Blog 1: Importance and Overall Impacts of Family and Parent-Child Communication
By: Elise Osborn
Family is a term that is complex and multifaceted since it means something different to everybody (Phillips, 2024). There cannot be one single definition of family, because once a definition is placed it may limit the uses, experiences, and realities of other people and their meanings of family. Though this may be a bit frustrating, this lack of a single definition lends itself to a greater understanding of family. That family is much broader, and more researchable than originally thought. But why is this important? A simple answer is that our families have significant impacts on us as individuals in that they are a transactional and social unit.
Families are a foundational part of society and are integral to the development of an individual, as it is most often the first place where people are socialized in how to communicate and build a sense of self (Fitzpatrick, 2004). The communication that happens within a family has lasting impacts on an individual’s behaviors, relationships and approaches to various areas of life (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014). Including and not limited to marriage, romantic relationships, sex, sports, health, etc. (Hesse et al., 2017). Not only do the overall communication approaches in a family affect an individual, but also the specific communication among relationships found within a family context, particularly parent-child relationships. This form of interpersonal relationship has also proven to play a direct role in the growth of a child to adult in their personality, attitudes, beliefs, and values which impact other interpersonal relationships that may be developed over time (Jang & Kim, 2012).
Through learning and understanding how families and parent-child relationships communicate we can apply it to our own experiences and even future ones. It gives us the opportunity to break generational cycles, end toxic communicative behaviors, and begin to be mindful about our own communication patterns and how that derives from our experiences. Whether you wish to start a family of your own or want to better understand the influences of your own experiences from your family, these blogs are just for you. Throughout these next few blogs, I will be focusing on the impact of family communication and parent-child communication on various areas of life. But for now, allow me to lay the foundations of family communication and parent-child relationships by defining key terms and an important communication theory that will be referenced to for the duration of these blogs.
What is Family Communication?
Family communication is the shared conversation, interactions, and meanings within a group of individuals that collectively form a shared social reality. As mentioned previously, family communication has lasting impacts on children as they grow into adults and beyond. One way that has proven its universality to observe and interpret the communication patterns of families is through the Family Communication Patterns Theory (FCPT). This next section will go into detail about the core concepts and terms of the theory and why it will be used throughout this series of blog posts.
Family Communication Patterns Theory (FCPT)
Family Communication Patterns Theory (FCPT) is a communication theory that identifies four common patterns or communication styles observed within families. These four primary family types are founded and based on a scale from high to low of two communication orientations: conformity and conversation. To specify, orientations are defined as the primary focus of communication within FCPT. The conversation orientation represents families that encourage and provide opportunities for open-family communication. Families that follow this orientation display communicative processes and behaviors such as allowing or even promoting a child to ask questions about decisions parents have made, voicing out concerns, discussing family plans with the parents, etc. Meanwhile conformity orientation is associated with behaviors that emphasize uniformity within the family of values, beliefs, and even attitudes (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014; Fitzpatrick, 2004). Some connecting behaviors with this orientation would be the discouragement of open communication, providing no explanation for decisions, “because I said so”, etc. Most families use both orientations, which is why they are put on the scale of high to low and overlap with one another, creating the four distinct family patterns of FCPT; consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014).
Consensual families are high in both conformity and conversation orientations, families that follow this pattern encourage open communication but also a uniformity of beliefs and attitudes across family members. For example, children can talk at the dinner table and join in conversations with their parents but they’re still expected to abide by the family rules set in place by the parents. Pluralistic families are high in conversation but low on the conformity orientation meaning they may frequently interact with one another but may not enforce hierarchies of power among family members (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014). Protective families are low in conversation and high in conformity which is often seen in families where the parents are the ultimate authority figure and the children are expected to be obedient without fail. Finally, laissez-faire families and low in both the conformity and conversation orientations, in this family pattern there is little to no interest or value amongst family members which often leaves each person to make their own decisions and with little support, including the children (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014).
FCPT is an important theory to understand and use to analyze communication within families because the impacts of these communication styles influence future families and various parts of a child as they grow into adults (Hesse et al., 2017). But also this theory has a broad application to all types of families across cultures and regions of the world (Koerner & Schrodt, 2014). That is why this communication theory will constantly be referred to throughout the course of these blogs.
Parent-Child Relationships and Communication
For these blogs, parent-child relationships will be defined as any relationship that involves a child and their primary caregivers. In communication studies, these relationships are interpersonal in nature because the relationship consists of two individuals, one party the parent and the other is the child. Given the name, this type of interpersonal relationship is developed under the blanket of family and plays just as much of a crucial role on the development of an individual as a family due to the communication that occurs in this context. Parent-child communication is the sharing and receiving of messages, often the messages that are shared become the foundation of understanding for children which they use to develop their personalities, beliefs, attitudes, and values (Jackle, 2016; Jang & Kim, 2012). A notable example of the influence of parent-child communication is that the frequency and effectiveness of communication have a positive correlation with a child’s social self-efficacy. Social self-efficacy is the belief of an individual to exhibit and perform acceptable behaviors in interactions with other people (Jang & Kim, 2012). Children that communicate well and have a good relationship with their parents tend to have confidence in their social efficacy and develop good, lasting, and many relationships with other individuals (Jang & Kim, 2012).
Social self-efficacy is just one of the many outcomes from the messages shared in parent-child communication, other forms of self-efficacy are also developed from these relationships. In future blogs I will dive into how self-efficacy developed in parent-child communication impacts online interactions/relationships, romantic relationships, sex, identity, and sports. But for now, keep this definition of social self-efficacy in mind as it will be frequently mentioned in future blog posts.
Coming Up Next
In the next blog I will be deep diving into the research concerning family and parent-child communication as it relates to online interactions. How your social self-efficacy affects those online interactions, challenges as a parent in asserting parental authority, and many other associations.
Discussion Questions:
- How would you define family? How does it constrain how you may view other families?
- Reflect on the family communication patterns listed above, which one do you think best applies to your family or how you were raised?
- In what ways has your relationship with your parent or primary guardian impacted your social self-efficacy? How confident are you?
References
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Family communication patterns theory: Observations on its development and application. Journal of Family Communication, 4(3/4), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2004.9670129
Hesse, C., Rauscher, E. A., Goodman, R. B., & Couvrette, M. A. (2017). Reconceptualizing the role of conformity behaviors in family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 17(4), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1347568
Jackl, J. A. (2016). “Love doesn’t just happen…”: Parent-child communication about marriage. Communication Quarterly, 64(2), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2015.1103284
Jang, J., & Kim, Y.-C. (2012). The effects of parent–child communication patterns on children’s interactive communication in online communities: Focusing on social self-efficacy and unwillingness to communicate as mediating factors. Asian Journal of Communication, 22(5), 493–505. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2012.701314
Koerner, A. F., & Schrodt, P. (2014). An introduction to the special issue on family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 14(1), 1–15. https://doi-org.lib-proxy.fullerton.edu/10.1080/15267431.2013.857328
Phillips, K. E. (2024). What is the goal of defining family? Best practices for teaching family communication. Journal of Communication Pedagogy, 8, 105–111. https://doi.org/10.31446/JCP.2024.1.07