Family Therapy


please read below

onedisorder to research. In this paper explore the current research regarding the chosen disorder and the role and impact on the family system.

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Family Therapy
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Does the family system play a role in the cause & exacerbation of the disorder? How?
What is the relationship between the disorder and the family system?
What are the historical findings of the family system impacting the development of the disorder?
What are the current family therapy interventions proven to be effective for this disorder?

Choose from:

Mood Disorders
Eating Disorders
Anxiety Disorders
Borderline Personality Disorder

Minimum 5 pages in length/ Double-spaced, APA style (7th Edition)/ Minimum of 5 references. c h a p t e r 1

Learning OutcOmes
Describe the circumstances that led to

the birth of family therapy.
List the founders of family therapy and

where they practiced.
List the first family therapy theories and

when they were popular.
Describe early family therapy theoretical


The evoLuTion
of famiLy
A Revolutionary Shift in

In this chapter, we explore the antecedents and
early years of family therapy. There are two
compelling stories here: one of personalities,

one of ideas. The first story revolves around
the pioneersvisionary iconoclasts who broke
the mold of seeing life and its troubles as a
function of individuals and their personalities.
Make no mistake: The shift from an individual to
a systemic perspective was a revolutionary one,
providing those who grasped it with a powerful
tool for understanding and resolving human

The second story in the evolution of family
therapy is one of ideas. The restless curiosity of
the first family therapists led them to ingenious
new ways of conceptualizing the joys and
sorrows of family life.

As you read this history, stay open to surprises.
Be ready to reexamine easy assumptions
including the assumption that family therapy
began as a benevolent effort to support the
institution of the family. The truth is, therapists
first encountered families as adversaries.

The undeclared War

Although we came to think of asylums as places of
cruelty and detention, they were originally built to
rescue the insane from being locked away in family
attics. Accordingly, except for purposes of footing
the bill, hospital psychiatrists kept families at arms
length. In the 1950s, however, two puzzling devel-
opments forced therapists to recognize the familys
power to alter the course of treatment.

Therapists began to notice that often when a pa-
tient got better, someone else in the family got worse,
almost as though the family needed a symptomatic
member. As in the game of hide-and-seek, it didnt
seem to matter who It was as long as someone
played the part. In one case, Don Jackson (1954)
was treating a woman for depression. When she be-
gan to improve, her husband complained that she was


M01_NICH6609_11_SE_C01.indd 8 9/25/15 7:03 PM

Chapter 1 The Evolution of Family Therapy 9

getting worse. When she continued to improve, the
husband lost his job. Eventually, when the woman
was completely well, the husband killed himself. Ap-
parently this mans stability was predicated on having
a sick wife.

Another strange story of shifting disturbance was
that patients often improved in the hospital only to get
worse when they went home.

Case sTuDy
In a bizarre case of Oedipus revisited, Salvador
Minuchin treated a young man hospitalized for trying
to scratch out his eyes. The man functioned normally
in Bellevue but returned to self-mutilation each time
he went home. He could be sane, it seemed, only in
an insane world.

It turned out that the young man was extremely
close to his mother, a bond that grew even tighter
during the seven years of his fathers mysterious ab-
sence. The father was a compulsive gambler who
disappeared shortly after being declared legally
incompetent. The rumor was that the Mafia had
kidnapped him. When, just as mysteriously, the fa-
ther returned, his son began his bizarre attempts at
self-mutilation. Perhaps he wanted to blind himself
so as not to see his obsession with his mother and
hatred of his father.

But this family was neither ancient nor Greek,
and Minuchin was more pragmatist than poet. So
he challenged the father to protect his son by be-
ginning to deal directly with his wife, and then he
challenged the mans demeaning attitude toward
her, which had driven her to seek her sons protec-
tion. The therapy was a challenge to the familys
structure and, in Bellevue, working with the psychi-
atric staff to ease the young man back into the fam-
ily, into the lions den.

Minuchin confronted the father, saying, As a
father of a child in danger, what youre doing isnt

What should I do? asked the man.
I dont know, Minuchin replied. Ask your

son. Then, for the first time in years, father and
son began talking. Just as they were about to run
out of things to say, Dr. Minuchin commented to
the parents: In a strange way, hes telling you that
he prefers to be treated like a child. When he was
in the hospital he was twenty-three. Now that hes
returned home again, hes six.

What this case dramatizes is how parents use
their children as a buffer to protect them from in-
timacy. To the would-be Oedipus, Minuchin said,
Youre scratching your eyes for your mother, so
that shell have something to worry about. Youre
a good boy. Good children sacrifice themselves for
their parents.

Families are made of strange gluethey stretch
but never let go. Few blamed the family for outright
malevolence, yet there was an invidious undercurrent
to these observations. The official story of family
therapy is one of respect for the family, but maybe
none of us ever quite gets over the adolescent idea
that families are the enemy of freedom.

Small Group Dynamics

Those who first sought to understand and treat fam-
ilies found a ready parallel in small groups. Group
dynamics were applicable to family therapy because
group life is a complex blend of individual personali-
ties and properties of the group.

In 1920, the pioneering social psychologist
William McDougall published The Group Mind, in
which he described how a groups continuity depends
on boundaries for differentiation of function and on
customs and habits to make relationships predict-
able. A more scientific approach to group dynamics
was developed in the 1940s by Kurt Lewin, whose
field theory (Lewin, 1951) guided a generation of re-
searchers. Drawing on the Gestalt school of percep-
tion, Lewin developed the notion that a group is more
than the sum of its parts. The transcendent property of
groups has obvious relevance to family therapists, who
must work not only with individuals but also with fam-
ily systemsand their famous resistance to change.

Analyzing what he called quasi-stationary social
equilibrium, Lewin pointed out that changing group
behavior requires unfreezing. Only after something
shakes up a groups beliefs will its members be pre-
pared to change. In individual therapy this process is
initiated by the unhappy experiences that lead people
to seek help. When someone decides to meet with a
therapist, that person has already begun to unfreeze
old habits. When families come for treatment, its a
different story.

M01_NICH6609_11_SE_C01.indd 9 9/25/15 7:03 PM

10 Part One: The Context of Family Therapy

Family members may not be sufficiently unsettled
by one members problems to consider changing their
ways. Furthermore, family members bring their own
reference group with them, with all its traditions and
habits. Consequently, more effort is required to un-
freeze, or shake up, families before real change can
take place. The need for unfreezing foreshadowed
early family therapists concern about disrupting fam-
ily homeostasis, a notion that dominated family ther-
apy for decades.

Wilfred Bion was another student of group func-
tioning who emphasized the group as a whole, with
its own dynamics and structure. According to Bion
(1948), most groups become diverted from their pri-
mary tasks by engaging in patterns of fightflight,
dependency, and pairing. Bions basic assumptions
are easily extrapolated to family therapy: Some
families skirt around hot issues like a cat circling a
snake. Others use therapy to bicker endlessly, never
really contemplating compromise, much less change.

Dependency masquerades as therapy when fami-
lies allow therapists to subvert their autonomy in the
name of problem solving. Pairing is seen in families
when one parent colludes with the children to under-
mine the other parent.

The process/content distinction in group dy-
namics had a major impact on family treatment.
Experienced therapists learn to attend as much to
how people talk as to the content of their discus-
sions. For example, a mother might tell her daugh-
ter that she shouldnt play with Barbie dolls because
she shouldnt aspire to an image of bubble-headed
beauty. The content of the mothers message is,
Respect yourself as a person. But if the mother
expresses her point of view by disparaging the
daughters wishes, then the process of her message
is, Your feelings dont count.

Unfortunately, the content of some discussions is
so compelling that therapists get sidetracked from the
process. Suppose that a therapist invites a teenager







The first people to practice family therapy turned to group therapy for a model.

M01_NICH6609_11_SE_C01.indd 10 9/25/15 7:03 PM

Chapter 1 The Evolution of Family Therapy 11

to talk with his mother about wanting to drop out of
school. The boy mumbles something about school
being stupid, and his mother responds with a lecture
about the importance of education. A therapist who
gets drawn in to support the mothers position may
be making a mistake. In terms of content, the mother
might be right: A high school diploma can come in
handy. But maybe its more important at that moment
to help the boy learn to speak up for himselfand for
his mother to learn to listen.

Role theory, explored in the literatures of psy-
choanalysis and group dynamics, had important ap-
plications to the study of families. The expectations
that roles carry bring regularity to complex social

Roles tend to be stereotyped in most groups, and
so there are characteristic behavior patterns of group
members. Virginia Satir (1972) described family roles
such as the placator and the disagreeable one in
her book Peoplemaking. If you think about it, you
may have played a fairly predictable role in your fam-
ily. Perhaps you were the good child, the moody
one, or the rebel. The trouble is, such roles can be
hard to put aside.

One thing that makes role theory so useful in un-
derstanding families is that roles tend to be comple-
mentary. Say, for example, that a woman is a little
more anxious to spend time with her boyfriend than
he is. Maybe, left to his own devices, hed call twice
a week. But if she calls three times a week, he may
never get around to picking up the phone. If their
relationship lasts, she may always be the pursuer
and he the distancer. Or take the case of two parents,
both of whom want their children to behave them-
selves at the dinner table. The father has a slightly
shorter fusehe tells them to quiet down five sec-
onds after they start getting rowdy, whereas his wife
would wait half a minute. If he always speaks up,
she may never get a chance. Eventually these par-
ents may become polarized into complementary
roles of strictness and leniency. What makes such
reciprocity resistant to change is that the roles rein-
force each other.

It was a short step from observing patients reac-
tions to other members of a groupsome of whom
might act like siblings or parentsto observing
interactions in real families. Given the wealth of

techniques for exploring interpersonal relationships
developed by group therapists, it was natural for some
family therapists to apply a group treatment model
to families. What is a family, after all, but a group of

From a technical viewpoint, group and family
therapies are similar: Both are complex and dynamic,
more like everyday life than individual therapy. In
groups and families, patients must react to a number
of people, not just a therapist, and therapeutic use of
this interaction is the definitive mechanism of change
in both contexts.

On closer examination, however, it turns out that
the differences between families and groups are so
significant that the group therapy model has only
limited applicability to family treatment. Family
members have a long history and, more importantly,
a future together. Revealing yourself to strangers
is a lot safer than exposing yourself to members of
your own family. Theres no taking back revelations
that might better have remained privatethe af-
fair, long since over, or the admission that a woman
cares more about her career than about her husband.
Continuity, commitment, and shared distortions
all make family therapy very different from group

Therapy groups are designed to provide an atmo-
sphere of warmth and support. This feeling of safety
among sympathetic strangers cannot be part of fam-
ily therapy, because instead of separating treatment
from a stressful environment, the stressful envi-
ronment is brought into the consulting room. Fur-
thermore, in group therapy, patients can have equal
power and status, whereas democratic equality isnt
appropriate in families. Someone has to be in charge.
Furthermore, the official patient in a family is likely
to feel isolated and stigmatized. After all, he or she is
the problem. The sense of protection in being part
of a compassionate group of strangers, who wont
have to be faced across the dinner table, doesnt exist
in family therapy.

The Child Guidance Movement

It was Freud who introduced the idea that psycholog-
ical disorders were the result of unsolved problems
of childhood. Alfred Adler was the first of Freuds

M01_NICH6609_11_SE_C01.indd 11 9/25/15 7:03 PM

12 Part One: The Context of Family Therapy

followers to pursue the implication that treating the
growing child might be the most effective way to
prevent adult neuroses. To that end, Adler organized
child guidance clinics in Vienna, where not only chil-
dren but also families and teachers were counseled.
Adler offered support and encouragement to help al-
leviate childrens feelings of inferiority, so they could
work out a healthy lifestyle, achieving confidence and
success through social usefulness.

Although child guidance clinics remained few in
number until after World War II, they now exist in
every city in the United States, providing treatment
of childhood problems and the complex forces con-
tributing to them. Gradually, child guidance work-
ers concluded that the real problem wasnt a childs
symptoms, but rather the tensions in families that were
the source of those symptoms. At first there was a ten-
dency to blame the parents, especially the mother.

The chief cause of childrens problems, according
to David Levy (1943), was maternal overprotective-
ness. Mothers who had themselves been deprived of
love became overprotective of their children. Some
were domineering, others overindulgent. Children
of domineering mothers were submissive at home
but had difficulty making friends; children with over
indulgent mothers were disobedient at home but well
behaved at school.

During this period, Frieda Fromm-Reichmann
(1948) coined one of the most damning phrases in
the history of psychiatry, the schizophrenogenic
mother. These domineering, aggressive, and reject-
ing women, especially when married to passive men,
were thought to provide the pathological parenting
that produced schizophrenia.

The tendency to blame parents, especially moth-
ers, for problems in the family was an evolutionary
misdirection that continues to haunt the field. Never-
theless, by paying attention to what went on between
parents and children, Levy and Fromm-Reichmann
helped pave the way for family therapy.

John Bowlbys work at the Tavistock Clinic exem-
plified the transition to a family approach. Bowlby
(1949) was treating a teenager and making slow prog-
ress. Feeling frustrated, he decided to see the boy and
his parents together. During the first half of a two-hour
session, the child and parents took turns complain-
ing about each other. During the second half of the

session, Bowlby interpreted what he thought each of
their contributions to the problem were. Eventually, by
working together, all three members of the family de-
veloped sympathy for each others point of view.

Although he was intrigued by this conjoint inter-
view, Bowlby remained wedded to the one-to-one
format. Family meetings might be a useful catalyst,
but only as a supplement to the real treatment, indi-
vidual psychotherapy.

What Bowlby tried as an experiment, Nathan
Ackerman saw to fruitionfamily therapy as the pri-
mary form of treatment. Once he saw the need to un-
derstand the family in order to diagnose problems,
Ackerman soon took the next stepfamily treatment.
Before we get to that, however, let us examine compa-
rable developments in marriage counseling and research
on schizophrenia that led to the birth of family therapy.

Marriage Counseling

For many years there was no apparent need for a sep-
arate profession of marriage counselors. People with
marital problems talked with their doctors, clergy,
lawyers, and teachers. The first centers for mar-
riage counseling were established in the 1930s. Paul
Popenoe opened the American Institute of Family
Relations in Los Angeles, and Abraham and Hannah
Stone opened a similar clinic in New York. A third
center was the Marriage Council of Philadelphia, be-
gun in 1932 by Emily Hartshorne Mudd (Broderick
& Schrader, 1981).

At the same time these developments were taking
place, a parallel trend among some psychoanalysts
led to conjoint marital therapy. Although most an-
alysts followed Freuds prohibition against contact
with a patients family, a few broke the rules and ex-
perimented with therapy for married partners.

In 1948, Bela Mittleman of the New York Psy-
choanalytic Institute published the first account of
concurrent marital therapy in the United States. Mit-
tleman suggested that husbands and wives could be
treated by the same analyst, and that by seeing both
it was possible to reexamine their irrational percep-
tions of each other (Mittleman, 1948). This was a
revolutionary notion: that the reality of interpersonal
relationships might be at least as important as their
intrapsychic representations.

M01_NICH6609_11_SE_C01.indd 12 9/25/15 7:03 PM

Chapter 1 The Evolution of Family Therapy 13

Meanwhile in Great Britain, where object
relations were the central concern of psychoanalysts,
Henry Dicks and his associates at the Tavistock Clinic
established a Family Psychiatric Unit. Here couples
referred by the divorce courts were helped to recon-
cile their differences (Dicks, 1964). Subsequently,
Michael and Enid Balint affiliated their Family Dis-
cussion Bureau with the Tavistock Clinic, adding that
clinics prestige to their marital casework and indi-
rectly to the field of marriage counseling.

In 1956, Mittleman wrote a more extensive de-
scription of marital disorders and their treatment. He
described a number of complementary marital pat-
terns, including aggressive/submissive and detached/
demanding. These odd matches are made, according
to Mittleman, because courting couples see each oth-
ers personalities through the eyes of their illusions:
She sees his detachment as strength; he sees her de-
pendency as adoration.

At about this time Don Jackson and Jay Haley
were exploring marital therapy within the framework
of communications analysis. As their ideas gained
prominence, the field of marital therapy was absorbed
into the larger family therapy movement.

Many writers dont distinguish between marital
and family therapy. Therapy for couples, according to
this way of thinking, is just family therapy applied to
a particular subsystem. We tend to agree with this per-
spective, and therefore you will find our description
of various approaches to couples and their problems
embedded in discussions of the models considered
in this book. There is, however, a case to be made
for considering couples therapy a distinct enterprise
(Gurman, 2008, 2011).

Historically, many of the influential approaches
to couples therapy came before their family therapy
counterparts. Among these were cognitive-behavioral
marital therapy, object-relations marital therapy, and
emotionally-focused couples therapy.

Beyond the question of which came first, couples
therapy differs from family therapy in allowing a
more in-depth focus on the experience of individuals.
Sessions with whole families tend to be noisy affairs.
While its possible in this context to talk with fam-
ily members about their hopes and fears, it isnt pos-
sible to spend much time exploring the psychology
of any one individualmuch less two. Therapy with

couples, on the other hand, permits greater focus on
both dyadic exchanges and the underlying experience
of intimate partners.

research on family Dynamics
and the etiology of

Families with schizophrenic members proved to be
a fertile area for research because their pathological
patterns of interaction were so magnified. The fact
that family therapy emerged from research on schizo-
phrenia led to the hope that family therapy might be
the way to cure this baffling form of madness.

Gregory BatesonPalo Alto

One of the groups with the strongest claim to origi-
nating family therapy was Gregory Batesons schizo-
phrenia project in Palo Alto, California. The Palo
Alto project began in the fall of 1952 when Bateson
received a grant to study the nature of communica-
tion. All communications, Bateson (1951) contended,
have two different levelsreport and command. Ev-
ery message has a stated content, for instance, Wash
your hands; its time for dinner, but in addition, the
message carries how it is to be taken. In this case, the
second message is that the speaker is in charge. This
second messagemetacommunicationis covert
and often unnoticed. If a wife scolds her husband for
running the dishwasher when its only half full, and
he says OK but turns around and does the same thing
two days later, she may be annoyed that he didnt lis-
ten to her. She means the message. But maybe he
didnt like the metamessage. Maybe he doesnt like
her telling him what to do as though she were his


Watch this video on Gregory Bateson, one of
the most influential early family therapy pioneers.

What do you think was his greatest contribution?

M01_NICH6609_11_SE_C01.indd 13 9/25/15 7:03 PM

14 Part One: The Context of Family Therapy

Bateson was joined in 1953 by Jay Haley and John
Weakland. In 1954 Bateson received a grant to study
schizophrenic communication. Shortly thereafter the
group was joined by Don Jackson, a brilliant psychia-
trist who served as clinical consultant.

Bateson and his colleagues hypothesized that family
stability is achieved by feedback that regulates the be-
havior of the family and its members. Whenever a family
system is threatenedthat is, disturbedit endeavors
to maintain stability, or homeostasis. Thus, apparently
puzzling behavior might become understandable if it
were seen as a homeostatic mechanism. For example, if
whenever two parents argue, one of the children exhibits
symptomatic behavior, the symptoms may be a way to
stop the fighting by uniting the parents in concern. Thus,
symptomatic behavior can serve the cybernetic function
of preserving a familys equilibrium.

In 1956 Bateson and his colleagues published their
famous report Toward a Theory of Schizophrenia,
in which they introduced the concept of the double
bind. Patients werent crazy in some meaningless
way; they were an extension of a crazy family envi-
ronment. Consider someone in an important relation-
ship in which escape isnt feasible and response is
necessary. If he or she receives two related but con-
tradictory messages on different levels but finds it dif-
ficult to recognize or comment on the inconsistency
(Bateson, Jackson, Haley, & Weakland, 1956), that
person is in a double bind.

Because this concept is often misused as a syn-
onym for paradox or simply contradiction, its worth
reviewing each feature of the double bind as the au-
thors listed them:

1. Two or more persons in an important relationship

2. Repeated experience

3. A primary negative injunction, such as Dont do
X or I will punish you

4. A second injunction at a more abstract level con-
flicting with the first, also enforced by punish-
ment or perceived threat

5. A tertiary negative injunction prohibiting escape
and demanding a response. Without this restric-
tion the victim wont feel bound

6. Finally, the complete set of ingredients is no lon-
ger necessary once the victim is conditioned to

perceive the world in terms of double binds; any
part of the sequence becomes sufficient to trigger
panic or rage

Most examples of double binds in the litera-
ture are inadequate because they dont include all
the critical features. Robin Skynner (1976), for in-
stance, cited: Boys must stand up for themselves
and not be sissies; but Dont be rough . . . dont
be rude to your mother. Confusing? Yes. Conflict?
Maybe. But these messages dont constitute a dou-
ble bind; theyre merely contradictory. Faced with
two such statements, a child is free to obey either
one, alternate, or even complain about the contra-
diction. This and similar examples neglect the spec-
ification that the two messages are conveyed on
different levels.

A better example is given in the original article. A
young man recovering in the hospital from a schizo-
phrenic episode was visited by his mother. When he
put his arm around her, she stiffened. But when he
withdrew, she asked, Dont you love me anymore?
He blushed, and she said, Dear, you must not be so
easily embarrassed and afraid of your feelings. Fol-
lowing this exchange, the patient assaulted an aide
and had to be put in seclusion.

Another example of a double bind would be a
teacher who urges his students to participate in class
but gets impatient if one of them actually interrupts
with a question or comment. Then a baffling thing
happens. For some strange reason that scientists
have yet to decipher, students tend not to speak up in
classes where their comments are disparaged. When
the professor finally gets around to asking for ques-
tions and no one responds, he gets angry. (Students
are so passive!) If any of the students has the
temerity to comment on the professors lack of
receptivity, he may get even angrier. Thus, the stu-
dents will be punished for accurately perceiving
that the teacher really wants only his own ideas to
be heard and admired. (This example is, of course,
purely hypothetical.)

Were all caught in occasional double binds, but
a schizophrenic has to deal with them continually
and the effect is maddening. Unable to comment on
the dilemma, the schizophrenic responds defensively,
perhaps by being concrete and literal, perhaps by

M01_NICH6609_11_SE_C01.indd 14 9/25/15 7:03 PM

Chapter 1 The Evolution of Family Therapy 15

speaking in metaphors. Eventually the schizophrenic
may come to assume that behind every statement lies
a concealed meaning.

The discovery that schizophrenic symptoms made
sense in the context of some families may have been
a scientific advance, but it also had moral and polit-
ical overtones. Not only did these investigators see
themselves as avenging knights bent on rescuing
identified patients by slaying family dragons, but
they were also crusaders in a holy war against the
psychiatric establishment. Outnumbered and sur-
rounded by hostile critics, the champions of family
therapy challenged the assumption that schizophrenia
was a biological disease. Psychological healers every-
where cheered. Unfortunately, they were wrong.

The observation that schizophrenic behavior seems
to fit in some families doesnt mean that families
cause schizophrenia. In logic, this kind of inference
is called Jumping to Conclusions. Sadly, families of
schizophrenic members suffered for years under the
assumption that they were to blame for the tragedy of
their childrens psychoses.

Theodore LidzYale

Theodore Lidz refuted the notion that maternal rejec-
tion was the distinguishing feature of schizophrenic
families. Frequently the more destructive parent is the
father (Lidz, Cornelison, Fleck, & Terry, 1957a). After
describing some of the pathological characteristics of
fathers in schizophrenic families, Lidz turned his atten-
tion to the marital relationship. What he found was an
absence of role reciprocity. In a successful relationship,
its not enough to fulfill your own rolethat is, to be
an effective person; its also important to balance your
role with your partnersthat is, to be an effective pair.

In focusing on the failure to arrive at cooperative
roles, Lidz identified two types of marital discord
(Lidz, Cornelison, Fleck, & Terry, 1957b). In the first,
marital schism, husbands and wives undermine each
other and compete openly for their childrens affec-
tion. These marriages are combat zones. The second
pattern, marital skew, involves serious character
flaws in one partner who dominates the other. Thus
one parent becomes passive and dependent while
the other appears to be a strong parent figure, but
is in fact a pathological bully. In all these families,

Lyman Wynnes
studies linked
deviance in families
to thought disorder
in schizophrenic




. H
. M








r M





unhappy children are torn by conflicting loyalties and
weighed down with the pressure to balance their par-
ents precarious marriages.

Lyman WynneNational Institute
of Mental Health

Lyman Wynnes studies of schizophrenic families
began in 1954 when he started seeing the parents of
hospitalized patients in twice-weekly sessions. What
struck Wynne about these families was the strangely
unreal qualities of their emotions, which he called
pseudomutuality and pseudohostility, and the nature
of the boundaries around themrubber fences
apparently flexible but actually impervious to outside
influence (especially from therapists).

Pseudomutuality (Wynne, Ryckoff, Day, &
Hirsch, 1958) is a facade of harmony. Pseudomutual
families are so committed to togetherness that theres
no room for separate identities. The surface unity of
pseudomutual families obscures the fact that they
cant tolerate deeper, more honest relationships, or

Pseudohostility is a different guise for a sim-
ilar collusion to stif le autonomy (Wynne, 1961).
Although apparently acrimonious, it signals only
a superficial split. Pseudohostility is more like the
bickering of situation-comedy families than real ani-
mosity. Like pseudomutuality, it undermines intimacy
and masks deeper conflict, and like pseudomutuality,
pseudohostility distorts communication and impairs
rational thinking.

M01_NICH6609_11_SE_C01.indd 15 9/25/15 7:03 PM

16 Part One: The Context of Family Therapy

The rubber fence is an invisible barrier that
stretches to permit limited extrafamilial contact, such
as going to school, but springs back if that involve-
ment goes too far. The familys rigid structure is thus
protected by its isolation. Instead of having its eccen-
tricities modified in contact with the larger society,
the schizophrenic family becomes a sick little society
unto itself.

Wynne linked the new concept of communication
deviance to the older notion of thought disorder. He
saw communication as the vehicle for transmitting
thought disorder, the defining feature of schizophre-
nia. Communication deviance is a more interactional
concept, and more readily observable. By 1978
Wynne had studied over 600 families and gathered in-
controvertible evidence that disordered communica-
tion is a disting



Chapter 7 Quiz 7

Instructions: There are four (4) topic areas listed below that are designed to measure your knowledge level specific to learning outcome (LO 7) shown in your course syllabus. You
respond to #3and select
any other twoof these topic areas providing appropriate responses in essay form.
In most cases the topic area has several components. Each must be addressed to properly satisfy

State-wide and in most professional industries, there has been a mandate that college students be more proficient in their writing.
While this is not a writing class, all writing assignments will be graded for grammar, syntax and typographical correctness to help address this mandate.

Pay attention to what you are being asked to do (see Grading Rubric below). For example, to describe
does not mean to list, but to tell about or illustrate in more than two or three sentences, providing appropriate arguments for your responses

using theories discussed in our text

Be sure to address all parts of the topic question as most have multiple parts.

A verifiable current event
(less than 4 years old)
relevant to at least
oneof the topics you respond tois a fundamental component of your quiz as well. You cannot use information from the text book or any book/article by the author of the text book as a current event. Make sure that your reference has a date of publication.For each chapter quiz and final quiz you are required to find and include at least one reference and reference citation to a current event
less than 4 years old(a reference with no date (n.d.) is not acceptable) in answer to at least one question. This requires a reference citation in the text of your answer and a reference at the end of the question to which the reference applies. You must include some information obtained from the reference in your answer. The references must be found on the internet and you must include a URL in your reference so that the reference can be verified.

You may type your responses directly under the appropriate question. Be sure to include the question you are responding to and your name on the quiz. Only the first three (3) questions with answers will be graded. Include
your namein the document filename. Your completed quiz must be
placed in the appropriate Dropbox,no later than 11:59pm on the due date. Do well.

Using argument components discussed in Chapter 3, assessarguments
againstthe use of biometric technologies for security, especially in airports and large stadiums.
(a)Should biometric technologies such as face-recognition programs and iris scanners be used in public places to catch criminals? Since 9/11 there is much more support for these technologies than there was when biometrics were used at Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001.
(b)Granted that such technologies can help the government to catch criminals and suspected terrorists, what kinds of issues do they raise from a civil liberties perspective?
(c)Compare the arguments
againstthe use of biometric technologies in tracking down criminals to arguments discussed in Chapter 5.
(d)Do you support the use of biometrics in large, public gathering places in the United States?

Defend your answer. Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your theoretical rationale in support of your responses.


2. In looking at the case of Internet entrapment involving a pedophile that was discussed in this chapter
(a)which arguments can be made in favor of entrapment or sting operations on the internet?
(b)From a utilitarian perspective, entrapment might seem like a good thing because it may achieve desirable consequences, but can it be defended on constitutional grounds in the United States?
(c)Justify your position by appealing to
one or moreof the ethical theories described back in Chapter 2.

Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your theoretical rationale in support of your responses.


(a)Are the distinctions that were drawn between
cyberrelatedcrimes useful?
(b)Why would
cyberstalkingbe classified as a
cyberrelatedcrime, according to this distinction?
cyberrelatedcrimes, is it useful to distinguish further between
(d)Why would
cyberstalkingbe categorized as a
cyberexacerbated rather than a
(e)Why not simply call every crime in which cybertechnology is either used or present a cybercrime?
(f)Would doing so pose any problems for drafting coherent cybercrime legislation?

Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your theoretical rationale in support of your responses.


(a)What implications does the conviction of the four cofounders of The Pirate Bay Web site (in 2009) have for international attempts to prosecute intellectual property crimes globally?
(b)Should the four men also have been required to stand trial in all of the countries in which copyrighted material had been downloaded from their Web site?
(c)Will the outcome of The Pirate Bay trail likely deter individuals and organizations, worldwide, from setting up future
P2Psites that allow the illicit file sharing of copyrighted material?

Please elaborate (beyond a yes or no answer) and provide your theoretical rationale in support of your responses.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Related Post

Open chat
💬 Need help?
Hello 👋
Can we help you?