and hierarchy issues, coalitions and collusions, loyalty conflicts, family and
institutional culture and belief systems, double binds, projective identifications, and
systemic anxiety. In addition, self-correcting and self-reinforcing feedback loops in
a system can either facilitate or hinder pathology or health, breakdown or resilience.

A thorough understanding of family systems theory requires an elucidation of the

foundational contributions of systems theory itself.

Systems theory is a field that informed and inspired the founders of the family
therapy field and upon which family systems theory is based in many important
respects. Unfortunately, as the field of family therapy has developed, the important
contributions of systems theory to the theoretical foundations of the field have
too often been neglected, undervalued, or only dimly understood. The following
discussion will review the key concepts of systems theory that are most relevant to
family systems theory and family therapy, followed by a description of the primary
schools of family therapy and enduring family systems concepts and family therapy
techniques. The concepts throughout will be illustrated with both actual and hypo-
thetical clinical case examples.

> Read full chapter

Psychopathology, Models of
P.K. Kerig, in Encyclopedia of Adolescence, 2011

Family Systems Theory

Family systems theory also arose in the late 1950s (a time ripe for theoretical innova-
tions in psychology) and staked its unique claim by proposing that psychopathology
does not reside in the individual, but rather in a disturbed system of family relations.
As with psychoanalysis, family systems theory actually refers to a collection of rather
disparate formulations, but all systemic schools of thought share this fundamental
underlying assumption that where there is a patient, there is a troubled family
system. Salvador Minuchin exemplifies this approach with his innovative argument
that he did not treat youth with anorexia, but rather anorexic families. In Min-
uchin's conceptualization, called structural family theory, psychopathology arises as
a function of poor boundaries among family members. In the families of those who
came to him for treatment, he observed children who were parenting their par-
ents (termed role reversal), parents who were coping with unacknowledged marital
problems by focusing their attention on the child (termed detouring), and families
in which certain family members had joined forces to scapegoat others (termed
triangulation). Minuchin also believed that families, like any dynamic system, sought
stability and so the system would resist change. This homeostasis, as he termed it,
existed in part because the system worked: the fact that one family member was
symptomatic served a function for the family. For example, one function might be to
distract attention from problems that family members felt to be more threatening
– such as a crumbling marriage – and therefore more difficult to face. Only by
reinforcing appropriate boundaries and clearing the communication channels could
psychopathology in the family be alleviated.

> Read full chapter

Family Therapy
V. Thomas, J.B. Priest, in Encyclopedia of Mental Health (Second Edition), 2016

Family Systems Theory

Family systems theory is derived from the fields of biology and cybernetics going
back to the 1940s and 1950s. Bertalanffy (1950), an Austrian biologist, attempted
to integrate systems thinking and biology into a universal theory of living systems.
Early family therapists (Speer, 1970) applied von Bertalanffy’s ideas to family systems
focusing on the interactional patterns among family members using concepts such
as equifinality (i.e.,the ability of a family) to reach a given final goal in many different
ways), morphostasis (i.e., forces that stabilized the family’s structure), morphogene-
sis (i.e., forces that support the family’s ability to grow and change). These concepts
are in line with von Bertalanffy’s idea that families are open systems that interact
with their environment. Furthermore, they derive from the idea that a system is
larger than the sum of its parts. Applied to FT this means that family therapist not
only work with the ‘parts’ of the family or its individual members, but also with the
interactions or relationships among family members (the addition to the ‘sum of its
parts’). The second major influence of family systems theory was Cybernetics, the
study feedback mechanisms in self-regulating systems (Wiener, 1948). The idea of
positive and negative feedback loops was applied to families to explain how they
use information and communication to maintain a sense of stability over time and
develop mechanisms to adapt to changes in their environment. The ‘traditional
approaches’ to FT as discussed below are based on the notions of family systems
theory as derived from Wiener’s and von Bertalanffy’s ideas.

The 1970s and 1980s introduced new theoretical ideas to the field of FT. In addi-
tion to internal adaptive mechanisms and interactions families face, the discourse
expanded to include how family members’ beliefs affect their interactions and how
cultural forces shape these beliefs. Constructivist theorists (e.g., von Foerster, 1981;
Maturana and Varela, 1980) suggested that nothing is perceived directly, but filtered
through the mind of the observer. The meaning that is derived from what family
members observe in mutual interactions influences their interactions in significant
ways. Thus, the use of language became a crucial part when working with families.
Social constructionist theorists (Gergen, 1985) went a step further by suggesting
that families’ experiences are shaped by the social context in which they live and the
meaning they develop from interacting within their social context. Some of these
‘postmodern approaches’ to FT are discussed below.

> Read full chapter

Advances in Child Development and

Behavior
Alice C. Schermerhorn, E. Mark Cummings, in Advances in Child Development and
Behavior, 2008

8 Family Systems Theory

Family systems theory emphasizes the interdependent nature of subsystems within
families (Cox & Paley, 1997; Minuchin, 1985), conceptualizing families as organized
wholes (Cox & Paley, 2003). These notions gave rise to our views of families as
hierarchically organized, consisting of multiple family members and relationships.
Families are capable of both self-regulation and self-reorganization (Cox & Paley,
1997). Self-regulation involves stabilizing interaction patterns; for example, there
may be rapid changes in family conflict followed by self-regulation back to the
family's typical low levels of conflict. Self-reorganization refers to adaptation to the
environment. For example, a downturn in the economy may cause a father to lose
his job, which may prompt the family to reorganize itself around new roles, such as
the mother becoming the primary source of income.

Similarly, Bretherton (1985) discussed links between children's internal representa-

tions of multiple family relationships, and McHale and Fivaz-Depeursinge (1999)
called for an examination of families as wholes, rather than as a group of individuals
or dyads. Moreover, they described the notion of a family's personality as the family's
tendency toward certain emotions and behaviors. For example, one family may have
a warm and expressive personality, whereas another family may tend toward a cold,
detached personality. Thus, these notions of families as hierarchically organized
wholes with their own personalities, and of multiple pathways of influence play an
integral part in our conceptualization of transactional family dynamics.

> Read full chapter

Children & Adolescents: Clinical For-
mulation & Treatment
Michael S. Robbins, ... Jamie Miller, in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, 1998

5.07.2.1.5 Reciprocal vs. linear causality

Family systems theory assumes reciprocal as opposed to linear causal explanations.
Linear causality is based on the traditional stimulus–response behavioral view that
one event “A” causes some response “B.” This type of reductionistic thinking fails
to capture the interdependence of individuals in any system. While it may be
appropriate to highlight microanalytic sequences within the family (e.g., parents
allow their adolescent daughter to stay out after curfew to avoid a confrontation with
her), limiting our focus on these sequences fails to capture the true complexity of
family interactions.

Circular causality assumes that any behavior in an interaction is simultaneously

influenced by and influential on other behaviors in the interaction. In other words,
causality is bidirectional. Thus, in the example of parents allowing their daughter to
stay out after curfew to avoid a confrontation, a circular view of this sequence would
begin with a recognition that the parent's behavior (e.g., avoiding confrontation)
not only influenced the daughter's immediate likelihood of not being angry, but
it also influenced the probability of her staying out beyond curfew in the future.
Such a parental response may be the result of previous interactions in which the
daughter responded with intense anger to the parent's confrontation. As a result,
the parents' avoidance of confrontation in the current interaction may also influence
the likelihood that the daughter will respond with intense anger to future parental
confrontations of the daughter's behavior.

As is evident from this description, circular causality is informed by combinations of

sequences of behavior. In this example only one particular sequence was highlighted.
From a systemic perspective, however, it is not possible to understand a sequence
outside of the context in which it occurs. Thus, to fully understand the mutual
influence of parents and the adolescent in this example, the family systems therapist
must also address other factors within the family (i.e., the parent's may not agree on
basic rules within the house; consequently, they are unable to present a unified front
to their daughter) or outside the family (i.e., the daughter may be associating with
friends that foster an attitude of parental disrespect).

> Read full chapter

Foundations
Jay L. Lebow, Alan S. Gurman, in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, 1998

1.16.1 Introduction
The place of family systems theories and couples and family therapies within psy-
chology has vastly expanded in recent years. Once seen as a radical departure from
the more traditional focus on the individual that has typified the mental health
disciplines, family systems viewpoints have now been with us for over 40 years and
gained wide acceptance. Many systemic theories and therapies have been developed,
and couple and family therapies are now among the most widely practiced. Sev-
eral prominent guild organizations supporting the practice of family therapy have
blossomed, including The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy,
the American Family Therapy Academy, and the Division of Family Psychology of
the American Psychological Association, as have a number of prominent journals
including Family Process, Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, and Family Therapy
Networker. The Division of Family Psychology within the American Psychological As-
sociation now has over 6000 members, while the American Association for Marriage
and Family Therapy has over 25 000 members.

The essence of what has driven all this attention lies in the emergence of a broad
recognition of the importance of the family in the life of the individuals within it
and the society made up of families. Whether we consider the impact of a depressed
parent on a child, the role of poor parenting practices as a risk factor for conduct
disorder in children, or the impact spouses have on one another, both clinical experi-
ence and much research point to the enormous influence of the family. Gurin, Veroff,
and Feld (1960) found that 42% of all people who had sought professional help for
psychological problems viewed their problems as related to a marital problem, and
another 17% viewed their problems as pertaining to family relationships.

However, family therapy is truly unified only in the shared belief that relationships
are of at least as much importance in the behavior and experience of people as are
internal processes within individuals or broader social forces. As Gurman, Kniskern,
and Pinsof (1986) have suggested, family therapy includes therapists from many
professions, has no unified theory, and few techniques that are specific to it. There
are many distinct systemic therapies, which differ enormously from one another.
Some are directed to the treatment of families, some to subsystems within the family
(e.g., couples), and others abandon the specific focus on the family entirely, aiming
at the broader social nexus. In this chapter, we overview basic systems concepts and
the field of family therapy, highlighting both the common threads underlying these
methods and the differences that have emerged across the schools of practice.

> Read full chapter

Children & Adolescents: Clinical For-

mulation & Treatment
Carolyn Webster-Stratton, Carole Hooven, in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology,
1998

5.08.1.5 Contributions from Family Systems Theory

Current PT programs have also been influenced by family systems theory. In this
theoretical perspective, family factors are recognized as the larger context for par-
entndash;child interactions. From a family systems perspective, this means the focus
of concern in PT is enlarged to include such factors as family roles, rules, and
communication patterns, and those factors are conceptualized as family structures
(Minuchin, 1974) and processes (Haley, 1976). A family systems perspective empha-
sizes the impact of these structures and processes on the parent-child relationship
and behaviors. Inherent in the treatment of families from the systems perspective
is an understanding of how family dysfunction (e.g., marital conflict) impacts both
parent and child functioning, and PT targets not just parenting behaviors but
family interaction patterns (including parentndash;child, marital, and sibling rela-
tionships), family perceptions of individual members, as well as parents' memories
of their family of origin and what they learned from that experience.

> Read full chapter

Heart Health and Children

Sandra Gilbertson, Barbara A. Graves, in Lifestyle in Heart Health and Disease, 2018

The Role of Caregivers and Families

According to Murray Bowen [101], family systems theory is a theory of human
behavior that defines the family unit as a complex social system in which members
interact to influence each other's behavior. Family members interconnect, making
it appropriate to view the system as a whole rather than as individual elements.
Any change in one individual within a family is likely to influence the entire system
and may even lead to change in other members. Many interventions designed to
promote behavior change in children are directed at the parent-child unit, although
it may be more beneficial to focus on the family as a whole.

In a review, Vedanthan et al. [102] stated that parents and other adult caregivers
have a dominant effect on the physical and social elements that impact the CV
health of the family members. Beginning at birth, parents make choices about
feeding breastmilk or formula, then decide when and how to introduce solid foods.
After children begin to move on their own, caregiver attention influences levels of
physical activity and inactivity, as well as continuing to influence food choices and
behaviors. Caregivers make decisions related to the quality of foods brought to the
home, the number of meals eaten outside of the home, the amount and quality of
snacking (including the use of sugary beverages), and the social interactions during
mealtimes (the use of electronics at the dinner table, television viewing while eating,
and the presence or absence of conversation). Additionally, caregivers decide what,
when, where, how, and how much family members consume and often participate in
activities that place tight control on the intake of children and teens (e.g., “cleaning”
the plate, bribery to eat, and rewards with unhealthy foods for consuming healthy
foods). Regarding physical activity, children are naturally active and curious but
become sedentary when freedom to explore becomes restricted or when less active
behaviors are encouraged (television viewing, playing video games, riding in a car
rather than walking, etc.) [100]. Furthermore, it is well established that caregivers
who engage in unhealthy eating behaviors and maintain relatively inactive lifestyles
influence family members to do the same [103,104] and that children of overweight
parents are more likely to become overweight than their peers of healthy weight
parents [103,105–108].

Parenting style has been implicated as a contributing factor in the development

of CV disease. There are four major parenting styles: authoritative, neglectful,
permissive, and authoritarian. Each style has different characteristics and produces
different effects on the children. According to Vedanthan et al. [102], authoritative
parenting is considered the style most conducive to the development of optimal
CV health. This style is characterized by respect for the child, high expectations for
achievement, understanding, and support. Generally considered the most effective
style of parenting, authoritative parents are more likely to discuss healthy behaviors
with their children, negotiate, communicate, and praise behaviors that lead to good
health. Children of authoritative parents are inclined to eat more fruits and tend to
exhibit healthy behaviors into adolescence compared with peers of other parenting
styles. They are less likely to be overweight, more likely to be physically active, less
likely to engage in excessive screen time, and less likely to smoke [104,109–114].

Vendanthan et al. [102] continue to describe the other three parenting styles and
their effect on child CV risk factor development. The second style of parenting is
permissive. The permissive parent caters to the child's emotional needs without ex-
pecting the child to have any responsibility or self-control. They are more indulgent
and impose fewer restrictions on sedentary activity, screen time, and consumption
of energy dense and sugary foods. The third style, neglectful parenting, shows low
levels of sensitivity toward the child and places minimal demands on the child's
self-control. These parents may seem disinterested as they rarely provide effective
discipline or establish boundaries. Children of neglectful parents are more likely
to be obese, have a higher risk of CV disease, and are more likely to smoke and
use illicit drugs. The fourth style, authoritarian parenting, demands maturity from
the child without warmth or understanding and compromises the child's sense of
self-regulation. Authoritarian parents maintain tight control, and engage in coercive
feeding practices (clean plate club, forcing vegetables, and strict restriction of “junk
food”). Children of permissive, neglectful, or authoritarian parents are less likely
to use internal cues to regulate food intake, thereby having an increased risk of
developing risk factors for CV disease.

To help children and teens achieve and maintain ideal CV health, it is incumbent
upon parents to develop parenting skills that foster healthy lifestyle behaviors within
the family unit. The parenting qualities of nurturance, structure and behavioral
control have been shown to positively influence child health behaviors, whereas
overprotection and coercion are negatively associated [115]. Parents who focus
on good health are more successful at influencing child health behaviors than
parents who focus on thinness or physical appearance [116]. Successful parenting
factors related to eating behaviors proposed by Scaglioni et al. include appropriate
role modeling, engaging in scheduled family meal times, suggesting healthy food
choices and portion sizes, encouraging self-regulation, and encouraging social
interaction during meals [117]. The AAP further recommends that parents foster
appropriate levels of physical activity in children and adolescents by finding activities
that are fun and developmentally appropriate, providing access to sports leagues
or dance/fitness programs of interest, providing active toys, ensuring safety in all
environments, limiting screen time (and monitoring content, including advertising),
being a good role model, and engaging in activities with the child or teen [118].

Parents can also help children and teens achieve or maintain optimal CV health
by stressing the importance of avoiding tobacco smoke and maintaining a healthy
body weight. To be successful, parents must make provisions for routine health care
including wellness examinations and be advocates for their children by broaching
the topic of CV health promotion in childhood with educated questions about body
mass index, blood pressure, lipid, and glucose levels. Highly engaged parents may
also promote heart-healthy attitudes in schools and throughout the community
and campaign for legislative changes that promote heart health (e.g., smoke-free
communities and taxation of tobacco products and sugary drinks).
> Read full chapter

Research and Methods

Jonathan A. Potter, in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, 1998

3.06.4.3 Example: Peräkylä (1995)

Given the wide variety of discourse studies with different questions and styles of
analysis it is not easy to chose a single representative study. The one selected is
Peräkylä's (1995) investigation of AIDS counseling because it is a major integrative
study that addresses a related set of questions about interaction, counseling, and
family therapy from a rigorous conversation analytic perspective and illustrates the
potential of discourse work on clinical topics. It draws heavily on the perspective
on institutional talk surveyed by Drew and Heritage (1992b) and is worth reading in
conjunction with Silverman's (1997b) related study of HIV+ counseling which focuses
more on advice giving.

Peräkylä focused on 32 counseling sessions conducted with HIV+ hemophilic mainly

gay identified men and their partners at a major London hospital. The sessions
were videotaped and transcribed using the Jeffersonian system. A wider archive of
recordings (450 hours) was drawn on to provide further examples of phenomena of
interest but not otherwise transcribed. The counselors characterized their practices
in terms of Milan School Family Systems Theory and, although this is not the
startpoint of Peräkylä's study, he was able to explicate some of the characteristics
of such counseling.

Part of the study is concerned with identifying the standard turn-taking organization
of the counseling. Stated baldly it is that (i) counselors ask questions; (ii) clients
answer; (iii) counselors comment, advise, or ask further questions. When laid out
in this manner the organization may not seem much of a discovery. However, the
power of the study is showing how this organization is achieved in the interaction
and how it can be used to address painful and delicate topics such as sexual behavior,
illness, and death.

Peräkylä goes on to examine various practices that are characteristic of family

systems theory such as “circular questioning,” where the counselor initially questions
the client's partner or a family member about the client's feelings, and “live open
supervision,” where a supervisor may offer questions to the counselor that are, in
turn, addressed to the client. The study also identifies some of the strategies by
which counselors can address “dreaded issues” in a manageable way. Take “circular
questioning,” for example. In mundane interaction providing your partial experience
of some event or experience is a commonplace way of “fishing” for a more author-
itative version (Pomerantz, 1980). For example:

A: Yer line's been busy.

B: Yeuh my fu (hh)- .hh my father's wife called me

In a similar way, the use of questioning where a client's partner, say, offers their
understanding of an experience “can create a situation where the clients, in an
unacknowledged but most powerful way, elicit one another's descriptions of their
inner experiences” (Peräkylä, 1995, p. 110). In the following extract the client is called
Edward; his partner and the counselor are also present.

Counselor: What are some of things that you think E:dward

might have to do.=He says he doesn't know where
to go from here maybe: and awaiting results and
things. (0.6)
Counselor: What d'you think's worrying him. (0.4)
Partner: Uh::m hhhhhh I think it's just fear of the un-
know:n.
Client: Mm[:
Counselor: [Oka:y.
Partner: [At- at the present ti:me. (0.2) Uh:m (.) once: he's
(0.5) got a better understanding of (0.2) what
could happen
Counselor: Mm:
Partner: uh:m how .hh this will progre:ss then: I think (.)
things will be a little more [settled in his=
Counselor: [Mm
Partner: = own mi:
Counselor: Mm:
(.)
Client: Mm[:
Counselor: [Edward (.) from what you know:: ((sequence
continues with Edward responding to a direct
question with a long and detailed narrative about
his fears)) (Peräkylä, 1995, p. 110)

Peräkylä emphasizes the way that the client's talk about his fears is elicited, in part,
through the counsellor asking the partner for his own view of those fears. The point is
not that the client is forced to reveal his experiences, rather it is that the prior revela-
tion of his partner's partial view produces an environment where such a revelation is
expected and nonrevelation will itself be a delicate and accountable matter. In effect,
what Peräkylä is documenting here are the conversational mechanisms which family
therapists characterize as using circular questioning to overcome clients' resistance.

> Read full chapter

 Children & Adolescents: Clinical For-
mulation & Treatment
Mark R. Dadds, ... Vanessa E. Cobham, in Comprehensive Clinical Psychology, 1998

5.13.2.4.7 Family systems theories

While there are several varieties of theoretical approaches that fall under the general
banner of family systems theory, the common thread is the notion that the family
system can be viewed as a functional or homeostatic unit. Disturbance in one
family member (the “identified patient”) is seen as part of a disturbed family system
(Barnes, 1985). At extremes, the identified patient's problems are seen as a symptom
that serves to maintain homoeostatic balance in an otherwise dysfunctional family.
As an example, a child's separation anxiety may be seen as providing a parent with
the feeling that they are needed, thereby reducing the likelihood that marital conflict
will erupt over a distant, nonintimate marital relationship. Family systems theories
have been quickly translated into clinical practice and have arguably been the “boom”
therapy in the late twentieth century. Unfortunately, research into the conceptual
validity and treatment efficacy of these approaches has lagged dramatically behind
their enthusiastic translation into clinical practice. Despite repeated calls for these
approaches to be evaluated, very little empirical work has been undertaken, and thus
it is difficult to support any further expansion of these family systems models at
this time.

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.