A CRITICAL INCIDENTS STUDY:THE PROCESS OF DIFFERENTIATIONWITHIN THE FAMILY OF PROCREATIONBYROBERT F. DIONNEB.G.S. SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY, 1991A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESTHE FACULTY OF EDUCATIONTHE DEPARTMENT OF COUNSELLING PSYCHOLOGYWe accept this Thesis as confirmingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAUGUST1993©Robert Dionne, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department of (2,00/1/A9 /z nj -psy The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 11-6., ‘4 /993DE-6 (2/88)11ABSTRACTThe purpose of this study was to investigate what facilitates and hindersthe process of differentiation of parents within their family of procreation.Participants of this study were involved in a parenting workshop which was basedupon Bowen's Family System Theory and his concept of differentiation. Usinga critical incidents approach, participants completed daily logs of theirexperiences from which a category system detailing the process of differentiationwas created. The category system suggests both the criteria for facilitatingsuccessful differentiation and the opposing criteria for hindering successfuldifferentiation.A review of the literature revealed that no prior research of this nature hasbeen conducted. As well, the literature also revealed that very little use has beenmade of Family System's Theory in terms of parenting programs. The dearth ofliterature suggests that more research is required in applying Family System'sTheory to programmatic attempts at helping families adjust over theirdevelopmental lifespan.The research suggested that criteria for successfully facilitating the processtowards greater differentiation involved behaviours indicating: BeingResponsible, Acceptance of Difference, Control of Anxiety, Awareness ofTriangles, Awareness of Self, and Fostering Connection.TABLE OF CONTENTS^ 111ABSTRACT^ iiTABLE OF CONTENTS^ iiiLIST OF TABLES vLIST OF FIGURES^ viACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viiCHAPTERS 1. INTRODUCTION^ 1Family Systems Theory^ 3Purpose 5Statement of the Problem 8Approach to Research^ 9Definitions^ 102. LITERATURE REVIEW^ 13Review of Parenting Programs^ 13Effectiveness of Parenting Programs 21Family Systems Theory 23Summary of Bowen's Concepts^ 24Parenting With A Purpose: Differentiation of Self^40Conclusion^ 583. METHOD 60Population & Sample^ 61The Critical Incidents Technique^ 64Data Collection & Analysis 67Conclusion^ 744. RESULTS 76Data^ 76Categories: I Being Responsible^ 83II Acceptance of Difference 91HI Control of Anxiety 98IV Awareness of Triangles^104V Awareness of Self^ 110VI Fostering Connection 116Reliability and Validity of the Category System^124Conclusion^ 1285. DISCUSSION 130Limitations^ 134Theorectical Implications ^136Practical Implications^ 139Implications for Future Research^ 152Conclusion^ 154REFERENCES 155APPENDICESA. Consent Form^ 161B. Daily Log Format 163C. Letters 166D. Parenting Program^ 175LISTS OF TABLESTable 1- Categories and Faciltiating Subcategories^78Table 2- Categories and Hindering Subcategories 79Table 3- Number of Incidents Reported By Participant^80Table 4- Total Number of Incidents Reported Per Category^81Table 5- Percentage of Reported Incidents Per Category 82Table 6- Participation Rate Per Category^ 127Table 7- Summary of Category System &Possible Parent Education/training Strategies^151vLISTS OF FIGURESviParent-Child Interaction Roadmap^ 45VIIACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI wish to thank Dr. Larry Cochran, Dr. Rob Lees and Dr. Du Fay Derfor serving on my advisory committee. I would especially like to thank Dr.Cochran, Chairman of my study, for the time he has devoted to me, and for theguidance and support he has shown in helping me complete this work. As wellas thanking Dr. Lees for his support and guidance on this project, I would liketo thank him for the unconditional support, direction and encouragement he hasgiven me as my practicum supervisor, friend and colleague. Rob has taught methat in honouring uniqueness and accepting difference, we can empowerindividuals and families to find inner strength and direction.I would like to express my sincere appreciation for the wonderful peopleI have met and worked with over the last three years and for the lessons theyhave taught me. Although there are many, I would like to mention a few whohave touched me deeply; Helena Novotony for her humour and enthusiasm,Meryl Mackie for her courage, Pindy Badyal for her determination, Ellie Davisfor her warmth, Glen Grigg for his impish twinkle and Marla Crittendon for hersupport.I would also like to thank April Davies and her children Jason and Bryanfor being in my life for this part of my journey. And finally, I would like tothank my children, Sarah, Peter, Ivan and Andrew for each being different; I amtruely fortunate to be able to share in their wisdom.1CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTIONThe parental ability to raise children seems to have becomelost. Past generations did not need instruction for raising theiryoung. In former times there were traditions for child-raisingwhich were upheld by society as a whole. Every familyfollowed a common scheme. In our times it has becomenecessary to develop extensive programs of parent education.(Dreikurs, 1964, p.5)Parent education/training courses have long been a popular means ofattempting to promote healthy family functioning. Parents enroling in suchcourses often attend due to immediate concerns such as acting-out behaviour bychildren, but just as important are their hopes that they will gain knowledge, andlearn skills and techniques that will help them prevent future problems. Auerbach(1968) acknowledged that there is a growing need for such interventions andsuggested that seen as small group counselling, parent education/training groupsare effective tools in providing support services to a greater number of people ina shorter span of time. Parents want children to experience love and joy, to besuccessful and happy, to have a sense of self-worth, a sense of self-esteem, andto believe in themselves (Clarke, 1989), and to that end, as Anglin (1984) hasmetaphorically described the proliferation of courses, "It is now like a field witha thousand flowers blooming (p.3). Parent Effectiveness Training [P.E.T.](Gordon, 1970), Systematic Training for Effective Parenting [S.T.E.P.]2(Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1976, 1983), Creative Parenting (Neufeld, 1980), HowTo Talk So Kids Will Listen (Faber & Mazlish, 1980), and Active Parenting(Popkin, 1983) are just a few of the more well-known flowers.Most of the courses are based upon research from specific theoreticalperspectives in the fields of Individual and Clinical psychology, eg., Adlerian,Behaviourial, Client Centered, Communication, Developmental, etc., andalthough each perspective has made contributions toward programmatic attemptsto enrich family life through parent education/training, it must be recognized thatthese programs have also been limited by the paradigm each theory operateswithin. Individual PSychology, for the most part, assumes that humans exist inisolation, or at most, as a being who is constantly under pressure to adapt to theinfluences of the environment. While Clinical Psychology has its roots in themedical model with its emphasis on pathology, that is, problematic behaviour asillness. Both paradigms make the assumption that the problems an individualexperiences reside within the individual, i.e., are seen as the inability of theindividual to adapt successfully to his environment (Coyne, 1985). Disruptionsof the family caused by the externalizing child, i.e., the acting-out child,oppositional child or conduct disordered child, or by the internalizing child, i.e.,the depressed, sick or suicidal child, are mainly characterized and defined byhis/her effect on others--parents, teachers, and clinicians. Within these two3paradigms, parent-child problems are thus seen as a result of deviance ormaladjustment to accepted social norms. Kearney (1986) points out that thismakes it difficult to distinguish treatment for children from instruments of socialcontrol and this is reflected in the current parenting courses where much of theinformation given is packaged to help parents control children and make themmind.However, it has to be acknowledged that if parenting education/trainingcourses are limited in their effectiveness, it may not be the specific coursematerial that is the limiting factor (Paddack, 1987). Rather, the limitations maybe a result of the narrow view of parent-child relationships inherent in theIndividual and Clinical Psychology paradigms. Seeing problems that arise in thefamily as existing within its individual members ignores the dearth of materialgenerated by family systems research since the early 1950s.FAMILY SYSTEMS THEORYIt has been 40 years since the interest in family research began. In the last25 years the emphasis on this research has shifted from not only considering theimplications of this new way of thinking about family problems, to also thedevelopment of specific techniques for intervening in families (Kearney, 1986).This research indicates that the child can no longer be seen as an isolated unit.4Instead, the child must be seen as a social being, forming part of a network ofrelationships and that this relationship approach must be integrated into the fieldof child psychological development (Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde, 1988). Yet,existing parenting programs do not reflect this evolutionary trend in thought. Areview of the literature on parent education/training courses shows that thisknowledge has not been incorporated in parenting programs, with the exceptionof specific settings (DeSalvatore, & Rosenman, 1986).One particular theory which provides a useful and comprehensive way ofaccounting for the outcomes of relationship interactions, and therefore may haverelevance for further enhancing parent education/training courses, is MurrayBowen's Family Systems Theory (Bowen, 1978). Bowen's theory sees the familyas a dynamic emotional system in which each member of the system influencesand is influenced by every other member of the system. Parent-child problems arenot seen as residing within the individual, eg., the child, but rather are seen asbeing situated in the inevitable outcomes of faulty interpersonal interactions.Everyone in the system is seen as having a role to play, and a personalresponsibility in the creation and the maintenance of any problem. Byincorporating Bowen's primary concepts, i.e., the family as an emotional system,triangling, the family projection process, chronic anxiety, the forces fortogetherness and separateness, and differentiation of self, parenting programs may5be able to move on to a new level of effectiveness in promoting more productiveand healthier relationships within the family.Whereas current parenting education/training courses are aimed at helpingthe parent change the child, Bowen's Family Systems Theory would shift thisemphasis from focusing on what one has no control over, i.e., changing the other(the child), to what one has direct control over, i.e., changing self (the parent)'.The ultimate goal of Bowen's theory is not to change or control others, instead,the ultimate goal is to increase one's level of differentiation of self with theassumption that the higher one's level of differentiation is, the more one is ableto remain objective while taking part in emotional issues with significant otherswho may be emotionally reactive. In doing so, it is assumed that over time thisability will facilitate the differentiating of self process in those significant others.PURPOSENo literature indicates that Bowen's Family Systems Theory has beenincorporated into a parent education/training program. Yet it lends itself well to1 This may account for the reluctance of parent educators to include Family Systems Theory.Many parents, by the time they enrol in parenting classes are having feelings of beingoverwhelmed, of being inadequate, and of being totally helpless. As a result, they usually attendwith the belief that it is up to the child to do the changing. Suggesting to the parent thatrealistically the only changes that the parent can make is in changing self, may be toothreatening for many educators.6this format because it is a theory based on gaining knowledge about the "orderand predictability of human family relationships..that underlie the.. seeminglyrandom and even chaotic appearing family interactions" (Kerr & Bowen, 1988,p.4). The core concept of the theory is the goal of raising one's healthy,functional participation in the family by raising one's level of differentiation ofself.According to general systems thinking, if one changes the way s/heinteracts in a system then it causes instability in the system. Systems can nottolerate instability so the movement is always from instability towards stability.If the person who has changed the way s/he is interacting with significant otherscan withstand the system's pressure to change back, then the system will makeadjustments in order to restabilize, i.e., the force for stability causes all othermembers of that system to change the way they are interacting (Becvar & Becvar,1988). In other words, if a parent works towards differentiating his/her self inrelationship to his/her child, then the child will automatically become part of theprocess, with the result that the child will also become more differentiated. In thiscircular interactive way, the level of functioning of all family members increases.It is not this study's intention to evaluate the question of the effectivenessof applying Bowen's theory to parent education/training programs. To do so,would be premature because of the unavailability of tested designs, however an7exploratory study might lead to the richness and usefulness of translating such atheory into parenting workshop interventions. Therefore, the purpose of this studyis to explore the critical incidents that hinders or facilitates the differentiation ofself process of parents attending an eight week, 24 hour parenting program thatincorporates Bowen's Family Systems Theory. Given the novel nature of thestudy, it is hoped that the information gained might indicate the practicalness ofapplying Bowen's theory to future programs and be useful for subsequentprogram development.Furthermore, this study is important for another reason. The literaturedelineating the process of differentiation of self is based primarily on doing whatis commonly referred to as Family of Origin work, that is, working towardsresolving, "the unresolved emotional attachments to one's parents" (Bowen, 1978,p. 536). Commenting on this, Kerr & Bowen (1988) state that, "Objectivity aboutone's parents promotes objectivity about self. A reasonable amount of objectivityabout self and others, coupled with the ability to act on the basis of thatobjectivity when it is important to do so, is the essence of differentiation of self"(p. 203). Raising one's level of differentiation by doing family of origin work canonly take place by entering into emotionally significant issues with members ofone's family of origin, and then by remaining emotionally detached or neutral.This process, referred to as detriangling requires that one can stay objective in8respecting not only the beliefs of the other member(s) of the system, but also theactions that affirm them. Staying objective simply means having the "ability todefine self without being emotionally invested in one's own point of view or inchanging the viewpoints of others" (p. 150).Bowen felt that it was more productive to attempt differentiation of selfby using one's family of origin rather than one's nuclear family because, "Effortsto gain objectivity and to control emotional reactivity in the nuclear family canremain for long periods on the level of emotional game playing in which thegames of each spouse cancel out the potential gains of both" (p.545). However,with our society undergoing rapid changes, in which adult children with familiesof their own are often not within easy access to their siblings or parents, doingfamily of origin work to raise one's level of differentiation is becoming less ofa viable option. Therefore, new information is needed to learn more about these"emotional games" with the hope that raising one's level of differentiation cantake place within the nuclear family with as much success as it can by focusingon the family of origin. This study may provide some of that information.STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEMThis study describes emotionally significant incidents in the lives of theparticipants of a parenting education/training workshop which included Bowenian9principles. The study is designed to assist in understanding the possible usefulnessof incorporating Family Systems Theory in this type of format. More specifically,the study intends to explore the experiences that individuals had, over the periodof the study, that are related to the information given in the workshop, and howthese experiences contributed to their process of becoming more differentiatedfrom their significant emotional relationships. The research question is: "Whatspecific events or experiences hinder or facilitate the process of differentiationof self?"APPROACH TO RESEARCHThe critical incident technique developed by Flanagan (1954) lends itselfwell to this type of exploratory study. This technique requires that the participantsrecord everyday experiences which would, "permit inferences and predictions tobe made about the person performing an act,..which..occurs in a situation wherethe purpose of intent of the act seems fairly clear to the observer and where itsconsequences are sufficiently definite to leave little doubt concerning it's effects"(p.327). As already mentioned, Kerr & Bowen (1988) state that raising one'sdifferentiation can only happen in issues of emotional significance in which "theability to maintain objectivity in relationship to a problem produces a predictableoutcome; the inability to maintain it produces another predictable outcome"10(p.14.8).The critical incident method allows the participants to capture the richnessand meaning of everyday emotionally significant experiences that could notadequately be created, controlled or measured in a laboratory or experimentalsituation without losing that quality which makes them everyday emotionallysignificant experiences (Boychuck, 1985). It is a reflective technique which allowsthe participants to describe objective facts of the experiences, that is, the who, thewhat, the where, and the when, in making sense of the outcomes. It is throughthese recorded, reflective descriptions that the participant becomes an observerof his own thoughts, feelings and actions. Furthermore, it is these reflectivedescriptions that begin to make the outcomes knowable and predictable. Hinderingincidents are thus those experiences in which the participant lost objectivity, whilefacilitating incidents are those in which the participant did not lose objectivity.DEFINITIONS Differentiation of SelfAs defined by Kerr & Bowen (1988) it is:"The ability to be in emotional contact with significant others yet stillremain autonomous in one's emotional functioning" (p.145). More specifically,"It is the process by which the separateness and togetherness forces are managed11by a person and within a relationship system" (p.95).Family Systems Theory Although there are several different models of family systems therapy,Family Systems Theory is the name used by Bowen to describe his theory.Therefore, in this study it specifically relates only to Bowen's model.Togetherness ForceThe Togetherness force is Bowen's concept to account for the observableforce that compels people to be together in meaningful relationships whichprovides them with a sense of security and belonging. Bowen saw this as beingbiological. Furthermore, a hermit, as an extreme example, is compelled to remainapart from society in emotional reactivity to this force. Therefore, thetogetherness force can also account for physical and emotional distance.Individuality ForceThe Individuality force is Bowen's concept to account for the observable(biological) force that compels people to be autonomous in their emotional andintellectual functioning within significant relationships. Individuality is not to beconfused with selfishness, which can be seen as an emotionally reactive defenseagainst the togetherness force. Rather, to be truly autonomous one must act in aself-determined and self-responsible manner while still remaining in contact withsignificant emotional relationships. In this thesis, Individuality and Separatenessare interchangeable.1213CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEWREVIEW OF PARENTING PROGRAMS As mentioned in chapter one, there are a variety of popular parentingprograms each having an underlying theoretical framework. Theories such asAdlerian, Behaviourial, Client Centered, Communication or Developmentalstructure the philosophy, purpose and procedures of each program (Dunning &Wills, 1981; Paddack, 1987). To understand the differences in these programs thefollowing is a brief review of the contributions each theory has made to the fieldof parent education/training, and how each influences specific parentingprograms.Adlerian groups such as S. T. E. P. (Dinkmeyer & McKay, 1976, 1983),are based on the premise that humans are personally motivated to escape aninferiority complex by working towards personal goals of social interest.Expanding on the Adlerian concept of goal directed behaviour, Dreikurs (1964)suggested that often children make mistakes in determining what are healthy andproductive goals. Yearning for a sense of belonging and a feeling of worth in thebelonging relationship, he posited that the misbehaviour of children is really onlyan attempt to fulfil this yearning through faulty perceptions that lead to14misdirected goals. Thus, by accounting for the socially inappropriate behaviourof children as arising out of the child's need to belong, he outlined four"Mistaken Goals of Misbehaviour" (pp. 57-68). Furthermore, he popularized theuse of natural and logical consequences as being a useful technique for correctingthe child's misperception.Adlerian programs adamantly oppose the use of punishment and rewardas put forward by the Behaviourists. Coloroso (1989), for example, states that thepunishment and reward system tells the child what to think rather than how tothink, making the child adopt either a compliant, dependent stance or a resentful,revengeful stance. The dependent stance creates an inability for the child to makegoal directed decisions resulting in the child always depending on the parent fordirection. The resentful or revengeful stance creates a child who only makesdecisions in opposition to the parent's wishes rather then decisions based on whatwould be best for him or herself. Recognizing that this is a continuum, with thesetwo stances being the extremes, Adlerian programs assume that behaviourmodification and the use of rewards and punishments, thwarts the child's abilityto achieve any personal goals.Dreikurs (1964) claimed that in today's world, family life must be run ondemocratic principles. He elaborated on how parents could effectively interveneto help change mistaken goal directed behaviour into more socially accepted goal15directed behaviour. The premise, is that although a parent can not, nor should notattempt to control the child, he can create age-appropriate boundaries for the childand then allow the child to make choices in a self-determined manner within theseboundaries. The model also suggests that a parent can guide the child's decisionmaking process by making it more comfortable for the child to make a wisechoice then it is to make an unwise choice. For example, the statement "You mayeat supper as soon as you finish your chores", implies the expectations orboundaries the parent has for the child. In other words, the parent expects thechild to participate in the act of living in this family by being responsible for ashare of the daily chores. Within these expectations the parent has given the childcontrol over his life; first he may choose which chores he wishes to complete,then he may do the chores before supper and eat with the family, do the choresafter the family has eaten and eat later, or not do the chores and not eat(Coloroso, 1989).Although this concept bears some similarity to behaviour modification, itdiffers in that rather than using reward or punishment to change the child's choice(behaviour), the child is allowed to experience the consequences of the choiceshe makes. Because the consequences are assumed to be a natural or logical resultof the behaviour chosen by the child, any comfort or discomfort experienced bythe child is not because it is imposed by the parent, but rather because it is the16outcome of the child's choice. The parent is taught that to truly respect the child,the parent must respect the choices that the child makes by allowing him to takeresponsibility for his actions, i.e., experience the consequences. In the exampleabove, respecting the child's choice of not doing the chores on a particular day,implies respecting the child's right not to eat for the rest of that day. In summary,Adlerian groups encourage mutual respect between parent and children, helpcreate democratic parenting styles through the use of setting boundaries andallowing the child to be goal directed within these boundaries (by providingchoices), and encourage open communication and problem-solving through the useof family meetings (Dreikurs, 1964).Behaviour Modification programs work on the theory of stimulus-response. These groups are typically held in clinic settings and are primarilygeared toward populations in which the children are diagnosed as having severebehaviourial problems or special needs, eg. children diagnosed with Conductdisorder (Patterson, 1974) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Barkley,1981). The goal is to help guide the parent in creating interactions which willignore or punish negative behaviour, and reinforce or reward positive behaviour.The assumption made is that behaviours that are acknowledged or rewarded willincrease in frequency, while behaviours that are ignored or punished will decreasein frequency.17Behaviour Modification programs are very prescriptive and deal in step-by-step training for parents (Dunning & Wills, 1981). The parents are taught howto assess and target specific behaviours for change, how to set up a reinforcementschedule, that is, immediate or delayed gratification of reward, and how tomonitor the outcome (Becvar & Becvar, 1988). The main criticism of theBehaviour model are the implications that the parent knows which behaviours areright for the child and which are not right, and that it is the child who has theproblem and needs to change. Thus, the child is little more than a passiverecipient of the parent's subjective authority. The child is seen as an object whoneeds to change and can be manipulated into obedience (Gordon, 1970). Insummary Behaviourial theory has contributed to parenting programs the conceptsof reward and punishment to not only help children learn more socially acceptablebehaviours, but also to help them extinguish less socially acceptable behaviours.Client Centered groups, such as Parents In Crisis, operate more like asupport group than as an educational or skills based group. Based on theprinciples developed by Rogers (1951), the premise underlying this type of groupis that the parent has all the answers and by discussing the problems of parentingin a safe environment, that is, an environment in which accurate empathicunderstanding, and unconditional positive regard and acceptance is created, theanswers needed to resolve their problems will come into their consciousness. In18summary, Client Centered groups do not teach skills, rather it is expected that byvalidating the parents experience through empathy and acceptance, s \ he in turnwill gain the strength and motivation to interact in a more empathic and acceptingway towards his/her child.Parent education/training courses based on communication theory such as,Parent Effectiveness Training or P.E.T. (Gordon, 1970), or How to Talk So KidsWill Listen (Faber & Matzlish, 1980), suggest that if parents learn how tocommunicate effectively with their children, mutual respect and cooperation willnaturally follow. The principle is in learning the skills of non-evaluative listeningand honest communication of feelings the parent and child can work out solutionsto problems that are acceptable to both. Misbehaviour is not seen as misdirectedgoals, nor as behaviour problems, rather problems arise due to yearnings that arenot being acknowledged and/or satisfied. When this happens the parent and/or thechild begins to protect him/herself by using defenses. Thus, problems are notseen as being the problem, rather, it is the way problems are handled that is seenas being the problem.The assumption in this model is that whenever a parent-child disagreementarises, taking the time to communicate concerns, needs and feelings results in asituation whereby a "unique parent and his unique child can solve each of theirunique conflicts by finding their own unique solutions which will be acceptable19to both" (Gordon, 1970, p. 200). Gordon calls this the "principle of participation"(p. 201) and states that it works because a person who has an investment in thedecision-making process is motivated to carry out the results of that process.Courses based on Communication theory differ from Adlerian coursesbecause according to Gordon, far too often the logical consequences that the childexperiences are parent created, that is, a result of parental authority rather thanarising out of true democratic principles. Gordon suggests that the Adlerianapproach is too susceptible to falling into the trap whereby the choices the childhas are only illusions rather than real, that is, the choices given reflect only whatthe parent needs and/or wants and does not necessarily reflect what the childmight need and/or want. He suggests that parents often solve problems using thewin-lose method whereby the parent is the winner and the child is the loser. Healso states that in reality there are no winners in the win-lose resolution becausethe underlying struggle for power creates guilt, loss of respect, and either the lossof the ability to ask for one's needs to be met, or the belief that everyone else isresponsible for satisfying one's needs.The communication model attempts to circumvent this by relying heavilyon communicating with children in a way that creates a no-lose compromise, thatis, both the needs of the parent and the needs of the child are taken intoconsideration in the formulation of the solution. In doing so, Gordon (1970)20suggests that in using the no-lose method there is more chance for a high-qualitysolution to be found because both the child and parent are involved; the need forpower is eliminated, i.e., the parent needs to assume the role of the enforcer lessoften and the child needs to assume the role of being oppositional less oftenbecause both have a stake in the outcome of the process; the child's thinking andcooperative skills are developed; it creates less hostility, leaving room for morelove (pp. 200-203). In summary, the skills and techniques enhancing parentingcourses arising out of Communication theory are nonjudgemental listening, "I"statements, and problem-solving using the "no-lose method" of compromise (p.194).Developmental programs have traditionally been directed at the adulteducation level (Paddack, 1987), however, Creative Parenting (Neufeld, 1980)is an exception. The Developmental approach is based upon the assumption that"what parents know about children's development is positively related to theirskill in designing a supportive learning environment, and to their ability tointeract in ways that stimulates a young child's development" (Whalen, 1983, p.242). Developmental programs minimize the need for teaching discipline skillsor effective communication techniques. The model makes the assumption thatonce parents become more aware of the potency of their behaviour on theemotional, and psychological development of their children, they will act to21ensure a supportive environment is provided. For example, if they requireknowledge about discipline, or communication, they will actively seek furtherknowledge to facilitate what they have learned through the framework of thedevelopmental course (Paddack, 1987). In summary, parenting programs basedstrictly on Developmental theory differ from other programs because they are nottraining courses. The courses are educational in nature and expose the parent toinformation about the physical, emotional and psychological development ofchildren and how to enhance it.ElitECTIVENESS OF PARENTING PROGRAMS Although there have been many studies on parenting programs, accordingto Park (1977), most of the studies have focused on the immediate impact uponthe child, while parental attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, cognitions and perceptionsin regard to the parent-child relationship interactions have been largely ignored.Furthermore, when research has been focused on the parent-child relationship ithas been as if the parent was only a reactor to the child instead of an information-processing organism who also contributed to the negative outcome of aninteraction. In other words, the research, true to the paradigms of Individual orClinical Psychology were conducted as if the problem with the interaction residedwithin the child.22In a review of the effectiveness of parenting groups Paddack (1987)concluded that of the three types of programs studied most often (P.E.T.,S.T.E.P., and Behaviour Modification groups), each had its own value dependingon the goal of the instructor and, of course, the instrument of measure. Forexample, in comparative studies, Schofield (cited in Paddack, 1987, p. 44) foundthat children in a P.E.T. group showed greater self-esteem then children in abehaviour modification group. Similarly, Stolzoff (cited in Paddack, 1987, p. 44)showed that an Adlerian group was more effective than a P.E.T. or a behaviourmodification group for changing parental democratic attitudes and parentalacceptance of the child. In her comparative study of the literature, Paddack(1987) concludes that the best that can be said is that the "research on parenttraining programs has shown that each of these programs have some strengths andsome weaknesses" (p. 45). She goes on to say that the specific effectiveness ofeach program is dependent upon the assumptions of the theory underlying itsdevelopment, structure and techniques so that no one program can be effectivelycompared to another simply because they aren't necessarily comparable.Paddack (1987) states that the implication drawn from her research onparenting education/training courses is that they may be limited in theireffectiveness. However, the author of the present study agrees with her that itmay not be the specific course material that is the limiting factor. Rather, the23limitations may be a result of the narrow view, of parent-child relationships,inherent in the Individual and Clinical Psychology paradigms; a view that reliestoo heavily on techniques dealing with the content of the problems rather than onthe process that underlies the development, and maintenance of the problem. Thisview ignores the dearth of material generated by family research since the early1950s and in particular, Murray Bowen's Family Systems Theory. Therefore, theauthor of this study suggests that Bowen's theory may be useful in enhancing theeffectiveness of parenting education/training programs because as a descriptiveand explanatory theory, its concepts can account for the processes which lead tothe creation and maintenance of parent-child problems.FAMILY SYSTEMS THEORYBowen (1978), by observing clinical families, that is, families in whichone child was schizophrenic, was able to discern and describe a relationshipsystem involving reciprocal and recursive interactions. These "cycles wereorchestrated with such precision and predictability within various familyrelationships that any explanation for them based on the psychological make upof individual family members seemed awkward and inadequate" (Kerr & Bowen,1988, p. 9). Shifting from a psychoanalytic perspective to a general systemsperspective, Bowen (1978) soon began to look beyond the description of the24process to the explanation of the process. In doing so, he discovered that "thephenomenon invited an explanation based on seeing the family as a unit withspecific relationship processes that were present in every family" (p. 9), not onlysymptomatic families.Originally he developed six concepts which could account for or explainthe development, or lack of development, of problem or symptom formation ina family (Bowen, 1966). Using his Differentiation of Self concept as a centralorganizing principle (Henry, 1990), he conceived of five interlocking processconcepts which, if observed in a family could become knowable: nuclear familyemotional process, family projection process, triangles, sibling position,multigenerational transmission process. Later, he added two more concepts, theemotional cutoff and the societal emotional process (Bowen, 1976). Theinterplay of these concepts in a person's family of origin, determined thatperson's level of differentiation self. It is not the intention of this paper to discussin great detail any of these concepts, rather the paper will only give a briefunderstanding of the concepts, so that in the latter part of this chapter it can beseen how many of them might be useful to incorporate into the time limitedformat of a parent education/training program.SUMMARY OF THE BOWEN'S CONCEPTS25Bowen postulated that there were two primary systems, the emotionalsystem and the intellectual system, which combine to determine a person's abilityto function in productive goal directed ways. The emotional system is a productof what Bowen referred to as the togetherness force. This force arises out of "theuniversal need for love, approval, emotional closeness, and agreement" (Bowen,1978, p. 257). The intellectual system on the other hand is a product of whatBowen termed the individuality force which arises out of "the drive to be aproductive, autonomous individual, as defined by self rather than the dictates ofthe group" (p. 257). He further postulated that when these two systems fuse, theemotional system dominates the intellectual system (Garfinkel, 1980). Fusionoccurs whenever a person can not adjust to a situation that disturbs the usualbalance of these two forces.The fusing of these two systems is so universal that he believed that allpeople could be categorized on a single continuum which he theoreticallyconceived as the differentiation of self scale. Simply stated, differentiation of selfrefers to a person's ability to remain self-determined while involved with othersin emotionally significant issues. In other words, to be able to retain intellectualfunctioning of self in emotional situations so that choices are made on the basisof rational thought rather than reactive or emotionally driven thought. Bowenperceived that between any two people or groups of people the balance between26the pressures for togetherness and the pressures for individuality are in dynamicequilibrium.With the balance constantly fluctuating, one or both people or groups haveto constantly make adjustments so the two can co-exist. However, certainsituations arise where there is a threat overwhelming the ability of one or bothindividuals or groups to make the necessary adjustments. When this threat occurs,the pressure for togetherness dominates. The emotional system and the intellectualsystem become fused with the result that intellectual functioning regresses frombeing objective and rational, to subjective and reactive. The degree of anxiety thatany one person can withstand before fusion occurs determines where that personlies on the differentiation of self scale. That point is conceived of as that person'sbasic level of differentiation and it is at that point where the person's intellectualfunctioning becomes dominated by the emotional system.Although the differentiation of self concept refers to an individual, it canonly be assessed by observing the functioning of the individual in relationship toothers. Inherently, the concept implies the ability of an individual in making anintrapersonal distinction between his or her own thoughts and feelings. As well,it implies the interpersonal ability to make a distinction between his or her ownthoughts and feelings, and those of another person. Furthermore, the degree towhich a person is differentiated can only be assessed over time, by observing his27or her involvement with another person or group on issues of emotionalsignificance.Emotionally significant issues can be defined as issues that disrupt thebalance between the forces for togetherness and individuality in the relationship.This occurs when one of the two tries to attain more togetherness or moreindividuality then the other one is able to adapt to. When this happens, if one orboth become undifferentiated, the togetherness force promotes thoughts, feelingsand actions which attempt to make both individuals "as if" they were one.Typically, the one not making the move will become undifferentiated first. At thatpoint s/he will put pressure on the other to return to the previous balanced state.As this one increases the pressure for either more togetherness or moreseparateness, the emotional field may escalate to a point at which the other mightalso become undifferentiated. If this happens, the other may either react in waysthat restore the previous balance, or may react in ways that exaggerate theimbalance. In either case, neither of the two are acting in self-determined ways,but rather only in other-determined ways. In other words, how they act is strictlybased upon the actions of the other. Bowen conceived this undifferentiatedresponse as being an unconscious and therefore automatic biological responsearising out of the "cyclical nature of the symbiotic relationships" that exist infamilies (Bowen, 1978, p. 104).28Human life begins with a symbiotic relationship between the primarycaregiver (usually the mother) and the infant. This state, referred to as emotionaloneness or emotional fusion, is essentially a state whereby one person iscompletely functioning for another. For example, the infant's emotional responsesdetermines the emotional functioning of the mother, and the emotional responsesof the mother determines the emotional functioning of the infant. However, thesymbiotic mother-child relationship spills over into all the other relationshipswithin the family, creating what Bowen originally referred to as theundifferentiated ego mass, and later as the family emotional system.From this symbiotic state, the child "slowly disengages from the originalfusion with his mother and moves toward his own emotional autonomy" (Bowen,1976, p. 86). The degree of emotional autonomy from the parent that the childachieves is seen as being relatively fixed by the time the child leaves home, andis regarded as being the person's basic level of differentiation of self. Because thedifferentiation of self originates in an emotional symbiotic relationship with theparent(s), the child can only achieve a basic level of differentiation that is slightlylower, slightly higher or is the same as the basic level of differentiation of theparents. This occurs because of what Bowen termed the projection process inwhich the parent automatically, "thinks, feels and acts in ways that promoteemotional separation of her child from her (individuality), and also thinks, feels,29and acts in ways that undermine emotional separation of her child from her(togetherness)" (Kerr & Bowen, 1988,). However, although the projection processbegins with the parent(s), Bowen states that eventually it is reinforced by thechild, "In addition a child thinks, feels and acts in ways that promote emotionalseparation from his mother, and also thinks, feels and acts in ways that undermineemotional separation from her" (p. 197).Bowen saw this projection process as being mutual, incorporating allmembers of the family. This concept, which he termed the family projectionprocess accounts for how the anxiety arising out of an inability to adapt to afluctuation in the balance between the togetherness and the individuality forcescan create problems, "This 'fusion of selfs' could involve every area of egofunctioning. One ego could function for that of another. One family membercould become physically ill in response to emotional stress in another familymember" (p. 105). Once the problem is created, the family projection processresults in all members of the family thinking, feeling and acting in ways thatmaintains it.This process originates within in the parental unit. It describes andexplains the patterns through which parents project the product of theirundifferentiation, that is, their anxiousness, onto their children (Garfinkel, 1980).Unable to deal with the anxiety inherent in their dyadic relationship, the parents30seek to alleviate their anxiety by triangling in a child. Bowen stressed that a two-person relationship is inherently unstable because it is so easily effected byanxiety, and therefore when tension or conflict arises, one of the twosome willautomatically attempt to alleviate his/her discomfort by either joining with a thirdperson or by diverting the tension to a third person, "Emotional conflict betweentwo family members could disappear with the simultaneous development ofconflict between two other family members" (Bowen, 1978, p. 105). When thishappens the problems projected onto the child soon become incorporated in thechild's attitude and belief system. The problem projected could be in the form ofa creating a coalition with the child so that the child is placed into a position ofsidetaking with one parent against another family member, or, it could in theform of a deficiency in the child that the parent becomes over anxious about. Ineither case the parent's projection diverts his/her focus away from the tension inthe spousal dyad.Once established, reciprocal and recursive patterns undermine the child'sability to separate and s/he begins to think, feel, and act "as if" the deficiency isreal. Not being able to stand back and become objective about the process thatcreated the problem, these faulty interactions set up an unconscious situation thatBowen referred to as unresolved emotional attachment to the parent. Resolvingthis attachment, the goal of any therapy based on Bowen's theory, is to help the31individual become more aware of the patterns of interaction that maintain thefusion of self and others in the family. The key to this shift in perception is tobecome more objective about the parent. Becoming more objective isaccomplished through an understanding of triangles and the part they play inemotional interactions.Bowen's concept of the triangle describes the facts of functioning inhuman relationships, "facts that can be observed as repeating over and overconsistently so that they become knowable and predictable" (Kerr & Bowen,1988, p.134). Bowen believed that what is important in raising one's level ofdifferentiation is to become more objective. He stated that this can only beaccomplished by becoming an observer of the facts. Triangles describe the what,where, when and how facts of the family emotional system. Becoming anobserver requires that one give up asking the "why" of human functioning, "Whyis only speculative and so is not a fact. Speculations are only fantasies so theymight as well be ignored" (p. 134). Furthermore, speculating about why someonedid or said something, usually results in an assignment of motive whichimmediately takes one out of a systems frame of reference. Observing andunderstanding the impact of triangling requires a system's perspective because,"Man can fail to see what is in front of his eyes unless it fits into his theoreticalframe of reference" (Bowen, 1978, p. 105).32"The triangling process revolves around emotional attachment and theimpact of anxiety on that attachment" (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 145). One'semotional attachment to others is a product of the established balance between thetogetherness and individuality forces in each relationship. People with a higherlevel of differentiation are able to withstand greater amounts of anxiety withintheir emotional attachments. This means that the balance between the two forcescan fluctuate more before the person is overwhelmed by anxiety and becomesundifferentiated or emotionally reactive. Once undifferentiated, the emotionalsystem dominates the intellectual system and the reactive behaviour typicallyincreases anxiety even more. The interplay of these two variables, anxiety andlevel of differentiation, determine the formation of a new triangle or the activationof one already established to help the person regain emotional stability. Theactivation of triangles is as automatic as the emotional reactions that create them.The concept of the triangle as well as providing a description of the factsof human emotional interactions, also forms the basis for Bowen's one therapeuticintervention; becoming more differentiated from one's family of origin. Byadopting a systems perspective, a person is better equipped to stand back andobserve the interplay of the family emotional process, the family projectionprocess and the resultant triangling process. Monitoring one's emotions whileobserving the facts of this interplay during involvement in significant emotional33issues, equips one to stay differentiated, or emotionally detached. Remainingdifferentiated or emotionally detached, simply means not allowing one's emotionsto dominate one's thinking.For Bowen, becoming more emotionally autonomous in the nuclear familycould only happen by working toward becoming more autonomous from one'sfamily of origin. Growing up in a family, the children range in their levels ofdifferentiation. Adopting the work of Tolman (1961) on family constellation,Bowen observed that children adopted functional roles in the family emotionalsystem which were predictable by their sibling position. This occurs because thefamilies follow developmental patterns and the family emotional system reflectsthe stage that the family is at. Each child is born into an emotional system thatis different from an earlier or a later born child. In keeping with Bowen'sinterconnected concepts, the product of the anxiety in that emotional system willbe projected onto each child differently. For example, a first child may be borninto a family at the developmental stage where the parents are frequently andopenly expressing love toward each other and the child. By the time the secondchild enters the family, it may be at a time when the loss of a second income, oran affair, for example, puts a strain on the expression of that love. Similarly, theparents of a first child may be anxious about their abilities to parent, whereas bythe time the third child is born the parents are no longer anxious about their34inadequacies (Richardson, 1990).Each child will adapt to the family, taking on, through the mutual familyprojection process, a functional role in the family. This role will be mostnoticeable when s/he is part of a triangle, activated to deal with the anxiety in thefamily emotional system. As a result, the child or children who are the focus ofmore of the anxiety, remain more emotionally fused to the family and will remainless emotionally autonomous when they become adults and have families of theirown. The child or children who receive less of the anxiety will likewise be moreemotionally autonomous from the family. Bowen placed so much confidence inthe predictability of Tolman's work, that Family System's Theory states that anychild who does not fit the characteristics of his or her sibling position, is thefocus of the family's undifferentiated ego mass, and therefore will have the mostunresolved attachment issues with the parents. In other words, s/he will be theleast differentiated from the family.Thus Bowen's differentiation of self includes a component that heconceptualized as a multigenerational transmission process. When childrenbecome adults, Bowen posits that they will only be attracted to partners that areat the same level of differentiation as they are (Bowen, 1978; Hendrix, 1988,1992). This is because people who are at one level of differentiation handle stressand anxiety in ways that are unattractive to people at another level. Bowen35observed that when you examine several generations, some branches of the familywill become more productive members of society, while other branches willbecome less productive. The multigenerational process accounts for this byexplaining that the children who attained a higher level of differentiation of selfeventually marry a partner at the same level. They produce children, some ofwhich attain a higher level then them. These children then go on to marry apartner at that level and the cycle goes on. "People with higher levels ofdifferentiation of self are able to divest more energy into principled, self-determined and goal-directed activity" (Bowen, 1978, p. 475) and thereforefunction better in society. Similarly, the process works the opposite way with lessdifferentiated people having to "divest more of their energy into seeking love,approval, or attacking the other for not providing it" (p. 475), and as a resultmore of their life is spent in emotional chaos, or cutoff, interfering with theirability to adapt to social pressures.Bowen's final two concepts, emotional cutoff and societal emotionalprocess were added in 1976 and completed his theory (Kerr & Bowen, 1988).Bowen noticed that when fusion occurred, that is, when a person becameundifferentiated, each person adopted a style of dealing with the anxiety.Emotional cutoff occurs when the anxiety in an individual's internal emotionalsystem reaches a level that can no longer be tolerated. At this point the person36moves to calm it by distancing from the relationship which is triggering it. Thisis accomplished by triangling. However, in many cases the third apex of thetriangle rather than being a person, will be an activity. For example, a personmay achieve emotional distance from an anxious relationship through thedistractions of sickness, hobby, work, sport or taking on social responsibilities.In a triangle the movement is always away from tension toward calmness.In a family, calmness can come in the form of a coalition with another memberof an activated triangle, or it can come through the distraction and emotionalreinforcement of an activity. In all cases, although emotional cutoff may appearto be an act of a well differentiated person, that is, s/he may appear to be actingin a self-determined way, in fact, the action is due to emotional reactivity;retaining intellectual dominance through avoidance of emotional issues within therelationship (Bowen, 1978).Bowen's final concept, the societal emotional process, was added becausehe recognized that systems were always parts of ever expanding systems. Forexample, within the individual there exists several physiological systems, whichare part of the individual's emotional and intellectual systems. The individual ispart of the nuclear family system which in turn is part of the extended familysystem, which is part of the various social systems. Each system influences andis influenced by the other systems. Although this paper is not focused on the37concept of the societal emotional process, an example will suffice to put thisconcept into context.Christmas is a time when the family system is particularly susceptible tothe societal emotional process. In Canada, situations arise that would be at othertimes quite bizarre. For example, a few years ago parents lined up, pushed andshoved, and sometimes paid exorbitant prices in order to get a Cabbage Patch dollto give as a present to their child. Asking why this would occur is merelyconjecture. However, understanding Bowen's family systems theory allows us tostand back and describe the objective facts. Placed within a context of his eightinterlocking concepts we can see that a large segment of society regressed to astate of becoming undifferentiated. With the emotional system ruling theintellectual system, principles, such as integrity, fairness and honesty, got lost inthe shuffle for the responsibility to provide the child with an object that wouldjoin the family with other families.Bowen believed that the societal emotional process causes regression whenthe society becomes so focused on the responsibility to an individual or group thatit loses sight of intellectually determined principles. This occurs when emotionallydetermined decisions are made to allay the anxiety of the moment. WhenTogetherness forces dominate, behaviour regresses to a more primitive state. Astate in which fear and alienation increase to a point where people can even38"become violent and start destroying each other" (Bowen, 1978, p. 278).Bowen's theory is an explanatory theory for human emotional andintellectual functioning. Its concepts are simple and yet so universally descriptivethat it is easy for families to immediately grasp. People have what Young (1984)refers to as ordinary explanations for what they see happening. Bowen's theory,with its simple and yet universally descriptive concepts, puts these ordinaryexplanations of family interactions into a cohesive working model. Learning aboutthe process of normal ordinary relationships makes the process visible. Once thepatterns are observable, family members have more chance of remainingobjective. For this reason, Family Systems Theory may enhance parentingeducation/training programs, taking them into the next generation. The followingis the manner in which this study included the concepts in order to explore thecritical incidents that facilitate or hinder the process of differentiation.THE PROGRAMThe act of parenting defies description; it is an art rather than ascience. Yet clinicians are often called upon to 'evaluate, enhance,improve and teach parenting as if it were a well defined set ofbehaviours, reducible to prescribed techniques.(Eldridge & Schmidt, 1990, p. 339)As early as 1971, Haley pointed out that, "the focus of family treatment39was no longer on changing the individual's perception, his affect or hisbehaviour, but on changing the structure of the family and in particular thesequences of behaviour among groups of intimates" (p. 4). However, 20 yearslater, parent education programs still do not reflect this posture. For the mostpart, in attempting to diminish or prevent parent-child problems, the focus inthese programs is primarily the presentation of techniques designed to change thechild (Kearney, 1986; Hinde,R. & Stevenson-Hinde, J., 1988). Recognizing thatthese techniques are born out of well established theories, their importance mustnot be downplayed nor should the techniques be discarded, however, techniquesignore the etiology of problem or symptom development and therefore areinherently limited. Structuring a parenting course around Bowen's FamilySystems Theory may decrease this limitation because "Differentiation is a productof a way of thinking that translates into a way of being; it is not a therapeutictechnique" (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 108).This "way of being" simply refers to being able to remain emotionallynonreactive during interactions which involve emotionally significant issues. Thisis accomplished first by gaining knowledge about emotional systems, and then byplaying a dual role; an observer and an active participant in interactions. Farley(1990) states the importance of becoming an observer:The family's ability to observe may be the best prognostic40indicator of success or failure in family treatment. Observing isvital to the ability to accurately communicate between people. Ifa family does not have the ability to observe they must be taughtbefore any lasting changes can be made. In order to observe themembers must have the ability to remain emotionally detached orneutral in relationship to emotionally significant interactions. Beingemotionally detached means to be able to respond to one's owninternal felt emotions without allowing them to dominate one'sintellect. (p . 92)By remaining emotionally detached a participant can make choices based onintellectual reasoning as opposed to automatic emotional reactivity, "it involvesfollowing a sequence of events, communicating about the sequence, andmodifying the interaction as needed" (Farley, 1990, p. 94).Kearney (1986) also supports Bowen's theoretical position by stating thatit is a way of thinking, rather than a method of working, "When one understandshow a system operates, one is free to choose a particular method of intervention".Further, he adds that, "when it is recognized that it is a new orientation to thehuman dilemma, it is clear that any number of methods might be taught and used"(p. 248). The following is a brief outline of the goals of the Parenting With aPurpose program and how the concepts of Family Systems Theory are integratedwith techniques and methods currently employed by the various programsmentioned earlier.PARENTING WITH A PURPOSE: THE DII414ERENTIATION OF SELF'i The intent of this section is to give a brief summary, of the assumptions and goals of theprogram given to the participants of this study. It is not within the scope of this research toevaluate this program. Rather, this section is included strictly for the interest of the reader. Fora more complete overview, the eight-week format appears in the appendix.41The Parenting With a Purpose program was designed by the author of thisthesis and had been conducted twice prior to the study. The information,techniques, and experiential exercises presented are structured around a modelcalled the "Parent-child Interaction Roadmap". Models are useful in that theyallow "concepts from one domain to be applied to another with the expectationthat understanding of the second will be increased" (Davidson, & Neale, 1986,p. 28). The roadmap is intended to place theory into a visual context so thatmeaning and order can be applied to experiences helping the parents becomeproactive rather than reactive. In this way, they enhance their ability toconsciously choose how they will act rather than unconsciously react withautomatic, habitual patterns.The program's title Parenting With a Purpose implies that differentiationis the purpose in parenting. In reviewing the literature, it appears that mostresearchers are in agreement as to what the parent role is in raising children.Bowlby (1973) says that lack of a solid attachment relationship in infancy andchildhood generates a powerful sense of loss and anger which creates people whoare unable to establish deep and lasting relationships in later life. On the otherhand, Deri (1981) suggests that the 'acting-out' person is one who has notachieved any separation from those attachment figures. She states that languageprovide symbolic structures which can be used to make meaning out of our life.However, true understanding of self is only possible when we can understand ourexperiences as being separate from those of others. In other words, achievingseparation is not only the basis of self-awareness, but it also allows others toexist, separate from self. Prior to attaining separation, language remains at a levelof signs which "announce the object and evoke rigidly preformed, immediatereactions, similar to the sign of the bell and the salivating dog" (p. 181). Putting42these two together, the paradox is that prerequisite for achieving separation fromattachment figures, is achievement of a secure attachment to them.Parallel to the role of the parent, is the role of the family in contributingto the healthy development of the child. Freeman (1992) suggests that two majordevelopmental goals of the family are to maintain and foster commitments to thefamily as a whole while helping its individual members be competent andindependent. Finally, Carter & McGoldrick (1988) state that the family must beable to help its members achieve their individual needs, that is, their needs forbelonging, and for autonomy, while at the same time satisfy and respondeffectively to the expectations of the community. In compiling these ideas then,the three major goals of parenting within a family context seems to be inproviding each individual member with:1. A sense of belonging with attachment figuresA sense of worth and meaning in the belonging relationshipA sense that the family is worthwhile place to be, i.e.,commitment2. An acceptance of individual differenceThe encouragement to separateThe support for independence & autonomy3. Social competenceBowen's concept of differentiation of self, denotes the ability and degree to whichindividual family members will be able to attain these three objectives.THE MODELThe model concretely places the three objectives of parenting into a43"Parent-Child Interaction Roadmap". It makes the assumption, arising out ofFamily Systems Theory, that problems are created or activated when there is ashift in the balance between the force for Togetherness and for Separateness(Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Freeman, 1992; Gilbert, 1992). As a resultof the anxiety generated by this imbalance, people typically respond in automaticpatterns in an attempt to re-establish the original balance, i.e., to draw the personcreating the imbalance to their original posture. Guided by the Togethernessforce, the goal of these automatic patterns is to eliminate the anxiety. Driven bythe pressure for togetherness, they work against the possibility for difference. Inother words, the system acts to lower the immediate anxiety in the system bydemanding sameness rather than promoting the understanding of difference.Returning to the original balance in this way lowers the immediate anxietyin the system, however, in the long run it contributes to the family's level ofchronic anxiety. Increasing the family's chronic anxiety makes the family morerigid in their thinking, and less adaptable to future shifts in the balance betweenthe two forces. This process forms the etiology of symptom or problemdevelopment (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Freeman, 1992).Unfortunately, Bowen stepped outside of his theory by pointing the fingerat the Togetherness force in terms of symptom development. By blaming theTogetherness force for the creation of problems, he failed to maintain a systemic44view. The Togetherness force and the Separateness force are forces in relation toeach other. As a result, they both have a part to play in the development andmaintenance of symptoms. When situated in a true systemic context, it is possibleto acknowledge that there is both an unhealthy and a healthy response to the forcefor Togetherness just like there is an unhealthy and a healthy response to theforce for Separateness. The healthy response to the Togetherness force isunconditional love and acceptance in achieving a sense of oneness with another.The unhealthy response is fear of difference motivating a need for sameness.While the first is based upon secure attachment, the latter is motivated byinsecure attachment. Similarly, the healthy response to the force for Separatenessis sensitivity and courage to stay in emotional connection while striving for moreautonomy, whereas the unhealthy response is insensitivity and emotional cut-off.Stating it simply, healthy responses to the dynamic interplay between the twoforces are based upon principles of understanding, patience, encouragement andsupport, while unhealthy responses are devoid of principled behaviour. ParentingWith A Purpose places the Togetherness force and the Separateness force withina systemic perspective. Without honouring the importance of each, it is highlyunlikely that any change in differentiation would occur.The Parent-Child Interaction Roadmap (see p. 44) has two components.First, it situates all interactions as operating on three levels. It then suggests thatParent-Child Inter. i • ; • . • • .• pDIFFERENTIATIONOF ^SELF I-- ^0 SOCIAL COMPETENCEPROBLEM-SOLVINGDISCIPLINELUh-^CONDITIONAL LOVEza*,44 14:EPARATENESS I^40;1 COMMUNICATION SKILLSEMPATHY z TOGETHERNESS ^— UNCONDITIONAL LOVE & ACCEPTANCE0 Es.** CLOSENESS & CONNECTEDNESS 2^CHORES 45differentiation can be increased ifthese interactions proceed in a step-like movement, first recognizing theinfluence that the need forTogetherness plays, then the need forSeparateness and finally, the need forSocial Competence. By following theroadmap, parents have a concreteapproach to slow the interactionalpattern so that it can be observed andacted upon consciously. In this way, anxiety control becomes a cooperative familyventure which recognizes each individual's struggle, how the struggle influencesthe family, and the influence the family has on the individual. Based onprinciples, following the roadmap helps to minimize reactivity becauseinteractions are based on facilitating understanding, and acceptance of difference,so that the child can be supported and encouraged in his/her struggle of makingsense out of the world and in coping with it. In this model, a the individual'sstruggle to make sense out of life and to cope with it, is not seen as a threat tothe family structure. Rather, each person is seen as being different and byhonouring that uniqueness as a strength the family can work as a team to explore46and encourage it. In doing this, the family can tap into the creative potential thatallows a family to remain flexible, preventing maladjustment and assisting crisismanagement.The second component of the roadmap, is the separation of intellectualfunctioning from emotional functioning and the linking of these two to the threelevels. In this way, parents can easily monitor the influence of affect on familyinteractions. Social Competence is enhanced by intellectual functioning andimpeded by emotional functioning, while Togetherness is enhanced by emotions,feelings of love and self-worth and impeded by rational thinking. For example,problem-solving when the intellect is being emotionally driven, most often resultsin solutions that are more geared towards lowering or eliminating the anxietybeing felt, than actually solving the problem. Similarly, whenever intellectinterferes at the togetherness level, feelings of attachment and love often becomeconditional.By visually separating intellectual functioning from emotional functioning,two aspects for healthy relationship interactions are opened up. First, bymonitoring the emotions within an interaction, the parent knows at what level s/heshould be operating at. Secondly, if a parent is operating at a level that isinconsistent with the observed emotions, the roadmap gives the him/her thepermission to return to an earlier level or to go forward to the next level. For47example, if an individual observes that s/he is becoming emotional or that theother person is becoming emotional while attempting to resolve a problem, it isa sign that they need to address these emotions by returning to the Separatenesslevel. In other words, they need to once again use the communication skills ofimmediacy and empathy to explore the experience that emotional one is having.Validating a person's experience serves to bring emotions down to a level atwhich intellectual functioning can once again return. At this point, because theintellect is once again in control, they could proceed to problem-solving.The aspect of permission is extremely important. It is my belief that manyof today's parents still subscribe to the myth of the traditional family, that theyshould innately know all the answers to all the dilemmas that arise in raisingchildren, and furthermore, that they should have these answers on the tips of theirtongues. In subscribing to this myth, if parents don't, know the answersimmediately, then feelings of doubt and inadequacy can begin to surface. Thismyth can create faulty interactions because to cover up for not being all knowing,parents often act impulsively. When this occurs, parents act in what appears tobe efficient ways. However, in dealing with people efficiency is really only goodfor crisis management. For prevention, effectiveness is more important (Covey,1989). In other words, in feeling the pressure to be all knowing, parents oftenenter interactions at the Social Competence level and for efficiency, attempt to48resolve problems unilaterally rather than cooperatively.Effective prevention seems to take time and not having taken the time torecognize the influence of the other two levels on the problem, the parent usuallymakes decisions from a position of ignorance, and insensitivity. The hurt, anger,or resentment that results is added to the family's emotional system, creating anincreasing probability that the same problem will recur time and time again.Viewed in this way, effective prevention is paradoxically far more efficient. Bybeginning each interaction at the Togetherness level, rather than at the SocialCompetence level the possibility dramatically increases that problem resolutionwill be a cooperative venture which draws on the uniqueness of each personconcerned. In this way, current problems actually become creative learningopportunities that can serve in the prevention of future problems.THE TASKS AT EACH LEVELInherent in each level of the model are specific tasks that need to beaccomplished before moving to the next level. The task at the Togetherness levelis to experience and demonstrate the emotions of caring, love and unconditionalacceptance. This is done primarily through conveying warmth through closenessand touch. The roadmap encourages the parent to prioritize. Given the importance49of secure attachments, it is suggested that the first step in any interaction, and inparticular interactions around significant emotional issues, is to reaffirm thatattachment. By prioritizing, the parent can keep in mind that dealing with theanxiety provoking situation is the final objective of the interaction, not theinitial objective'. Delayed gratification is not only an important concept forchildren to learn, it is also an extremely important concept for parents to practice.The information presented at the Togetherness level, as with each level,comes from a variety of sources. Bowen's concepts of togetherness, and thefamily emotional system guides the presentation creating the dichotomy betweenhealthy togetherness and dysfunctional togetherness. Compatible with Bowen'stheory, dysfunctional togetherness occurs when one ego thinks, feels and acts foranother, eliminating distinctions between self and other. Functional togethernessoccurs when the distinction between self and other is eliminated due to individualchoice. Dysfunctional togetherness, on the other hand, is based upon the desirefor security through sameness, whereas functional togetherness is based upon a2 It is interesting that in dealing with parents of acting out children, that the parents do notmake the connection between the child's acting out and the parent's reaction. In most cases, theparent, in attempting to resolve the problems created, becomes emotional. As stated previously,emotionally directed problem-solving usually ends up with impulsive solutions. In other words,the parent deals with the impulsive behaviour of the child, using impulsive behaviour. Whenasked which child causes the parent to regress to child like behaviour (impulsive), the answeris always the acting out child. As a result, the parent becomes the model for the child, who thenacts like the parent, who then reacts and continues to model the very behaviour s/he wishes toeliminate.50desire for security through oneness. The first implies that we can only be secureif we are the same, while the second implies that we are secure through thefeeling that we are connected even though we are different.Attachment theory also contributes to this level. According to this theory,consistent availability of parental love and affection for the child, creates alifelong confidence in his/her inner feelings of worth and meaning. When thisoccurs the child, feeling secure in his/her attachments, develops a naturalcuriosity about the world and seeks to autonomously challenge it. On the otherhand, if attachment figures are not consistently available the child becomesfocused on obtaining love and affection. In doing so, the child is always in a stateof emotional fusion to attachment figures. When this happens the child acts inreaction to significant others, rather than in a self-directed way and as a result cannot separate and become autonomous. Paradoxically, in order to truly becomeautonomous and separate in relation to significant others, one has to becomesecurely attached to them.At this level, techniques and strategies to increase a sense of worth andmeaning in the family are presented. These are the effective use of proximity,touch and chores. A sense of security does not come from a verbal statement orverbal commitment, rather it comes from the implications of the attachmentfigures behaviour. Children sense that they are secure when the parents behaviour51indicates that they are important. Taking the time to get close to the child, and/orto touch the child when communicating, or when reconnecting after being away,for example, gives the child the sense that s/he is important enough in therelationship for the parent to give up their time to get close. Similarly, chores areanother important aspect of Togetherness. When handled properly, that is,respecting difference, they give the child the chance to invest in the family. Theimplication with investment is that what you invest in is important. Furthermore,by investing the child becomes important. Chores thus give the child the sensethat the family is a meaningful and worthwhile place to be, and that s/he isworthwhile and meaningful because of his/her contribution.The task of the Separateness level is to give symbolic expression to one'sexperience of themselves, and of themselves in relation to others. Being able tohonestly and safely express one's thoughts and feelings through languageminimizes the expression of them through reactive behaviour, minimizes the needfor activating defense mechanisms, and provides an alternative to impulsivebehaviour. Providing this type of environment requires that in parent-childrelationships, as in all relationships, the parent has to master the task of effectivecommunication skills. The two main tasks are to learn how to listen and how tospeak. Listening means helping the other person further their understanding oftheir experience, i.e., the connection between their thoughts, feelings and actions,52while speaking means to express one's own experience from an "I"-position.The listener, by using empathy is in the influential position of helping thespeaker become more self-aware and make productive meaning out of theirexperience. The paradox, however, is that in opening oneself up to listening, oneis also opening oneself up to being influenced. This can frighten a parent becausein listening, one realizes how different an other experiences life. This isfrightening because it opposes sameness. Typically, parents listen to their childrenonly long enough to lecture, scold, give advice or analyze them.Speaking is also a difficult skill for parents to master. Most parents aresteeped in the tradition of finding fault and ascribing blame. Intuitively, it seemsto make sense that if one can do this, then problem resolution is simply a matterof having the person at fault take the responsibility to resolve it. As a result,parents usually speak from a "You" position, rather than an "I" position. Againthis is frightening because in speaking about self to another person, one isopening up to being influenced by that other person. As well, when one speaksfrom an "I" position, the implication is one is taking responsibility for theirthoughts, feelings and actions.Self awareness and self-other understanding increases the acceptance ofdifference. Through validation emotions are diffused, preventing the necessity forthe emotional system to vie for domination of the intellectual system.53Furthermore, self awareness and validation creates a desire to take responsibilityfor the interactional patterns one engages in (Deri, 1981). Bowen's (1988)concepts of projection, triangling, and sibling position as well as informationabout roles and scapegoating are topics that relate to this level.Effective communication leads relationships to cooperative, creative andintellectual problem-solving which is the task at the Social Competence level.Social Competence is facilitated by the ability to make wise, self-determined, self-responsible decisions. Becoming more self-responsible entails two aspects. First,being more self-responsible means to be responsible for one's thoughts, feeling,and behaviours, as well as for the consequences of the interplay between thesethree. Second, being more self-responsible means to not engage, promote orinvolve oneself in the irresponsibility of others. In other words, being self-responsible means to allow others to be responsible for their own thoughts,feelings and behaviours, and the consequences of their interplay.This level is primarily concerned with embellishing, and teaching problem-solving skills. The goal at this level is three fold. First, as the child ages,discipline is slowly transferred from a parent-directed stance to a child-directedstance. The process of helping the child develop "self-discipline" is based uponan acceptance of difference by the parent which is directed at encouraging eachchild's strengths and helping him/her compensate for his/her weaknesses.54Mistakes are seen as learning opportunities rather than signs of deficits or failureand part of the problem-solving process is to find strength in the mistakenbehaviour, to acknowledge the strength, and build on it towards a moreproductive outcome.Similarly, problem-solving goes from primarily a parent directed activityto a child directed activity, wherein part of taking responsibility is for a problemis generating how to solve it. In this way the child's social competence ispromoted by learning to take responsibility for problems created, and at the sametime learning, that s/he can handle them. If the child does not experience thesetwo simultaneously, social competence is thwarted and the child's anxiety overmaking mistakes overwhelms his/her ability to generate solutions.The Social Competence level is also the level where conditional love isplaced. Conditional love is vastly different from unconditional love, while at thesame time extremely important (Fromm, 1956). Unconditional love is love for thechild simply because s/he exists. This type of love represents the powerfulemotions of acceptance, concern and caring. It is the type of love that allowsboundaries to be fused in a healthy, productive state of oneness. This state, asmentioned earlier, satiates the child's need for security and frees him/her toseparate from the attachment figures. Through separation, the child seekschallenge through activities of Social Competence. These activities are promoted55by conditional love.Conditional love is love that is earned, and because it can be earned, itbecomes a powerful motivator. It is also an intellectual exercise because givingit is based upon choice; I give it to you if you meet my expectations, and Iwithhold it if you don't. The child who is increasingly invited to engage inproblem-solving, becomes increasingly committed to the solution. In fulfilling thiscommitment, s/he has an opportunity to meet parental expectations and receiveconditional love. As the child gets older, the process is one in which s/he notonly increasingly begins to meet self-expectations, but also increasinglyinternalizes the parent's conditional love and the child is able to conditionally lovehim/herself.SEPARATION AND INTERPLAY OFINTELLECTUAL AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONINGThe model, having three levels, allows for situating the emotional andintellectual systems in their appropriate task oriented levels. At the Togethernesslevel there is a recognition of a force or need for human beings to achieve fusionwith a significant other. This occurs through a healthy fusion of boundaries basedupon unconditional love and acceptance and relies upon the emotional system, thatis, a feeling state that goes beyond rationality. Fusion at this level, because it56reaffirms attachment and meaning, is positive, and productive. It is based uponthe ability to attain a feeling of oneness with another and still retain a sense ofpersonal integrity.At the other end of the roadmap, Social Competence, requires intellectualactivities. Social Competence grows out of teaching and learning (discipline), andwise decision-making. Success at these tasks requires functioning of theintellectual system unimpeded by emotions'. When emotional functioning controlsintellectual functioning at this level, continuing to work at this level inevitablyresults in low quality decisions. An accumulation of poor decisions createsoutcomes which undermine attaining social competence. Feelings of shame, guilt,doubt, inadequacy, etc. create situations in which decisions are increasingly madeto lower the anxiety produced by these feelings, rather than on attaining growthproducing goals.The Separateness level, combines both systems, with the intellect beingemployed to explore, express and validate the emotional system. Through thepractice of effective communication, understanding and acceptance of differencecan be promoted. Seeking to understand and to be understood begins the processThis does not imply that decisions do not involve sensitivity. Good decisions are basedupon following the roadmap so that emotions are acknowledged and validated throughunderstanding, prior to proceeding to the problem-solving level. In this way, good decisionsinvolve consideration for all parties concerned so that creative, workable solutions are found.57of opening oneself up to being influenced. Rather than getting entrenched inopposing positions, control is given up as an impediment to growth so thatcreativity and flexibility can prevail.In giving parents a concrete and visual guide that separates the intellectualsystem from the emotional system parents have more of an opportunity to riseabove the chaos that family interactions often appear to create. Having a workingguide through which to organize their experiences, they can become activeobservers and participants towards achieving a greater degree of differentiationof self by appropriate management of the two systems rather than having the twosystems manage them.OBJECTIVES OF THE PARENTING WITH A PURPOSE PROGRAM: 1. To present six of the eight concepts of Bowen's theory, namelydifferentiation of self, family emotional system, familyprojection process, triangles, sibling position and emotionalcutoff.2. To reframe the problem from an individual concern to a familyaffair, i.e., from an individual perspective to a systemsperspective.3. To improve the ability to deal with and accept differences byincreasing awareness of the role anxiety has on an individual'sability to adapt and communications skills.4. Develop an observational stance so emphasis in interaction canbe placed on process rather than on content.585. To shift perspective of discipline from an strategy employed toexact retribution to a philosophy of teaching/learning.6. To increase problem-solving the families abilities.7. To improve family solidarity, individual autonomy and socialcompetence, by helping family to recognize its own expertise inhandling family conflicts, problems, and coping strategies.CONCLUSIONParents today are in transition from a social system in which the authorityof the adult was accepted and all roles in the family were clearly defined, to asocial system based upon individual respect where the roles each member of afamily can assume are varied and many. As a result, parenting has become amajor challenge. Old methods of raising children, that is, those methods that theparent was raised by, are no longer effective and in many cases, unacceptable.In this review, I have presented information on current parenting programs whichhas shown that the research on family life, in particular Bowen's research, hasnot as yet been incorporated in these programs. Also included, has been anoverview of the philosophy and assumptions of a program which was developedto include Bowen's research.The information put forth by Family Systems Theory, explains theuniversal processes by which family life operates. In a society evolving toward59respect for the individual, respect for individual differences are imperative.Understanding the concepts described by Bowen may facilitate respect forindividual differences by helping one to attain a greater level of differentiation ofself. As of yet, no research has been conducted to examine just how the processof raising one's level of differentiation of self takes place in the nuclear family.The focus of this study is to provide critical incidents which hinder and facilitatethe process of differentiation of self in the nuclear family so that we may betterunderstand how this process can be enhanced.60CHAPTER THREEMETHODINTRODUCTIONThis study is designed to explore the process of differentiation of parentswithin their family of procreation; more specifically, the question is what typesof critical incidents hinder and facilitate this process? The critical incidentstechnique, a qualitative method developed by Flanagan (1954), has been employedfor this purpose. The critical incidents technique permits objective observationaldata, pertaining to significant and systematically defined criteria, to be collected.The technique is suitable for a study of this type as the data is drawn from self-reports by the participants in their experience of the research question, that is,what are the thoughts, feelings and actions they experience which contribute toattaining or not attaining a felt sense of being differentiated. The purpose of thischapter is to present information pertaining to the population and sample, as wellas to the flexibility and usefulness of the critical incidents technique, theprinciples guiding the reporting of incidents, and finally the categorizing, andanalysis of the data extracted.61POPULATIONThe participants were drawn from a pool of referrals, by the workers invarious agencies within the area, as well as by local family physicians, toChilliwack Mental Health. These agencies included Chilliwack Mental Health, theChilliwack School District, and the Ministry of Social Services and Housing-Chilliwack Office. The referring workers were professionals in the field ofcounselling, social work or childcare. In all cases, the referrals were observed ashaving a disrupted family environment visibly manifested by "acting-out"children. The participants were the parents of these children.Drawing the participants from a narrow population that has been explicitlydefined, fits well with the purposes of this study. Bowen (1978) stated thatdifferentiating moves, that is, thinking and acting in ways that serve to increaseone's level of differentiation of self in the family can only occur during times ofincreased anxiety resulting from emotional issues about which to relate. All thefamilies in this population were assessed by the referring professional to be in aperiod of acute emotional reactivity due to the nature of their parent-childrelationship and/or due to the problems the child was having in other areas ofhis/her life, eg. school life, peer relationships, community life etc.Originally, Chilliwack Mental Health ran the Parenting With A Purpose'program (Dionne, 1991), to serve as an early intervention, caseload managementprocedure. The objective was to funnel appropriate referrals into a parentingeducation/training course to increase parent knowledge and skills. The hypothesismade was that exposure to current effective parenting philosophies and techniques' The program and model developed by Dionne (1991) is based upon the concepts ofBowen's Family Systems Theory. The purpose of parenting according to this program is thedifferentiation of self.62would increase parent competence, thereby decreasing the need for more intensivetherapeutic family interventions. If the hypothesis was correct, then aftercompleting the course a significant number of parents would not request furtherprofessional helpIn a preliminary study, conducted by Dionne (1991), the results werepromising. The 15 parents who attended the initial program were asked fourquestions pre and post session about their theory of change in regard to theirdisrupted family situation:1. Child ChangeChange might occur if the child became more mature,cooperative, responsible; less argumentative, negative,angry.2. Parent ChangeChange might occur if the parent spent more time withthe child, was more consistent in setting limits, had morepatience and understanding, was more reliable.3. Professional HelpChange might occur with medical advice, counselling toresolve adult and marital conflicts, learning bettercommunication skills, learning better parenting skills.4. Change is impossibleTried everything and nothing works and nothing is likelyto work. (p. 38)The results supported the hypothesis. Of the nine parents who initiallyreported that change was dependent solely on the child changing, only one stillheld that view at the end, while the number of parents who felt that they couldmake the necessary changes in the family by changing the way they responded63rose from an initial 10 at pre-session to 15 at post-session. In terms of having thefelt sense that more intensive, individual, marital or family counselling wasneeded, at pre-session 10 parents responded while the number dropped to 1 atpost-session. At pre-session, only one parent felt that the situation was hopeless,while at post-session this dropped to 0.The results of this study showed that the participants of the Parenting WithA Purpose workshop reported having benefitted positively. Dionne (1991)concluded that it was an effective primary intervention for creating andmaintaining family health and appeared to be an efficient method of relieving theincreasing demand on the Mental Health Counselling team. However, the studydid not examine the incidents which contributed to this positive change.SAMPLEOriginally eight couples were selected from the pool of referrals toChilliwack Mental Health. The individuals ranged in age from 27 to 48 andranged from low to middle income. One couple was First Nations, one couplewas French Canadian, while the other six were white anglo-saxon. All individualsspoke fluent english and were literate. As well, all couples fit the followingcriteria:1. Participants were currently involved in parenting children642. Participants recognized and agreed that they had a child whowas experiencing behaviourial problems at home and atschool.3. Participants had a desire to seek professional help in dealingwith the problem.4. Both members of the spousal dyad were willing to commit toattending eight, three hour workshop sessions, including apre, mid and post-workshop interview. The pre-workshopinterview served to outline the study, the workshop contentand to assess suitability of the couple, and did not contributeto the collection of data. The mid and post-workshopinterviews served as a data collection method.5. Participants had the cognitive skills required for completingthe daily log.One couple attended only two sessions, prior to leaving the study forpersonal reasons. The data are therefore based upon the seven remaining couples.THE CRITICAL INCIDENTS TECHNIQUEAlthough Flanagan (1954) can trace the roots of this qualitative methodback to Sir Francis Galton in the later part of the last century, he wasinstrumental in the development and refinement of the critical incidents techniqueduring the second world war. In 1941, as part of the Aviation PsychologyProgram (APP) he was asked to select and classify recruits for aircrew positions.Flanagan states that the method first employed suggested several improvementswere needed in order to help it reach its potential. As a consequence, it wasrefined over the course of several studies.65The original study by APP was carried out to analyze the specific reasonsthat 1,000 candidates, who were selected to learn to fly, had to be eliminatedfrom the flight training schools program for their failure to learn to fly. Incollecting incidents pertaining to this question from two sources, the pilotinstructors and the check pilots, it was noted that the information gathered waslimited in its usefulness because of the subjective nature of the responses. Muchof the data was in the form of cliches and stereotypic observations rather thanobjective facts. Flanagan (1954), states that this study, "indicated very clearly theneed for better procedures for obtaining a representative sample of factualincidents" (p. 328). A representative sample meant that it was not enough to focuson only one half of the question, the negative half. What was needed in order toincrease the usefulness of the technique was a focus on both the behaviours thatled to the success of the task, as well as those that led to the task beingunsuccessfully completed, "the procedure was to obtain first-hand reports, orreports from objective records, of satisfactory and unsatisfactory execution of thetask assigned" (p. 329). Only by comparison of the two was the data seen asbeing complete.Flanagan (1954) states that the "principle objective in the critical incidenttechnique is the determination of the critical requirements which are demonstratedas making a difference between success and failure in carrying out specific66functions" (p. 333). Furthermore he states that the critical incidents technique isbased on a "flexible set of principles which can be modified and adapted to meetthe specific situations of a study" (p. 335). The first principle is to clearly definethe activity to be explored in terms of a functional description so that the reporterknows what he is expected to focus on. Second, the reporter must focus only onbehaviourial descriptions that will result in defining what is necessary to do or notto do if participation in the activity is to be successful or effective. Third, becausethe data will invariably come from memory, the reporter should be recording itas near to the time of the incident as possible. Fourth, in analyzing the data,because category formulation is subjective, the categories must reflect usefulness,be self-explanatory and cover all the incidents having significant frequencies.When these four principles are followed, Flanagan states that "the critical incidenttechnique, rather than collecting opinions, hunches and estimates, obtains a recordof specific behaviours from those in the best position to make the necessaryobservations and evaluations... making it possible to formulate the criticalrequirements of an activity" (p. 355). As a result, the technique has had widespread use (Wickert, Gordon, Folley, Eilbert, as cited in Flanagan, 1954;Flanagan, 1978; Boychuck, 1982; Cochran, 1985; Amundson and Borgen, 1987;Young, 1991).In terms of reliability and validity of this qualitative method, Anderson67and Nilsson (1964) reported, in their study of job training requirements of storemanagers, that "it would appear justifiable to conclude that the informationcollected by this method is both reliable and valid" (p. 402). They found thatanalysis of the data showed the technique resulted in comprehensive and stablecategories as well as good inter-rater reliability. In their study, the data collectedwas not significantly influenced by the method of collection, nor by havingdifferent interviewers recording them. They also found that the categories heldup to the incidents being resorted into the established categories by independentsorters.DATA COLLECTIONThe data consisted of critical incidents observed by the participant whichwere seen as facilitating or hindering the process of differentiation of self.Flanagan (1954) describes an incident as "any observable human activity that issufficiently complete in itself to permit inferences and predictions to be madeabout the person performing the act" (p. 327). In order for the incident to becritical "the incident must occur in a situation where the purpose or intent of theact seems fairly clear to the observer, and where its consequences are sufficientlydefinite to leave little doubt concerning its effects" (p. 327). The critical incidentswere reported using two methods; a daily log, and a mid and post-workshop interviews.68Daily logMost of the data resulted from the daily logs. The participants were askedto answer the question:What events and/or experiences have you had during theworkshop sessions, and between the workshop sessions, whicheither hindered or facilitated your ability to differentiate?The participants were asked to take time each day to record 1-3 incidentson 3" by 5" index cards. To help organize the participants in this task, they weregiven instructions to record facilitating incidents on white cards and hinderingincidents on yellow cards. As well, they were given a format to guide the writingof their responses. This format consisted of breaking the reporting of the incidentinto five aspects:1. Describe the event;What happened?Who did what to whom?2. What was said;Who said what to whom?3. What were your thoughts?4. What were your feelings?5. Identify specifically:What makes this event facilitating or hindering?By structuring the reporting of the incidents in this manner, it wasintended that objectivity would remain high and that it would encourage69consistent, systematic, formulated answers to the critical incident question foreach respondent and across respondents. Flanagan (1954) points out that with outspecific questions to guide the reporting, answers may not "provide relativelyobjective and factual information...nor...provide a complete record of theimportant events" (p. 328).Moreover, by guiding the reporting of incidents in this manner, the study'sworking definition of differentiation of self was also incorporated:DifferentiationI have my own thoughts, feelings and actions and you have yourown thoughts, feelings and actions.I recognize which thoughts, feelings and actions are mine andwhich thoughts, feelings and actions are yours.I am responsible for my thoughts, feelings and actions and theconsequences of them and you are responsible for yours.Questions number 1 & 2 are intended to elicit factual informationconcerning observable verbal and non-verbal actions, while questions number 3& 4 elicit objective data about thoughts and feelings respectively. Questionnumber four asks the reporter to make a subjective evaluation about whether theincident was hindering or facilitating. In this way, the evaluation as to whetherthe incident was hindering or facilitating is situated in reported objective70observations pertaining to the process. Flanagan (1954) suggested that it wasextremely important that the reporters know just what it is that they are reportingon, and that researchers could enhance that understanding by relating thequestions asked to the general aim of the study. In this case, the format servedto help the respondents 'remember' and report the incidents as they related to theconstructs of the differentiating process.Mid & Post -Workshop InterviewsThe purpose of the interviews were three-fold First, to elicit furtherinformation about incidents reported in the daily logs on which the researcherneeded clarification. Second, to explore other incidents in the participant's lifethat could be classified as hindering or facilitating, that had not been reported inthe daily log. Third, to comment on any incident observed during the actualworkshop by the author of the study concerning the participant, which may havebeen an unreported critical incident.Another purpose of the interview, unrelated to data collection, was toallow each individual participant to clarify for themselves, any aspect of theworkshop sessions. This fell into two main categories. Most participants had somequestions regarding various aspects of the information presented which needed tobe addressed in order for them to process it and make meaning out of it.71Secondly, many of the participants had questions concerning the process ofdifferentiation and the behaviourial and emotional response that often resultedfrom making differentiating moves. Bowen (1978) states that, "any small steptoward differentiation will be automatically accompanied by a small emotionalupheaval in the family system. This is so predictable that absence of an emotionalreaction is good evidence that the differentiating effort was not successful" (p.495). Having an opportunity on a one to one basis to normalize this response asbeing predictable, seemed to reassure those participants who were concerned.LettersFollowing each session, the researcher wrote a letter to the participants(see Appendix D). This letter was intended to serve three purposes. First, becauseof the nature of the workshop, they were intended to facilitate the participant'ssense of inclusion in the workshop and in the research. Second, it was theauthor's hope that the letter would help the participants continue the workshopexperience between sessions. Third, it was hoped that in receiving a letterbetween sessions would encourage the participants to complete the daily logs.DATA ANALYSIS Flanagan (1954) states:The purpose of the data analysis stage is to summarize and72describe the data in an efficient manner so that it can be effectivelyused for many practical purposes. The aim is to increase theusefulness of the data while sacrificing as little as possible of theircomprehensiveness, specificity and validity. (p. 340)As indicated, the critical incidents technique classifies the data undercategories which are believed to be the most valuable in stating the behaviourialrequirements for success or failure of what is being studied. The first step in thetechnique's systematic data analysis procedure, is to establish the frame ofreference for category formulation. This is guided by such questions as, 'Whatuses are to be made of the data?', and 'Who will most likely be using it?'. Forthis study it was the author's goal that the categories would be useful fortherapists using Bowen's Family Systems Theory with families and in particularfor those therapists/researchers whose goal it may be to develop parenteducation/training programs that incorporate Family Systems' concepts.Thus, the frame of reference serves to guide the definitive phrasing of eachcategory and sub-category so that both ease and accuracy of use can be balanced.This is what Flanagan referred to is the issue of specificity vs generality. Simplyput, this means creating a useful and workable balance between the advantagesof more categories which are more specific or definitive in nature, versus thesimplicity of fewer, more general categories.After establishing the frame of reference the next step is to go through the73actual process of sorting and categorizing the incidents. This involvesdifferentiating between incidents, creating appropriate categories and sub-categories, and finally, labelling them with headings which will be self-explanatory. The sorting process is an inductive process, and being subjective,the usefulness of the categories depends upon what Flanagan (1954) calls "theskill and the sophistication of the formulator" (p. 344). In any case, the sortingprocedure involves sorting and grouping the incidents so that general or maincategories can be discriminated. The process is then repeated for each categoryuntil further discrimination results in the creation of sub-categories. The processis one of defining and redefining until the category system is comprehensive, thatis, until all the incidents having significant frequencies are included, and until itmeets the criteria established by the frame of reference for the study. Once thecategory system is defined its reliability and validity can be determined.ReliabilityTo ensure the reliability of the category system presented in chapter 4, twomethods were used:1. Exhaustiveness of the Category System 20% of the incidents were randomly removed prior to thesorting and establishing of the categories. To assess whether thecategories were indeed comprehensive these were then sorted. Theassumptions made were that if the removed cards can be sortedinto the established categories then the system is thought to be74comprehensive, if however new categories need to be created to fitthese cards, then the system is not seen as being exhaustive of therequirements needed to differentiate a self. In the latter case, theneed for further research would be indicated before the categorysystem could be seen as being useful.2. Independent RaterAn independent rater was trained as to the use of thecategory system and given 50 randomly selected incidents to sortinto the existing categories. The categories would be deemed to bereliable if the rater had at least 80% agreement.ValidityTo ensure validity of the category system, three methods were used:1. Opposition of Incidents Category validity is seen to be supported by the ability tocreate categories for hindering and facilitating incidents which arein direct contrast to one another.2. Participation Rate in the Category System It is assumed that 75 % participation rate in each categoryrepresents support for its general validity.CONCLUSIONThis chapter was intended to outline information pertaining to themethodology used in this study. Information was given regarding population,sample, and the critical incidents technique including data collection, andanalysis. Also given, were methods used to establish the reliability and validity75of the categories developed. The next chapter will be concerned with the resultsof the study and the information will be situated within the context of the categorysystem that has been developed.76CHAPTER FOURRESULTSThis chapter presents the results of the data analysis, that is, the categoriesinduced from the critical incidents reported by the study's participants. As statedin chapter 3, Flanagan (1954) was adamant that the category system must reflectthe purpose for which it is being created. In other words, the issue of specificityvs generality of the category system is extremely important. It is hoped that thisstudy will be useful in guiding therapists or group leaders, and the families theywork with, towards attaining greater family health through understandingrelationship dynamics leading to an increase in differentiation. For this purpose,the study has defined six categories that might serve as guides towards this goal.These six categories reflect the criteria which the participants report as beingcritical in successfully differentiating themselves from their children. Theparticipant's responses indicate that in attaining these differentiating thoughts,feelings and behaviours, the result is a sense of well-being and confidence.DATA434 facilitating and hindering incidents were collected from theparticipants through significant events journals, mid-session and post session77interviews. By reflecting on significant day to day incidents the participants wereable to objectively describe the context in which the incident took place and anawareness of the experience in terms of personal thoughts, feelings andbehaviours. As well, the participants were able to state whether each incidentfacilitated or hindered their sense of differentiation.The following is a presentation of the six categories that were developedfrom these incidents. First there is a presentation of tables giving an overview ofthe categories, the numbers and percentages of incidents comprising each, as wellas the participation rate for each. Then there is a more in depth description ofeach category, including a breakdown of each into subcategories.The presentation is the same for each category. First, the category is givena self-explanatory title. Then the number of facilitating and hindering incidentsthat comprised the category is given as well as the number of participants whorelated incidents fitting the category. This participation rate is given in numericaland percentage form (out of a total of 13 participants). Next the category isexplained in more detail by giving the range of incidents that were included.These are further delineated by being separated into those that characterizefacilitating incidents and their opposing hindering incidents. The number and theparticipation rate for each of the subcategories are included as well as a morespecific description and prototypical illustrations.78TABLE 1 CATEGORIES & FACILITATING SUBCATEGORIES1. BEING RESPONSIBLETaking responsibility for selfBeing able to state one's boundariesAllowing others to be responsible2. ACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENCEAllowing others to have & to express own thoughts/feelings, and to dothings in own wayAbility to express an opinion and stick to it in face of difference3. CONTROL OF ANXIETYMonitoring self anxietyMonitoring the anxiety of others4. AWARENESS OF TRIANGLESAbility to observe conflictual dyad without being drawn inGiving support to each member of the conflictual dyad5. AWARENESS OF SELFAwareness of strengths and weaknessesAwareness of needs and wants6. FOSTERING CONNECTIONExpectations of commitment to the familyHaving the ability to engage in mutual problem-solvingHaving the ability to engage in mutual enjoyment79TABLE 2CATEGORIES & HINDERING SUBCATEGORIES1. BEING RESPONSIBLE Inability to take responsibility for selfInability to state one's boundariesInability to allow others to be responsible2. ACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENCEInability to listen to others expressing thoughts & feelingsInability to accept the thoughts, feelings or actions of othersInability to stick to own opinion3. CONTROL OF ANXIETYInability to monitor self anxietyInability to monitor the anxiety of others4. AWARENESS OF TRIANGLES Inability to stay out of conflictual dyad interactionInability to solve a problem or conflict between self & other withouttriangling in a third person5. AWARENESS OF SELFInsecurity in relation with otherConfusion of needs and wants6. FOSTERING CONNECTIONLow expectation of commitment to the familyInability to engage in mutual problem-solvingInability to engage in mutual enjoyment80TABLE 3NUMBER OF INCIDENTS REPORTED BY PARTICIPANTSUBJECT FACILITATING TOTALHINDERINGS 1 17 9 26S2 11 10 21S3 25 11 36S4 54 9 63S 5 8 4 12S6 30 15 45S7 6 7 13S8 14 21 35S9 26 10 36S10 38 15 53S 11 5 9 14S12 9 8 18S13 16 16 32TOTAL 269 144 40381TABLE 4INCIDENTS REPORTED = 434FACILITATING + HINDERING = TOTAL PER CATEGORYBEING RESPONSIBLE ACCEPTANCE OFDili II ERENCEFacilitating 74 Facilitating 56Hindering 50 Hindering 42Total 124 Total 106CONTROL OF ANXIETY AWARENESS OF TRIANGLESFacilitating 61 Facilitating 13Hindering 7 Hindering 34Total 68 Total 47AWARENESS OF SELF FOSTERING CONNECTIONFacilitating 29 Facilitating 27Hindering 16 Hindering 17Total 45 Total 4482TABLE 5PERCENTAGE OF REPORTED INCIDENTS PER CATEGORYCATEGORY NUMBER PERCENTBeing Responsible 124 28.6%Acceptance of Difference 106 24.4%Control of Anxiety 68 15.6%Awareness of Triangles 47 10.8 %Awareness of Self 45 10.4%Fostering Connection 44 10.2%Total 434 100.0%83I BEING RESPONSIBLE:Number: 74 Facilitating + 50 Hindering = 124Participation rate: 13 or 100%Range: Inherent in being responsible are two separate aspects. The first is beingresponsible for self, while the second is not allowing oneself to engage in orsupport the irresponsibility of others. In other words, being responsible includesbehaviours which indicate a willingness to accept the consequences of one'sthoughts, feelings and behaviours, and to be able to define and state one'sboundaries. As well, it means allowing others to be responsible for theconsequences of their thoughts, feelings and behaviours. Excluded are suchbehaviours as rescuing others from the consequences of their thoughts, feelingsor actions, elevating the importance of self at the expense of others through suchbehaviours as scolding, lecturing, or blaming, and the inability to clearly stateone's boundaries and act on them.Subcategories: Facilitating= 3, Hindering =3FACILITATING INCIDENTS: 1. TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELf implies that one is able to acceptresponsibility for one's own thoughts, feelings and behaviour when interactingwith others. This includes accepting the consequences of those thoughts, feelingsand behaviours, and being able to admit mistakes. Taking responsibility often84requires problem-solving, gaining new knowledge, and asking for appropriatehelp, as well as taking the responsibility to act differently in faulty recursive andreciprocal interactions. Incidents in this category include such things as askingothers to share the work of managing a family and home, actively engaging inchanging one's mood from depression to nondepression, getting self moreorganized after living in "chaos", to apologizing for misunderstandings andinappropriate actions.(Number: 11, Participation rate: 6 or 46%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Accepting consequences of one's thoughts/feelings/actions (T/F/A)2. Deciding to act differently in a faulty interaction3. Asking for appropriate help where neededB. Typical Incidents1. Taking responsible for own mood and for changing mood2. Organizing to get out of chaotic lifestyle3. Apologizing for misunderstandings, inappropriate actions, mistakes4. Asking others to share houseworkC. Illustrations: I have always been the one who has instigated cleaning up the house. Itnever fails that we get into an argument once we start because my kids always tellme that I never said they had to do certain things or do it by a certain time. Afterthinking about this recurring problem I decided to write up a schedule detailingwhat had to be done, who had to do what and time they need to be done by. The85kids did the jobs and we didn't fight.'I sometimes suffer backpain, but I always continue doing what needs to bedone. This often makes me cranky and miserable to be with. This time I thought"I need to take care of myself", so I told my husband I wanted to go to bed andasked him to take over. In the past, I would not have asked for help, but when Idid he gladly gave it.2. BEING ABLE TO STATE ONE'S BOUNDARIES, denotes the ability to use"I" statements to clearly explain how self intends to act when sensing theirresponsibility of the other. In this category, typical incidents are stating abottom line for staying in a relationship interaction, leaving the interaction if thebottom line is not satisfied, consciously not debating a stated boundary, toobservations that in stating a bottom line the other person usually becomes moreresponsible in his/her behaviour.(Number: 38, Participation rate: 11 or 85 %).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Using "I" statements to state what self will do in response toirresponsibility of anotherB. Typical Incidents 1. Stating bottom line for staying in relationship interaction2. Leaving interaction if bottom line not met3. Consciously not debating or defending a bottom lineThe illustrations are edited statements rather than direct word for word quotes. In editing,the author has paraphrased what the participants reported in their daily logs using their wordsand phrases as close as possible.86C. Illustrations: My son and I were the first ones up this morning and my husband had lefta bag of tortilla chips from last nights shopping on the table. My son becameupset because I told him he could not have any so early in the day. He began toholler at me so I said, "You can have some for lunch. If I continue to be holleredat, I am leaving the room." He continued to holler and I left the room. Withinseconds he stopped and came to find me so we could have breakfast together.Fridays are our clean-up days. My son wanted to have a sleep-over at hisfriend's house and wanted to leave right away. I told him he could sleep over assoon as he finished doing his chores and cleaning-up his bedroom. Hecomplained and said he wasn't going to clean-up. About fifteen minutes later hisfriend phoned and he was cleaned up and out the door about 20 minutes later. Ifelt really good about knowing that he would probably whine and complain abouthaving to clean-up, that I could give him that choice, and the choice as towhether or not he wanted to sleep-over.3. ALLOWING OTHERS TO BE RESPONSIBLE suggests that one has theability to step back and allow others to assume responsibility for the consequencesof their thoughts, feelings, and actions. This implies having faith that others canhandle their problems. Inherent, is the knowledge that interfering in another'sprocess towards the development of self-responsibility is irresponsible behaviour.It signifies that self can let go of thoughts and feelings of being responsible, orbeing held responsible for others. Incidents in this category suggests theknowledge that learning to be responsible is more productive when a person getsto experience the consequences of a choice, then it is when the person experiencesthe consequence and a subjective evaluation by another person in the form oflecturing, scolding etc. , or when the person is rescued from experiencing the87consequences and only receives a lecture or a scolding in its place.(Number: 25, Participation rate: 9 or 70%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Allowing others to take responsibility for their T/F/A2. Not feeling responsible for consequences of others T/F/AB. Typical Incidents1. Letting others take responsibility for consequences2. Not lecturing or scolding another because of their mistakesC. Illustrations: Yesterday my son went to the park. The rule is that if he leaves the parkto go elsewhere he has to come home and ask for permission. I went to get himfor lunch and he was not there. When he came home I reminded him that becausehe choose to leave the park without asking me, he had chosen to stay home thenext day. Today he stayed home and didn't even complain. I felt really goodbecause I felt I was responsible for giving him the ability to make choices andbecause he was responsible for his choice.I found out that my son had missed a class because he had gone and satat the office for the period. When I asked him about this he said that he wasbeing bugged by another student and knew that he was going to react and get intotrouble. I felt really excited about hearing that he was beginning to deal with hisproblems differently and about the fact that he felt he could make that type ofdecision. In the past, I would have lectured him about how he was wrong forskipping out of class, or I would have scolded him for staying and getting intotrouble.HINDERING INCIDENTS: 1. INABILITY TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SELF suggests that oneis unable to accept responsibility for one's own thoughts, feelings and behaviour88when interacting with others. The incidents in this category include not acceptingthe consequences of one's thoughts, feelings and behaviours, but instead havinga tendency towards blaming, attacking, lecturing or scolding. In this category themetaphor of a robot whose buttons can be pushed by someone else, is often usedas a rationalization for not having to be responsible.(Number: 27, Participation rate: 10 or 77%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Not accepting responsibility for "mistakes"2. Wanting to blame others or ignore taking consequencesB. Typical Incidents 1. Using "Buttons being pushed" metaphor as justification forinappropriate behaviour2. Blaming, attacking, lecturing or scolding othersC. Illustrations: I have PMS and when it hits I am a bitch all day. I yell at everyone, "Getup!", "Get your rooms clean!", "Get the basement clean!". When my kids don'tlisten I get even madder. When I am a bitch I expect everyone to jump.I am a rage-oholic. I grew up in a home where my sister and my motherwere also rage-olohics. Whenever I get into a disagreement and someone pushesmy buttons, I go into a rage. I now know that I allow my rage to get out ofcontrol in order to try to control others.2. INABILITY TO STATE BOUNDARIES AND ACT ON THEM suggestsan inability to use "I" statements to define one's bottom-line and then act on it.In this category one of the most distinguishing aspects is the affect which89accompanies this inability. The incidents relate feelings of guilt, inadequacy andthoughts of self-doubt.(Number: 14, Participation rate: 5 or 39%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Not using "I" statements2. Using "I" statements but not backing them up with actionB. Typical Incidents 1. Reports of feeling bad about self- guilty, inadequate, self-doubtC. Illustrations: My mother invited me to go out for supper with her. She made a casserolefor my husband to serve our kids. As I was leaving, my husband made somecutting remarks about me always being away from the family (I also do all thedriving for the kids activities). I left but was unable to enjoy myself withoutfeeling like I am causing everyone else a problem. I feel I am not entitled toanytime to myself.I want to eat at home and have our own family instead of eating at mywife's mother's place six times a week and getting home only in time for bed. Ioften ask my wife if we could eat at home but she just asks "Why?" and refusesto. I feel helpless, like I have no control over our family. I keep asking but Inever do anything about this recurring issue.3. INABILITY TO ALLOW OTHERS TO ASSUME RESPONSIBILITYFOR ACTIONS implies that one has no faith in others being able to handle theconsequences of their thoughts, feelings, and actions. The incidents describesituations in which the person takes over and assumes responsibility for themistakes of others and/or, lectures, scolds or berates the other for making90mistakes.(Number: 9, Participation rate: 4 or 31 %).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Acting as if one has not faith in ability of others to assumeresponsibilityB. Typical Incidents1. Taking over or rescuing then2. lecturing, scolding, berating etc.C. Illustrations: My daughter did not wash her clothes early enough and she was stillwaiting for them to dry when she should have been on her way to school. In theend she had to take them out and wear them wet. I scolded her by saying, "Whydidn't you wash them earlier so you would not be late? Now hurry up, you aregoing to be late."My oldest son babysat his younger brother and sister last night. Theinstructions were for him to be in bed by 11:00. When we returned home at 11:15he was still up and refused to go to bed until he finished watching the TV showthat ended at 11:30. The next morning he would not get out of bed in time tocatch the school bus. I subsequently was run off my feet trying to get all the kidsto school. They had missed their separate buses because I was so focused on him.I am always running around like a mad person! No time to stop and talk to mykids or feel good about the day because I am so busy making up for hisbehaviour.In summary, Being Responsible is extremely important to Bowen'sconcept of differentiation and to parenting. It situates the learning process in acontext best summed up by the phrase, "We learn by doing and by makingmistakes." Helping parents to make a shift in perception from thinking that91mistakes or inappropriate behaviour is bad to one in which they are seen aslearning opportunities promotes growth and development. Furthermore, in seeinginappropriate behaviour as an unwise choice, i.e., a mistake, the parent is muchmore likely to experience feelings of disappointment, anger and hopelessness andinstead work towards creating a learning opportunity that will begin the processintended to lessen the likelihood of that choice being made again. With this shiftin perception, Being Responsible allows parents to model an acknowledgementof their own mistakes and then handling them, as an effective way to teach theirchildren the same behaviour. Daily log incidents comprising this categorysuggests that for parents, Being Responsible gives them a greater ability forintellectual functioning during times of significant emotional stress. The abilityto maintain intellectual functioning is a cornerstone of Bowen's concept ofdifferentiation.II ACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENCENumber: 56 Facilitating + 42 Hindering = 106Participation rate: 13 or 100%Range: Acceptance of Difference also has two aspects. The first is to recognizehow self is different from others, and the second is to recognize how others aredifferent from self. It entails respecting that difference. Acceptance of Difference92includes the ability to be able to allow others to express themselves in their ownway, to be able to communicate to increase understanding and validation, and toexpress an opinion and stick to it in face of difference.Subcategories: Facilitating= 3, Hindering=3FACILITATING INCIDENTS: 1. ALLOWING SELF AND OTHERS TO HAVE & EXPRESS THOUGHTSAND FEELINGS WHICH ARE DIt tERENT, AND TO ACTDIFFERENTLY without experiencing an overwhelming emotional reactionleading to the need to control, lecture, scold, or blame, the other person.(Number: 22, Participation rate: 10 or 77%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Being able to listen or watch without becoming emotional2. Not needing to take over conversation because of anxietyB. Typical Incidents 1. Letting others say things, want things or act in ways that are differentfrom self2. Going along with others even though it is different from self's way3. Agreeing to disagreeC. Illustrations: My daughter and I had a talk about our family nights. She said that sheonly joined in because of us not because she wanted to. I told her that I couldunderstand that at her age she would rather be with her friends and so told hershe could make that choice. I felt good that we could have this type ofconversation and it was nice that she did not have to leave feeling guilty or bad93about how she was feeling.It was time for my son to go to bed. He always tries to stay up later thenhe is supposed to. Tonight he was faking being asleep. I decided to let him playhis game. I went up to him and hugged, rocked and tickled him as I said, "It'stime for bed." It turned out to be fun and he went to bed happy.2. SELF/OTHER OPENNESS implies creating a safe environment in whichpersonal thoughts and feelings can be shared to increase understanding andvalidation. It includes the ability to not be threatened by difference and/or a needto impose the thoughts or feelings of one on the other. This category involvesincidents in which two or more people are able to discuss issues of emotionalsignificance simply as a statement of who they are, what they think and how theyfeel.(Number: 25, Participation rate: 9 or 69%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Creating a safe environment for disclosure of personal thoughts2. Being able be vulnerable and express personal thoughtsB. Typical Incidents 1. Situations in which two or more people are able to disclose personalthoughtsC. Illustrations: I usually don't talk about the fact that I am having difficulties in my life,but today a friend came over and I told him about the visualization we did in theparenting class and how it took me right back to my childhood home. This wasa milestone for me in my life and I felt excited to be able to talk to openly about94who I am with someone who is a true friend.The other day my step-daughter came home and I was the only one home.She came into the room where I was working and we began to talk about her andmy relationship. This was really nice because I realized that we never really listento each other, we only seem to fight. I found out that she doesn't do things toirritate me, she is only doing things because that is who she is.3. ABILITY TO EXPRESS AN OPINION AND STICK TO IT IN FACE OFDIFFERENCE implies an acceptance that self may have different thoughts,feelings and behaviours from others. Furthermore, it implies the ability to keepone's position in light of opposition. Incidents in this category range from makingstatements that are contrary to those of a spouse, to taking actions based uponthose statements. The incidents do not imply forcing or coercing others to acceptthe position.(Number: 9, Participation rate: 5 or 38%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Acceptance that others might disagree with opinion of self2. Ability to keep one's own opinion in light of another's contrary opinionB. Typical Incidents 1. Stating one's opinion2. Accepting that it is different but still keeping it3. Not trying to change another's opinion to agree with selfC. Illustrations: My daughter was told by the principal that she was going to have to takean earlier bus home afterschool. I phoned the principal and told him my concerns95about this change. He disagreed with my concerns, but I was not intimidated likeI used to be. Instead, I just continued to tell him that it was unacceptable and thatI hoped that he would change it back. It felt good standing up to the principaland clearly stating my thoughts and feelings.Our car needed repairing and I was tired of driving it the way it was. Itold my husband and he said that he did not have time to fix it. I told him Iwanted it fixed and so was going to take it to a garage and would pay for itmyself. He was strongly against this, but I simply told him my safety was moreimportant to me than my money and that was the end of the conversation. Thenext day he fixed it for $4.00.HINDERING INCIDENTS: 1. INABILITY TO LISTEN TO OTHERS EXPRESSING THOUGHTS &FEELINGS, without an emotional reaction geared towards preventing the otherto continue. Incidents in this category describe automatic defenses used tomaintain self, such as attacking the other's thoughts and/or feelings, or ignoringthe other by cutting-off from them emotionally or physically.(Number: 5, Participation rate: 4 or 31 %).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Experiencing an emotional reaction to what is being heard or seen2. Trying to stop other from continuingB. Typical Incidents 1. Attacking the other2. Cutting off from the other3. Coercing the otherC. Illustrations: 96I got up this morning and announced that it was time to clean the house.My son said he had other plans. I told him he could help clean up and then goout. He said that I never do anything around the house and then get into a flapand make everyone else clean up. I got even more angry thinking that no oneknows how much I do around here, and I began to yell "I do this and I do thisand I do that", and ended up attacking him by calling him lazy.We are going to move. We were discussing going to look at houses and mydaughter said that she did not want to move to far from where we live at now. Itold her that her statement was ridiculous and that there was no point in movingif we didn't move to a new neighbourhood. She began to yell at me for saying shewas ridiculous and I told her that if she wanted to argue she could go to herroom and stay there until we got back.2. INABILITY TO ACCEPT THOUGHTS, FEELINGS OR ACTIONS OFOTHERS, without an overwhelming emotional reaction. The defining featureabout this category are incidents in which the self can not differentiate from theemotional field of the other and as a result experiences negative self-talk, feelingsof being responsible for the problems of the other, or feelings of hopelessness,inadequacy, and low self-esteem.(Number: 29, Participation rate: 9 or 69%).A. Typical Behaviour1. Changing self to go along with other but at expense of negative feelings2. Being negatively overwhelmed by other's emotional fieldB. Typical Incidents 1. Giving up and going along with the other2. Experiencing negative self-talk, feelings of hopelessness, inadequacy,low esteem97C. Illustrations: I was working on a repair and was having some difficulty getting themachinery to work properly. I was initially frustrated because I don't like doingthis type of work anyway, but then certain vocal individuals who depend on themachine began to make me feel bad about not getting it fixed fast enough. Thisput me in a bad mood for the rest of the day and I found myself swearing undermy breath and saying things to myself which were like beating myself up for a jobI was not doing well. I just couldn't stop owning the disappointment andfrustration of those people.I volunteered to take my nephews on the holidays so my sister, who is asingle parent, could have a break. My husband yelled at me that I am alwayshelping other people, but won't ever do anything to help him. I tried to get himto see my point of view but in the end I just ended up feeling sad and alienated.3. INABILITY TO STICK TO OWN OPINION, suggests an inability to acceptself as having important opinions that may be different from others. Theseincidents reveal the person devaluing their opinions through deference to those ofthe other.(Number: 16, Participation rate: 8 or 62 %).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Inability to accept self as having important opinionsB. Typical Incidents 1. Devaluing own opinion2. Feeling stupidC. Illustrations: We were playing games as a family and I stated what I thought a rulemeant. My husband "corrected" me and we played it according to hisinterpretation. I became depressed because he always makes me feel stupid. I98have told him how I feel but he just keeps on doing it.My husband's mother came over. After a short visit with me she went into see my daughter who was suppose to be cleaning her room. The next thing Iknow they are both cleaning and then standing at the door with an overnight bagof clothes for her, saying good-bye to me. I asked what was happening andGrandma answered, "She is coming over for the night and you can pick her upwhen you come for supper tomorrow." I didn't think her behaviour warranted atreat like this, but what Grandma says goes. I didn't tell her that I don't like itwhen she does this type of thing. Instead I spent the rest of the day going frombeing angry at her to being angry at me for being so selfish.In summary, Acceptance of Difference appears to play a major role inallowing parents to maintain intellectual functioning during times of significantemotional issues. The incidents in which the participant's were able to acceptdifference had significantly more positive outcomes then those in which there wasa low tolerance for acceptance of difference. These positive outcomes weredescribed in terms of experiencing a greater sense of well-being, and confidencein their relationship interactions. Acceptance of Difference appears to promoteopenness and flexibility in resolving difficulties and in doing so contributes to theprocess of differentiation.DI CONTROL OF ANXIETY Number: 61 Facilitating + 7 Hindering = 68Participation rate: 12 or 92 %99Range: Inherent in anxiety control is the ability to be aware of one's internal stateof anxiety and to monitor it, so that one does not slip into emotional functioningat inappropriate times. It requires the ability to observe and monitor the anxietylevel of others and to act appropriately when others inappropriately slip intoemotional functioning.Subcategories: Facilitating= 2, Hindering =2FACILITATING INCIDENTS: 1. MONITORING SELF ANXIETY implies being aware of the effects ofanxiety on self and taking ownership of those effects. Incidents in this categorydemonstrate the ability to be aware of and experience anxiety, while thoughts andactions still reflect intellectual functioning. The incidents reported in the dailylogs indicated strategies for dealing with increasing anxiety during interactionssuch as using "I" statements to acknowledge emotional states and using "time-out"procedures. In other words, monitoring self anxiety decreases the likelihood ofemotional functioning taking over.(Number: 28, Participation rate: 9 or 69%).A. Typical Behaviour1. Awareness of experiencing anxiety, while at the same time2. Consciously thinking about how to deal with it in terms of theinteraction with the otherB. Typical Incidents 1001. Using "I" statements to acknowledge the anxiety being experienced2. Using time-out procedures to regain control of intellectual functioningC. Illustrations: My husband, myself and my teenage son were discussing the fact that hehas been smoking. After we had all expressed our concerns I could see that wewere beginning to go around in circles. I began to get nervous that theconversation was going to end in a power struggle, so I said, "We have all heardeach other's point of view, so I think we should end this discussion for now so wecan think about what we have heard." Then I got up and walked away. They didtoo. This was great because even though we have not settled this, it did not turninto a fight.My daughter was at a home of one of her friends. She had arranged tostay there much later than she is normally allowed to stay out because the friend'smother had said she would drive her home. Just as I was about to go to bed, Igot a phone call from my daughter asking me to pick her up. Apparently themother got mad a her daughter and told my daughter she had to leave right nowand that she would not drive her. I was furious. I mean, I might not have beenhome and my daughter would have had to walk home several blocks after dark.As I was driving to pick her up I became aware of how upset I was and decidedto wait until I calmed down before talking to the mother. It was amazing. WhenI finally did talk to her I was able to understand how frustrated she had become,clearly express my concerns, and she apologized for acting so irresponsibly.2. MONITORING THE ANXIETY OF OTHERS implies observational skillsand the ability to avoid being swept up in the emotional functioning of the other.The incidents forming this category demonstrate an ability to become detachedfrom the other's emotions, allowing self to remain objective, and to act in aproductive manner.(Number: 33, Participation rate: 12 or 92%)A. Typical Behaviour 1011. Noticing that the other person is becoming increasingly emotional2. Consciously think of strategies to end interaction without escalatingother's emotionsB. Typical Incidents 1. Remaining objective2. Consciously detaching from the other's emotions instead of reacting tothem3. Using strategies such as validation and time-out to lower other'semotionsC. Illustrations: It was my step-daughter's birthday today and things did not go all thatwell for her. At bedtime I was sitting on her bed talking about the party when Inoticed that she was becoming more and more upset and that our conversationwas starting to be a "I did not/You did too!" type of argument. I decided thatneither she or I needed this kind of thing so I said, "It's late. Let's continue totalk about this in the morning." Then I got up and left. I was glad that I could seeshe was too emotional to be reasonable and that I had the sense to quit talkingto her. In the morning we continued to talk about her disappointments without the`I did not/You did to!' thing happening.My husband was working on our truck at night and he asked me to holdthe light. He began to get angry and started to swear a lot. I hate it when he doesthis and it usually I get angry at him and he starts to swear at me. This time Idecided to not get angry. I felt nervous and upset about his behaviour, but insteadof telling him to stop, I began to use humour about the situation. Within minuteswe were both laughing. It was neat to take responsibility for my own reactionsand stay calm when he was swearing.HINDERING INCIDENTS: 1. INABILITY TO MONITOR SELF ANXIETY implies a lack of awarenessof the effects anxiety has on the thoughts, and actions of self. The incidents inthis category suggest an inability to either be aware of inner anxiety as it102increases, to express the observation of inner anxiety or to effectively deal withit when it is observed.(Number: 4, Participation rate: 3 or 23 %)A. Typical Behaviour 1. Not being aware of or acknowledging effect of emotions on intellectualfunctioning2. Continuing interaction even though self is emotionally drivenB. Typical Incidents 1. Not acknowledging or not caring that one is acting from an emotionalstance2. Not dealing with emotional reactivity productively (yelling, attacking,cut-oft)C. Illustrations: I went to Abbotsford with my step-daughter. Our trip was really bondinguntil I found out that the bus we were going to have to catch back home wouldget us there later than I had wanted. The anger started to build up in me and Ibegan to talk to my step-daughter as if I was blaming her. She soon got angry atme and stormed off. In this case the situation could not be helped, but I lostcontrol and started acting irrationally. I could have dealt with my disappointmentby taking the time to continue to bond but I didn't.On family evening time there is supposed to be no phone or TV. The phonerang, my son & daughter both ran to answer it and I immediately got angry.When they came back I asked them why they had broken the rule. My son saidthat he wasn't breaking the rule, he had just got up to go look for his earring. Igot mad and sent them both to their rooms for lying. I reacted with hate andanger in this incident instead of calmly trying to deal with the situation.2. INABILITY TO MONITOR THE ANXIETY OF OTHERS suggests an103inability to see how another person's frustrations, worries or fears are directlyrelated to how they are behaving. Instead, the behaviour becomes a conduit forthe emotions of the other to be transferred to the self. Incidents in this categoryreflect the self becoming anxious and emotionally reactive to the other, leadingto feelings of anger, resentment or guilt.(Number: 3, Participation rate: 2 or 15%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Not recognizing when another is acting emotionally2. Becoming reactive to the emotions of the otherB. Typical Incidents1. Reacting to the emotional reactions of another person2. Experiencing feelings of anger at the other person and guiltIllustration: My wife thought it would be a good day for me to spend some time withour teenage son who is having some problems. I agreed and we went off andspent the day together. When we got home at 4:30 my wife was cooking supper,but not without banging the pots and pans and by being really distant. Finally,she yelled at me that things never change. She had stated that she was not goingto do the cooking on the weekends and here she was doing it again. Instead ofseeing her frustration, I became angry back and yelled, "First you want me tospend time with our son and then you get angry at me for not being at home tocook the supper. I can't please you no matter what I do." I stormed off firstfeeling angry and then feeling guilty.In summary, Control of Anxiety is vital to the positive outcome ofrelationship interactions. Preventing emotional functioning from taking over and104controlling the intellectual functioning at inappropriate times seems to befacilitated by recognizing the emotion, accepting it as being there, and thenmaking a conscious decision how best to respond to having the emotion, ratherthan automatically allowing the emotion to dictate its usual response. In parenting,impulse control requires emotional language. When parents model impulse controlthrough the use of emotional language it helps them to more effectively deal withtheir anxieties and provides learning opportunities for their children. Inherent inBowen's concept of differentiation is the ability to function intellectually evenwhile experiencing significant emotion, thereby diminishing or eliminating theeffects of the mutual projection process.IV AWARENESS OF TRIANGLESNumber: 13 Facilitating + 34 Hindering = 47Participation rate: 10 or 77%Range: This category is also comprised of two different aspects. First isobserving of a conflictual dyad and consciously making a decision to either notget involved, or to become involved as an objective, detached mediator/supportperson for each of the conflictual pair. The second aspect is being involved in aconflict with another, and making a conscious decision not to triangle in a thirdparty for support, or blocking to block the other's attempt to do draw in a third105person.Subcategories: Facilitating= 2, Hindering =2FACILITATING INCIDENTS: 1. ABILITY TO OBSERVE CONFLICTUAL DYAD WITHOUT BEINGDRAWN IN indicates an ability to understand relationship dynamics and the needto resist entering into a conflict between a dyad. It suggests the ability to observe,monitor and have faith that the conflictual couple can resolve their own issues.It further suggests an understanding that involvement of a third party cancomplicate resolution rather than simplify it. Incidents depicted sibling arguments,spouse-child conflicts, grandparent-spouse disagreements and teacher-child schoolmanagement problems.(Number: 8, Participation rate: 3 or 23%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Seeing or hearing a conflict between two others and consciouslydeciding not to get involvedB. Typical Incidents 1. Not getting involved in sibling, other parent-child, grandparent-childor teacher-child conflicts2. Stating to one or both people involved that they have to settle itthemselvesC. Illustrations: At supper time my daughter sat where my son usually sits. He asked me106to tell her to move. I said, "There are enough places for everyone. This is betweenyou and your sister. I know you can work out something." I thought that sittingin the same place all the time really isn't fair to those who wish to sit somewhereelse. I'll see how they work it out. If they decide not to eat, that's ok. Theyworked it out quite quickly once they realized I wasn't going to get involved.My husband gave my son a large glass of water and ice cubes at the tableand immediately my mother took it from him and gave him a small quarter filledone. My son started to cry and my mom told him to stop because "big boys don'tcry." Later that night, my husband complained to me about my mother. I told himthat if he had a problem with her he should be talking to her not me. I felt goodabout this because I did not feel the need to rescue him by taking over his conflictwith my mom.2. GIVING SUPPORT TO EACH MEMBER OF THE CONFLICTUALDYAD indicates an ability to observe a conflict between a dyad, and to becomeengaged as a support to each person, or as an mediator. It suggests the ability tostay objective and detached while validating the personal experience of eachperson. What defines this category is the implication of a high level of emotionalcontrol and intellectual functioning. It indicates the ability to get involved in aconflict in a conscious, productive, resolution oriented manner as opposed to side-taking. Incidents depicted sibling arguments, spouse-child conflicts, and teacher-spouse school management problems.(Number: 5, Participation rate: 5 or 39%).A. Typical Behaviour1. Getting involved in a conflict but not taking sides2. Setting up the situation so the ones in conflict can settle it107B. Typical Incidents1. Defusing the emotion of the conflict by stepping in and shifting theperspective2. Encouraging both by validating each person's concerns as beingimportant to him/her.C. Illustrations: At breakfast the phone rang and my husband answered it. When hereturned to the table my son asked who it was for. He said it was for my son andthat my son could probably guess who it was. My son said, "I don't want toguess! Who was it!. " My husband ignored my son's request and told him hewould have to guess. I jumped in and said, "Gee, your dad sure is in a goodmood today. Let's see how you can easily guess. List off the names of all the girlsyou know until we hit a name that will fit into this riddle" . By jumping in andadding humour, the conflict changed to fun.My daughter came home upset because she needed to complete a majorhomework assignment for the next day. My husband immediately began to lectureher on getting her work done ahead of time. This started an argument. I said tomy husband, "I know that you are really concerned about her being in a panic,but how about just letting her see how she makes out tonight." Then I said to her,"Why don't you just get started and let's see how it goes. We can talk aboutgetting into a panic later if it doesn't go well." They both stopped fighting andshe got her work completed.HINDERING INCIDENTS: 1. INABILITY TO STAY OUT OF A CONFLICTUAL DYADINTERACTION suggests either an inability to recognize triangular relationshipdynamics or lack of emotional control. The incidents in this category suggestsboth conscious and unconscious reactions to increasing anxiety of self due to theobservation of conflict between two others. In the conscious case, the person acts108"as if" s/he is fed up with the conflict and gets involved to stop it, while in theunconscious case the person gets involved automatically just because the conflictis occurring. Hindering incidents of involvement in triangles typically includetaking over and preventing resolution of the conflict by authoritarian means, i.e.,"Both of you shut up and go to your rooms!" or by taking sides.(Number: 19, Participation rate: 7 or 54%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Involving self in a conflict between two people either because:a. the person does not recognize a triangular process and steps inb. the person sees the process but decides to take sides anyway2. Use of side taking and/or authoritarian means to end the conflictB. Typical Incidents 1. Feeling sorry for one of the two and stepping into rescue, or protect bytaking sides2. Fed up with conflict and step in ordering one or both people aboutC. Illustrations: I can't stand it when my husband and my son of 18 months get going. Theother night they were fighting over putting on pyjamas. Finally I stormed into theroom and said to my husband, "Give it a break! I can't stand listening to you twosquabble any more! I'll do it." I get triangled in because I want to. I just can'tstand listening to them when my husband does it. Of course, each time I do thisthe more my husband gets angry at me.My daughter would not listen to her mother about leaving for school. Theywere arguing. I stepped in and yelled at her to stop arguing with her mom, to gether coat and get out the door. She left in a temper. I can't stand it when my kidsdon't listen to their mother because it makes me so annoyed at them.1092. INABILITY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM OR CONFLICT BETWEEN SELF& OTHER WITHOUT TRIANGLING IN A THIRD PERSON. In thiscategory, the incidents described conflicts between self and other which quicklyled to one of the dyad triangling in a supportive third party to side-take or torescue the person from the conflict.(Number: 15, Participation rate: 4 or 31 %).A. Typical Behaviour 1. During a conflict between self and other, one person triangles insupport2. Self or other engages in story telling or gossip about the other to athird, supportive personB. Typical Incidents 1. Self asks another to solve a problem s/he has with another person,rather than deal with it him/herself2. One person tells stories or gossips about the other to another person togain support, rather than resolving the conflict with the original personC. Illustrations: Tonight it was my son's turn to do the dishes. I noticed that they were stilllooking greasy so I went into the living room and told my husband that my sonwas not doing a good enough job. He immediately went out to the kitchen andtold him to start over. He did, but I felt disappointed because I always let myhusband deal with these situations.My wife and I go to her parents place almost every weekend for supper.It seems that no sooner do we get there and she begins to complain to her motherabout how stupid I am or about how I do everything wrong etc. I told her that itmakes me embarrassed that she does this but she just tells me that I'm being toosensitive and that all she is doing is carrying on a conversation.110In summary, Awareness of Triangles, like the category Control ofAnxiety requires being able to observe relationship dynamics as they occur.Triangles are not good or bad. They occur as basic interactions. However, howone manages him/herself in them determines whether or not the outcome isproductive. Productive management of triangles requires that the conflict betweentwo people remain within the dyadic relationship. Unproductive managementresults in sidetaking which leads to the conflict shifting to third person or todeeper entrenchment in opposing positions. Recognition of one's involvement intriangles and dealing with it productively facilitates the process of differentiation.V AWARENESS OF SELFNumber: 29 Facilitating + 16 Hindering = 45Participation rate: 11 or 85 %Range: The Awareness of Self category comprises a knowledge and productiveacceptance about one's strengths and weaknesses. It implies a knowledge of one'sattitudes, beliefs and values which lead to the ability to formulate and expressopinions, to be able to comfortably accept praise from others and/or to engage inself-praise, and to be aware of one's needs and wants. Incidents in this categorywhich are facilitating indicate feeling secure about one's self in interactions withothers, while hindering incidents suggest an inability to maintain a sense of111security about self within relationships.Subcategories: Facilitating= 3, Hindering =3FACILITATING INCIDENTS: 1. AWARENESS OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES allows one theability to make conscious choices towards achieving productive ends based uponself knowledge. It implies an optimistic acceptance of one's abilities allowing selfthe space to offer help, to ask for help, and to "practice" building on weaknessesor the perceptions which lead to weaknesses. As well, it suggests the ability toaccept praise and criticism from self and from others. Incidents in this categorydescribe feeling better about self due to greater acceptance of self, being able tocontribute information and help to another person or group, and admitting thatone is not very good at a certain activity but is willing to try doing it.(Number: 19, Participation rate: 6 or 46%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Acknowledging abilities without diminishing self, welcoming praise andcriticism2. Asking for help3. Trying to improve weaknesses by learning or practice, not out of guilt,but out of optimist attitudesB. Typical Incidents 1. Confidently offering suggestions, or help to others2. Accepting praise as acknowledgement or criticism as being helpful3. Demonstrating a willingness to do something new, or to stretch one'sabilities112C. Illustrations: At work I often find myself in situations with people who I think know morethan me or are higher up in importance than me. Often they will stew about aproblem when I have a good idea that I am unable to offer for fear that theywon't accept it because "what do I know". I decided to stop making myself feelbad about my self and so the last time this happened I told them my idea. Theyliked it. I felt good about recognizing that I am ok and that sometimes I havegood things to offer others.The other day some people who were visiting said that they saw a bigdifference in me as a parent since beginning this course. They said that beforethey thought that I over reacted and that they sometimes felt sorry for mychildren. Now they said that I handle them in a much more calm and respectfulmanner. I was surprised that other people saw such a change in me. I know I feelit. I was also surprised at how I didn't get offended by what they said about howI used to be, but instead patted myself on the back for the work I have beendoing.2. AWARENESS OF NEEDS AND WANTS implies a knowledge of theconnection between one's internal state, i.e., thoughts and feelings, and theexternal world. The incidents in this category suggests that the greater awarenessof this connection the more the person is able to shape the external environmentby consciously acting on it to meet these needs and wants in a sensitive manner.Being sensitive further implies a willingness to change one's perceptions on howto act based upon new information.(Number: 10, Participation rate: 3 or 23%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Recognizing when something does not feel right, is uncomfortable oris missing and taking steps to change it113B. Typical Incidents1. Standing up for self and asking that things be different, or be changed2. Identifying what need is unsatisfied and taking steps to satisfy itC. Illustrations: My son had broken his glasses and I was getting the run around aboutwhen they would be ready. I was really concerned about how long it was taking,and feeling more and more uncomfortable about him having to go to schoolwithout glasses. Finally, I decided that enough was enough and that I had to dosomething, so I decided to 'hiss'! I phoned and told the optometrist, "I have beentold that my son's glasses would be here on three separate occasions. It has beentwo weeks and I think that you guys are giving me the run around. Should I takehim to someone else or can you assure me when they will be ready?" They wereready by the end of the day.I have not gone out with friends for years and I am beginning to feel likeI have no life. I told my husband and my kids that I wanted to start going outwith some friends and they told me they thought it would be a great idea. I wentout to a bar with two girl friends and while I was there I phoned home to see howthey were doing. They told me not to worry and to have a good time. It felt reallygood to have my family support me like this. I don't know why I didn't do itearlier, but I know that I will be doing it more often in the future.HINDERING INCIDENTS: 1. INSECURITY IN RELATION WITH OTHER suggests a lack of acceptancefor one's strengths and weaknesses resulting in a sense of low self-esteem, andhopelessness. Incidents in this category depict deferring one's thoughts or feelingsto those of another and subsequent feelings of anger at others or at self, feelingsof discouragement or hopelessness, and emotional cut-off.(Number: 6, Participation rate: 3 or 23%).114A. Typical Behaviour1. Easily feeling defeated because of a comment from another, thenruminating with and hanging around with a friend called internalnegative self-talk2. Giving up, cutting off physically and/or emotionally due to commentfrom otherB. Typical Incidents 1. Giving up trying to change because effort either criticized or notacknowledged2. Escaping from an interaction because of comment or criticism fromanotherC. Illustrations: We went out bowling as a family and I decided to stop getting frustratedand angry with my performance. After a bad shot, I turned to my wife and said,"See, I am still smiling." She mumbled a sarcastic "Uh-huh!" and that justbrought me down. I thought if I am trying this hard and she can't even notice,what is the point so I stopped trying.I can't fart right or blow my nose right without my wife or her familyresponding with some irritated tone of voice. I may not be the best parent but atleast I try. No matter what I do, it seems I am always being blamed so I think"What the hell, I might as well turn my son over to them to raise!" I just feeloverpowered by her and her family and it makes me want to just cut-off from thememotionally.2. CONFUSION ABOUT NEEDS AND WANTS suggests not being able toformulate what one needs or wants in order to feel comfortable, or when finallydeciding, easily being swayed by the opinions of others. It is, in a sense, a fusingwith the other by thinking and acting under their direction or in reaction to theirdirection. Inherent in this process seems to be a tendency for self-depreciation115using negative self-talk.(Number: 10, Participation rate: 4 or 31%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Generally acting sad, depressed, or miserable because of an unidentifiedneed or want, or because of not feeling entitled to act on unmet needsor wants2. Feelings of guilt, self-doubt, powerlessness etc. preventing self fromtaking actions to satisfy personal needs and wantsB. Typical Incidents 1. Wanting to give up rather than make changes2. Wanting to take corrective action, but unable to rise above self-doubtto do itC. Illustrations: I miss not having a family. I have one but we don't get along very well.As a result, I spend all my time with my wife's family. In the beginning it wasgreat, but now I realize that they are not my family. I told this to my wife,thinking that it would be a nice idea to start having my mom and dad over moreoften. She doesn't like them and thought it was a foolish idea. I seem to feelguilty about not having relationship with my family, but I feel it would be selfishto have one because of my wife's feelings about them. I am really mixed up onthis issue.The place where I work has a hiring freeze on. The work keeps piling up.I know that there is not enough hours for us to do all the work. It seems that I amalways fuming inside about this but I am afraid to say something because maybeI should be able to work harder or be more efficient.In summary, Awareness of self seems to be a critical category. Awarenessof strengths and weaknesses, wants and needs, and acceptance of that awareness,116facilitates being able to separate self and other. Subsequently, this increases theability to be responsible for how one is thinking, feeling and acting, minimizingprojection processes, and feelings of disappointment, embarrassment and guilt,which hinder the process of differentiation.VI FOSTERING CONNECTION: Number: 27 Facilitating + 17 Hindering = 44Participation rate: 10 or 77%Range: The incidents in this category are distinguished from the other categoriesin that the focus is the ability for self to be connected to the other, rather thanseparate from the other. The incidents imply the ability to make commitments toothers, to ask others to make commitments to self, and to engage in activities ofmutual problem-solving and mutual enjoyment.Subcategories: Facilitating= 3, Hindering =3FACILITATING INCIDENTS: 1. EXPECTATIONS OF COMMITMENT TO THE FAMILY includes makingcommitments to the family, and creating an appropriate expectation of others tomake commitments to the family. The implication is that each member has ameaningful contribution to make to the family which other members of the familycan depend on. The typical incidents in this category are defining and assigning117of household chores, working together, and trusting others to do important tasks.(Number: 5, Participation rate: 4 or 31%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Defining and making commitments to the family and depending on eachmember to fulfil their commitment2. Acknowledging and appreciating the commitment and expecting amendsfor broken commitmentsB. Typical Incidents 1. Working together to divide up and commit to doing household chores2. Inviting members to work together3. Verbal appreciations meeting commitments and consequences for notmeeting comittments.C. Illustrations: We created a chores list and divided them up and each of us volunteeredto do our share. This seemed to be an easy way to show that we are all importantparts of our family, that this is OUR house and that we are all equallyresponsible for helping each other and keeping it clean.My daughter was full of energy this morning and she was playing around.I had asked her to get ready for school a couple of times but she hadn't so I toldher that if she hurried she could help me finish making the lunches for everyone.She seemed really happy with my invitation, ran off, got dressed and we madelunches together.2. HAVING THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN MUTUAL PROBLEM-SOLVING, intrinsically means that the thoughts, feelings and needs of allmembers of the family are meaningful and important, and are embedded withinthe resolution of any problem. The types of problems described in these incidentsranged from deciding on appropriate consequences, to determining curfews, to118coming up with new ways to deal with the frustrations of living in familyrelationships.(Number: 15, Participation rate: 8 or 62%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Listening to and appreciating others point of view as being important2. Inviting other to help resolve problem as opposed doing it unilaterallyB. Typical Incidents1. Stating that a problem needs to be solved and making a time to discussit2. Compromising so that both people are satisfied with the solutionC. Illustrations: We came home and found our daughter had two friends in the house. Therule is no friends in the house when we are not there and she is not to go into afriend's house if the parent is not at home. We said, "Please send your friendhome. We need to sit down and discuss this rule again." She sent her friend homeand we sat down and discussed the problem. In the end we were all satisfied.My wife and I have come to the agreement that we should not enforce ourthinking on how to manage our child effectively with each other, even if what theother person is doing may seem incorrect. Part of the agreement is that if we dofeel the need to talk about something that we don't like about the other'sparenting, we will discuss it at a later date. In this way we will hopefully preventattacking or defending. I think this is a major step in beginning to respect eachother's reality.3. HAVING THE ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN MUTUAL ENJOYMENTimplies the ability to achieve a sense of togetherness through feelings ofrelaxation, fun, joy and/or cooperation while engaged in a common activity.119Mutual enjoyment is derived out of a sense of appreciation for each other asunique individuals rather than out of the need for sameness, i.e., for everyone tothink, feel, and act the same. The incidents entail sports activities, shopping,family nights, special meals or dinners, etc.(Number: 7, Participation rate: 4 or 31 %).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Planning and spending time with other members of the family in anactivity2. Indicating appreciation for each other as unique rather than insistingsamenessB. Typical Incidents 1. Family night activities2. Engaging in sports, shopping, dining, school activities, etc. andenjoying each others companyC. Illustrations: On tuesday night, which is our family night, we did some of the exerciseswith our kids that we have done in the parenting workshop. They thought theywere a good idea and it was amazing how easy it was for them to listen and tofind out what the other person was talking about and how they felt. We allenjoyed the evening and by learning a new way to communicate we learned newthings about each other.We went shopping for jeans and came home with everything but jeans.Even though we were frustrated at trying to find what we wanted there were noconfrontations or arguments. It was great to know that even with frustration wedid not allow ourselves to wreck the day with fighting.HINDERING INCIDENTS: 1201. LITTLE EXPECTATION OF COMMITMENT TO THE FAMILY impliesa weak commitment to the family and that consequences from breaking familycommitments by self or other are usually nonexistent, inappropriate orunproductive.(Number: 4, Participation rate: 3 or 23%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Not expecting or having to experience a related consequence forbreaking commitment2. Breaking commitment to family by ignoring responsibilities, rules etc.B. Typical Incidents 1. One family member invests energy in taking over responsibility for abroken commitment rather than in making sure commitment is fulfilled2. Family member(s) have knowledge of well defined commitments, orfamily rules but ignore themC. Illustrations: My kids had a day off from school today and so I told them what they hadto do before they went out to play with anyone and how they were supposed toleave a message for me so when I came home I would know where they were.When I got home the jobs had not been done and I did not know where they were.When they came home, we ended up in a fight, I grounded them for the rest ofthe week, and sent them to their rooms. I ended up doing most of the work I hadasked them to do. It's not fair.On Friday night my son phoned and asked me if he could stay out untilmidnight. He is only 13 so I said, "No, 11:00 is late enough." He did not returnhome until Sunday morning. I was angry that he did this and hurt that he did notseem to care that I was worried sick about him.1212. INABILITY TO ENGAGE IN MUTUAL PROBLEM-SOLVING resultsfrom the inability to consider the thoughts, feelings and needs of the other asbeing important in problem resolution. In other words, the goal is to achieve aresolution that only satisfies either self, or other. Incidents in this categoryrepresent a breakdown of communication in which one person is able tooverpower the other or one person gives up and defers the resolution to the otherout of resentment.(Number: 8, Participation rate: 6 or 46%).A. Typical Behaviour 1. Only T/F/A of one person is paramount in problem resolution2. Breakdown in communication3. "Powerless" person gives up, defers to other and feels resentmentB. Typical Incidents1. Discussion of parent/parent or parent/child issues resulting in arguing,or cut-off/resentment rather than resolutionC. Illustrations: My husband and I have a difference of opinion about when our 17 year oldson should be in bed. He thinks it should be earlier than 10:00 and I think itcould be as late as 11:00. He is a responsible boy and I think that my husbandis still treating him as if he were a child. Whenever we talk about it my husbandeventually becomes quiet and then at night he tells my son it is time to startgetting to bed when 9:30 comes around. This makes me angry that he gets quietand we are cut-off.My young teenage daughter wants to have sleep overs almost everyweekend. I would prefer that she not have any sleep overs. Whenever we discuss122the issue she just gets angry at me and tells me I am so unreasonable. I guess Idon't care because I don't feel comfortable with her sleeping at other people'splaces and I am not going to allow her unless it is something special that I canfeel comfortable with.3. INABILITY TO ENGAGE IN MUTUAL ENJOYMENT occurs whentension between family members arises due to the need of one or more membersto dominate or control others during activities. The methods used to achieve thisare along the lines of humiliation, coercion or threats.(Number: 5, Participation rate: 3 or 23%)A. Typical Behaviour1. Tension between family members increasing during activities due tointolerance2. Threats, humiliation or coercion used in attempt for complianceB. Typical Incidents1. Family outings or activities turning into arguments which lead toemotional distanceC. Illustrations: I can not believe our family. Every time we plan on doing an activity,before we even get started someone has to wreck it for the rest of us. Forexample, on Sunday we were going to go for a hike. As we were getting ready,I noticed that my son had on his favourite shirt even though it was dirty. I askedhim to change it and the next thing I know we are in this big argument in whichI tell him to change it or else. First he is not going to change it, and then hechanges it but is not going to come with us. By the time we are in the car we areso emotionally uptight that we don't even talk to each other.My son and I went skiing together. I thought it was going to be a greatday and I was looking forward to it. He has not skied many times before, and I123know that falling can be frustrating, but before we were even finished the first runhe was in tears and wanting to go home. I guess I was really disappointedbecause I spent a great deal of the time telling him to quit crying like a baby andto get his act together. In the end I think that we would have been better off goinghome after the first run because we were both so miserable.In summary, Fostering Connection is crucial to healthy familyinteractions. By engaging in activities together, family members develop a senseof importance and worth in being attached to each other. Fostering Connectionappears to require taking conscious action towards that end. Whereas the first fivecategories contribute to Bowen's concept of Separateness, this categorycontributes to Bowen's concept of Togetherness. The facilitating incidents in thiscategory demonstrate the ability of unique family members to act as one (family)without the need for sameness. Hindering incidents on the other hand, seem toresult from family members needing to lose their uniqueness in order to be one.The process of differentiation is facilitated by the ability to feel a sense ofoneness without demanding sameness.The critical incident method enables the researcher to make sense of thedata collected and allows optimum flexibility in making the data useful. It isexpected that the critical incidents will represent successive approximations thatallow categories to be discerned. Bowen's concept of differentiation is primarilyan explanation of self-other interactions, and the anxiety that these dyadic124relationships produce. As such, these themes are reflected in all the incidents.Flanagan (1954), as mentioned previously, stated that the aim in using the criticalincident method was to "increase the usefulness of the data while sacrificing aslittle as possible of their comprehensiveness, specificity and validity" (p.340).Thesis categories extracted from this data are thus intended to be specific enoughto make each distinguishable from one another while at the same time generalenough to provide a system that is not cumbersome or unmanageable for practicaluse in helping to guide family members towards a process of greaterdifferentiation from each other.RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY OF THE CATEGORY SYSTEMReliabilityReliability of the category system was determined by the following:1. Exhaustiveness of the Category SystemIn order for a category system to be useful, it has to be comprehensive inits ability to include all the varieties of behaviour and experience that the focusof the research would expect to cover. To assess the exhaustiveness of thecategory system 80 incidents, approximately 20% of the total, were excludedfrom the initial sort which led to the establishment of the six categories. Once thecategories were finalized, these were sorted to see how well they fit within theexisting system and in particular, whether any new categories would emerge as125a result of this "new" data. All incidents fit with into the existing six categories.This provides evidence of the exhaustiveness of the category system created asa result of this study.2. Independent RaterIt is possible that any study could be contaminated by the subjectivity ofthe researcher. Using an independent rater a check can be made to assess thedegree to which the incidents can be reliably re-sorted into the establishedcategories. To this end, an independent rater was given a description of the sixcategories. A training period ensued in which she was given a chance to sort 10incidents while asking questions of the researcher to ensure that she was clear asto the object and nuances of the category system. Then she was given the task ofsorting 10% of the incidents, a total of 50, into the categories. The incidentsselected were prototypical facilitating and hindering incidents representing eachcategory.The Independent rater was able to correctly place 88 % or 44/50 of theincidents in their respective categories. The implication is that the six categoriesdistinguish separate aspects of the process being studied. However, at the sametime it is recognized that the incidents, being examples of real life experiences,can not be seen as definitive. In other words, within any one incident there arenuances that indicate an overlapping of two or more categories. The category126system is thus best seen as being able to distinguish the incidents within the limitsof successive approximation. For example, if any two categories areconceptualized as being at either end of a continuum then an overlapping incidentwould fall somewhere along the continuum between the two. Whether the incidentwere to be seen as more likely corresponding to the requirements of one categorythan the other would be influenced by the subjectivity of the rater.Prior to the study it was established that the category system would havereliability at an 85 % level. At 88% reliability the category system created for thisdata can be seen as reliable. In other words, the influence of researcher'ssubjectivity or of chance on the category system, is at an acceptable level.ValidityOnce reliability was established validity was assumed using the followingchecks:1. Opposition of IncidentsIn establishing the category system it is assumed that incidents whichfacilitate the process of differentiation will be in opposition to those that hinderthe process of differentiation. Furthermore, is expected that in creating a categorysystem for each category there will be subcategories that will be in directopposition, that is, for each facilitating behaviour or experience reported therewill be similar hindering behaviours or experiences reported. In this study, there127were equal numbers of opposing subcategories within each category for allcategories except for category #2 Acceptance of Difference (see Tables I and II)in which the behaviours and experiences of one of the oppositional hinderingsubcategories were such that they could be distinguished into two separateaspects. With oppositional subcategories arising within each of the six maincategories, the validity of the category system is supported.2. Participation Rate within the Category SystemIn chapter three it was stated that if each category was represented by a75% participation rate or higher, validity of the system would be indicated. Ofthe six categories all had participation rates of over 75 % (see Table VII).TABLE 6PARTICIPATION RATE PER CATEGORYCATEGORY NUMBER PARTICIPATION RATEBeing Responsible 13 100%Acceptance of Difference 13 100 %Control of Anxiety 12 92 %Awareness of Triangles 10 77 %Awareness of Self 11 85 %Fostering Connection 10 77 %The validity of the category system is supported by the high rate ofparticipation in each of the six categories. The lower participation rates in the128categories Awareness of Triangles and Fostering Connection are most likely aresult of the fewer number of incidents that comprised these categories.Considering however that there were less than half the number of incidents inthese categories than in those with 100% participation rates, a 77% participationrate is an encouraging indicator of the validity of the system.CONCLUSIONThe critical incident method used in this study revealed six categories. Thefirst five, Being Responsible, Acceptance of Difference, Control of Anxiety,Awareness of Triangles and Awareness of Self, are related to Bowen's (1978)Family System's Theory concept of the Individuality Force, whereas the lastcategory, Fostering Connection, is related to his concept of the TogethernessForce. Bowen postulated that differentiation was a product of having the abilityto keep these two complementary forces in balance. Furthermore, Bowen statedthat being differentiated required the ability to be an observer of relationshipinteraction dynamics, and to be able to consciously discriminate one's emotionalsystem from one's intellectual system. Facilitating incidents within each of thesesix categories reflect these two abilities, whereas hindering incidents indicate anabsence of these two abilities.Chapter five is a discussion of how the category system, in defining thecriteria for success in the differentiating process, has theorectical implications in129terms of questioning Bowen's original stance as to the ability of an individualraising his/her level in the family of procreation. As well, the chaptersummarizes the implications for possible future research, and finally, suggestspractical applications for promoting family health.130CHAPTER FIVEDISCUSSIONToday's child has become the unwilling, unintended victim ofoverwhelming stress-the stress borne of rapid, bewildering socialchange and constantly rising expectations. The contemporaryparent dwells in a pressure-cooker of competing demands,transitions, role changes, personal and professional uncertainties,over which he or she exerts slight direction. We seek release fromstress whenever we can and usually the one sure ambit of ourcontrol is our home. (Elkin, 1981, p. 3)INTRODUCTIONThis research study was set up to examine the process of differentiationwithin the context of the nuclear family. To do this Flanagan's (1954) CriticalIncidents method was used. This method was selected because of its potential toextract criteria for success or failure on a defined task. The participants in thisstudy recorded critical incidents which either facilitated or hindered their abilityto differentiate themselves from others in interactions of emotional significance.The six categories extracted from the incidents suggest this criteria, with the 14facilitating subcategories revealing what the basic requirements are of a parentwho can successfully differentiate, and the 15 hindering subcategories revealingwhat prevents a parent from differentiating. In all cases, the facilitating andhindering subcategories are in direct opposition to each other. This means that if131a parent were to act according to the descriptors within the facilitatingsubcategories during emotional interactions, the outcome would be a felt sense ofbeing differentiated, whereas if a parent were to act according to the descriptorswithin the hindering subcategories the outcome would be an interaction in whichthis felt sense of being differentiated would not occur.The importance of this is two-fold. First, it takes the outcome of emotionalinteractions out of the realm of being random, and into the realm of beingpredictable. In other words, the category system creates knowledge which can beused to make conscious decisions as to which outcome the individual prefers tocreate, that is, a differentiating outcome or an undifferentiating outcome. Second,processing knowledge that can predict outcome allows an individual to laterreflect on his/her contribution to an undifferentiating interaction. Reflection withthe guidance of the six categories can help an individual turn 'bad choices' intolearning opportunities for promoting future differentiating behaviour.In examining the facilitating and hindering incidents, what becomes clearis that having a sense of being differentiated is not based upon the feeling stateof the individual. Rather, it arises out of what the individual thinks about thosefeelings, and how the individual manages them. Bowen (1978) stated thatdifferentiation can only occur during times of emotional significance. Compatiblewith this assumption, the facilitating incidents involved experiencing feelings of132high anxiety, anger, frustration, excitement, joy, calmness, etc. The distinctiveaspect of having a sense of being differentiated is that in all facilitating incidents,the participants reported being aware of their feelings, while at the same timebeing in conscious and intellectual control of their behaviours. In the hinderingincidents, on the other hand, the participants were not able to separate theirfeelings from their behaviour with the result that the behaviours were automatic,and emotionally driven.Another aspect of maintaining a sense of differentiation is that it appearsto be empowering. In order to guide the reporting of the critical incidents, a fivequestion format was used (see Appendix B). The fourth question asked theparticipant to record the feelings that s/he was aware of experiencing during theincident. As mentioned above, in the facilitating incidents participants reporteda wide range of feelings. The response to this question could then be comparedto the response on the last question. The participants were asked to evaluatewhether or not the reported incident facilitated or hindered their process ofdifferentiation. On all the incidents judged to be facilitating, the participantsreported having acted not on what "felt right," i.e., their feelings, but rather ina goal-directed manner. Furthermore, in acting on the courage of theirconvictions, rather than on the power of the feelings that were beingexperienced, they felt like they were in control.133Kerr & Bowen (1988) state, "Functioning based on principle requirestolerance of anxiety and a willingness to focus on self" (p. 133). The facilitatingincidents reported by the participants in this study are congruent with Bowen'sFamily System's Theory. The level of differentiation a person attains is not basedso much on whether a person can act in a principle-oriented and goal-orientedmanner, but on how consistently a person can act in this manner. Focusing onself, an awareness of the family emotional process, and the ability not to begoverned by anxiety and emotional reactivity are all components of a long-termeffort to increase one's level of differentiation. All of the participants in this studyreported attaining a sense of differentiation, and the six categories extracted fromthe data defines the criteria they used to successfully do it. It would thus appearthat promoting parents to engage in the behaviours outlined by the six categorieswould enable them to tolerate anxiety to an ever increasing degree, empoweringthem to raise their level of differentiation over time. In doing so, it may minimizethe transmission of anxiety from parent to child that Elkin is referring to in thequote at the beginning of this chapter.The following is a discussion of the limitations of this study, its theoreticalimplications, including possible future research directions, and a discussion of thepractical implications as related specifically to parenting education/trainingprograms.134LIMITATIONS This study was intended to be an exploration of the process ofdifferentiation within the nuclear family. Family Systems Theory suggests that aperson's level of differentiation is set in late adolescence prior to leaving thefamily of origin (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988; Freeman, 1992). Similarly,the same authors believe that any possible increase in one's level of differentiationsubsequent to leaving home can only occur by doing what they refer to as familyof origin work (Bowen, 1978; Kerr & Bowen, 1988) or multigenerational familytherapy (Freeman, 1992). Their premise is that within the nuclear family, the dayto day stress and emotional fields are too strong to allow for any consistent effortin gaining objectivity or controlling emotional reactivity. They suggest that whathappens is that instead of making gains in one's level of differentiation, thefamily "remains for long periods on the level of emotional game playing in whichthe games of each spouse cancel out the potential gains of both" (Kerr & Bowen,1988, p. 449). As a result, research has focused not on the nuclear family, butrather on the effects of family of origin work on raising an adult child's level ofdifferentiation.As an exploratory study, the results of this study are inherently limited.With no previous studies to support its findings, the six categories may not begeneralizable. The sample was relatively small, and specific. It consisted of white135middle class couples selected from a pool of referrals to a Mental Health Unit.The couples had been referred as having difficulty handling at least one of theirchildren. Although the selection was made because it ensured participants whowould be experiencing family interactions of significant emotional intensities, itis possible that the experiences effecting their sense of differentiation may differfrom a population not having the same degree of difficulty in parenting a child.Similarly, it is also possible that the sample was relatively homogenous in itslevel of differentiation at the time of selection, and the category system may onlybe applicable for parents at that level.Another factor regarding the sample also needs to be considered in termsof how it effected the data. Generally, parenting classes are largely composed ofmothers. This sample, being composed of couples, had an equal number ofmothers and fathers. Thus, the data was partly based upon men who might havehad more interest in the parenting role than men in general. It is possible that thiscould effect the generalizability of the results in two ways. First, the male samplemay have responded to the critical incidents report format differently than menin general. Second, parenting, even as we approach the 21st century is still forthe most part seen as a female activity. It is possible that the categoriesformulated would be different if the study reflected this phenomena, i.e., asample consisting of mothers only.136In light of the limitations suggested above, the following implications fortheory, research and practice can be considered.THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS The six categories obtained from the present study suggest a clearerunderstanding of the process of differentiation. The facilitating subcategoriesdemonstrate what enhances the ability to differentiate, while the hinderingincidents demonstrate what prevents the ability to differentiate. While thecategories are supported by Bowen (1978), his work on differentiation was alwayswith adult children working through family of origin issues. This study seems tosuggest that the same process might be possible within the nuclear family, bygiving the parental unit knowledge, skills and support.As mentioned earlier, this study did not set out to assess whether or notthe participants raised their levels of differentiation as a result of the intervention.According to Bowen (1978) this is only possible by resolving family of originissues. However, if the process can be discerned by examining critical incidentsoccurring within the nuclear family, it calls into question this assumption. It maybe premature to suggest that it is possible to raise one's level of differentiationin one's family of procreation, but by helping the parental unit become aware ofand put into practice these criteria, the implications for promoting family health137are stimulating.In today's world, it is not always possible to make contact with membersof one's family of origin due to lack of proximity, death of a parent, or issuesinvolving trauma such as neglect, physical and sexual abuse which precludes anydesire to associate with them. Thus, raising one's level of differentiation isseverely limited by the current assumptions of Family Systems Theory. Freeman(1992) and Richardson (1984) point out that even if you can't work directly withyour parents, there is usually someone who knew them intimately enough duringcertain periods of their life, to help you construct a history that will help in doingfamily of origin work. However, this approach is limited simply because anyinformation that is not gained from the source is really little more than gossip;gossip, like secrets, is considered by systems theory to be a primary source offamily dysfunction and as such, an impediment in differentiating'. However, ifit is possible to raise one's level of differentiation in the family of procreation,then individuals that can not make contact with members of their families oforigin have hope in doing so.In doing family of origin work, it is common for there to be long breaks1 Gossip occurs in the triangling process. Information or conflicts that one person has withanother is diverted to a third party rather than communicated directly to the person who isdirectly involved. The only way conflict can be resolved is for the two people involved to reachan understanding that both can feel comfortable with.138between contacts with family members. This might explain why the process seemsto be so slow. Richardson (1984) points out that it took Bowen 12 years tocomplete his process of differentiation. If this is a factor, the family ofprocreation, with its daily interactions, might in fact be more of an ideal place forbecoming more differentiated. Through conscious observation of familydynamics, the family of procreation provides a setting in which the daily planningand executing of differentiating moves might be accomplished. It is possible thatBowen, in basing his theoretical perspective on his own experiences, was toopessimistic about the ability of people doing differentiating work within thenuclear family.It might also be possible that Bowen, was not that intimately involved inthe parenting process of his own children to see the potential for growth thatparenting children can have. This research suggests that the process ofdifferentiation is one which is based upon six aspects, Being Responsible,Acceptance of Difference, Control of Anxiety, Awareness of Triangles,Awareness of Self, and Fostering Connection. In my experience as a primarycaregiver to my children, I am constantly presented with situations in which these2 Being a parent can not be confused with parenting. The term parent simply denotes abiological or legal process. Parenting is the active role of caring for, guiding and nurturingchildren on a daily basis. Buying the diapers is not the same as changing them.139tasks come into play. Combining knowledge of the category system, with thesesituations may challenge present theoretical thought.Bowen's Family Systems Theory explains relationship dynamics usingconcepts that make intuitive sense out of "seemingly random and even chaoticappearing family interactions... (creating)... order and predictability to familyrelationships" (Kerr & Bowen, 1988, p. 4). Furthermore, the power of the theoryis that these patterns of interactions are played out consistently from family tofamily, regardless of specific family values, attitudes or personalities. Bowen sawthe emotional system as being an instinctual and natural system, and as suchevolutionary. Just as no other theory has ever been an end in itself, it makessense that this theory is also subject to the natural process forming the evolutionof thought. In defining the process, we may have now evolved to a point in whichthe theory may need to examine some of its basic assumptions. From this severaltheoretical questions arise which might not only guide future research, but as wellhave practical implications.PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONSI'm convinced that too often parents are trapped in themanagement paradigm, thinking of control, efficiency, and rulesinstead of direction, purpose, and family feeling.(Covey, 1989, p. 103).140This section deals with the more practical implications of incorporating theresults of this study into existing parenting paradigms. Getz & Gunn (1988) havedeveloped a summary of parent education strategies that could be connected withan assessment of different family dynamics. They suggest that family systemdynamics can be delineated into three issues, Family Communication, EmotionalDistance, and Family Role Structure. By conducting a family assessment in thesethree areas, parent education approaches can be individualized to meet the needsof the family. It is their contention that "teaching the same skills to all parentsregardless of the specific characteristics of each of those families...may aggravatepre-existing patterns" (p.165). They suggest that teaching families new methodsof interacting to replace methods that are already working may cause parents todoubt their competence and feel more guilty about their ineffectiveness than theydid before receiving the new information. When this happens parents can becomeparalysed, afraid to do anything in case it is not the right thing to do (Doherty &Ryder, 1980).Using this assessment system, they suggest two formats for helpingfamilies experiencing trouble. After assessing the families individually todetermine which of the three areas need adjustment, the parental unit could eitherbe seen individually or placed in a group format with other parents experiencingsimilar difficulties. Then using an integrative approach in which techniques and141strategies from various established parenting programs, i.e., P.E.T. , S.T.E.P. ,Behaviourial etc., are borrowed, adjustment can be promoted without the risk ofundermining the parents existing abilities.I suggest that the above strategy does not go far enough in making theparadigm shift parents need for long term independent change in behaviour. It ismy contention that today, parents seem to need more than diagnosis and strategicintervention. Diagnosis and strategic intervention might bring about change, butit is likely to only result in first order change rather than second order change(Becvar & Becvar, 1988). First order change results in a change in the system butonly according to the rules of the system. For example, a family whose structureleans towards the authoritarian model may learn about discipline and using naturaland logical consequences and then adjust their meaning so that they becomesynonymous with authoritarian control and punishment. Or, a parent may learnmore about how to communicate more effectively with his/her child, but insteadof using the skills learned to further understanding of the child's experience, mayuse the information heard against the child.Second order change, on the other hand, involves a change in the rules ofthe system and therefore in the system itself. There is no doubt that families whoare successful have clearly understood rules, but as well, they have rules that canchange the rules whenever the original rules become counterproductive. A rule142maybe broken, and a consequence may follow, but instead of expectingretribution for the mistake, second order change can allow discipline andcommunication to turn the broken rule into a potential valuable family learningexperience. Using the examples above, and combining the categories BeingResponsible and Acceptance of Difference, the parent might seek to understandthe child's struggle in growing up, making mistakes and having to deal with theconsequences of them. Instead of taking on the struggle, giving advice orimposing a consequence/punishment, the parent disciplines by supporting andencouraging the child's struggle in solving the problem (the consequence). In thisway, the learning potential of the experience is increased for the child andaccording to the natural laws of a system, for the whole family.To accomplish this, parents need a theory that will help them change therules of how their system operates, as well as techniques and strategies. Theyneed a theory which will guide them in creatively modifying the techniques andstrategies to fit into their family structure and to change their family structure tofit the techniques and strategies. In this way, techniques and strategies have morepotential in preventing future problems. Interventions that only focus onminimizing or eliminating problems in the short term, (first order change) maybe useful in resolving crisis situations, however, they limit what is needed forpromoting family growth in the long term (second order change). Thus, having143a theory that promotes the understanding of changing relationships takestechniques out of the realm of being a 'bag of tricks' and puts them into a realmof useful knowledge. Family development in our evolving society is a dynamiclifespan process that requires flexibility. Parents who have a theory based uponnatural laws will more likely be able to attain the flexibility to meet the demandsof these ever-changing relationships.In the past, most parents followed a traditional model of parenting thatwas based upon a social norm. Some of the typical 'golden rules' were, Kidsshould be seen and not heard, Respect your elders, Don't talk back, Do itbecause I said so, etc. In this model, intimidation, coercion, abuse of authorityand a heavy hand were basically all the techniques a parent needed to know andthese were easy to learn and master. In this model, the man was at the top, thelittle woman was next in line and children were, at best, 'black box' possessions.If a parent was weak in mastering these techniques, the grandparent, the teacher,the minister, the neighbour, or for that matter, the man on the street, was alwaysthere as a reminder to children that there was a correct way to be, and wasentitled to act in whatever way thought necessary to keep the child in line. Todayhowever, society does not subscribe to this model, and no one model of parentinghas replaced it.Doherty (1992) states that in the last half of this century the family has144undergone two transitions and is now into a postmodern stage. Until the latesixties, the family could be described as the Institutional Family or traditionalfamily in which family tradition, loyalty, and solidarity were more important thanindividual goals or romantic interests. At that time, various factors such as thecoming of age of the baby-boomers, the Vietnam war and the rapid rise offeminism, gave way to the birth of what he calls the Psychological Family. Thisfamily was more nuclear, more mobile, less tied to extended kinship, and basedon the premise that the personal satisfaction and fulfilment of its individualparents was most important. If responsibility was a hallmark of theInstitutionalized Family then personal satisfaction was the chief value of thePsychological Family.In the 90s, as an outgrowth of this value, we have entered the age of thePluralistic Family in which the average child of the immediate future will, "growup in some combination of: a one-parent family, a two-parent family, or a step-family, and will go on in adulthood to cohabitate, marry, divorce, remarry andperhaps redivorce" (p. 35) and Doherty states that the new family value will beflexibility. Elkin, (1992) refers to this family as the Permeable Family forobvious reasons, but states that he sees an emergence of yet another form whichhe calls the Vital Family, "In the Vital Family, the modern value of togethernessis given equal weight with the Postmodern Family value of autonomy" (p. 79).145In the Permeable Family, children are seen as having competence way beyondtheir developmental abilities. This serves the purpose of helping to relieve theparental anxiety and guilt that is inherent in trying to raise children in anatmosphere of two career families, single parent families and inadequate daycare,but this competence is only an illusion. As a result, in the Vital family, childrenare no longer seen as being competent but "are seen as growing into competenceneeding the help and support of the parents" (p. 81). Elkin sees that for the firsttime in history, parents and children can both have the same goals, that is, tosatisfy their need to belong (Togetherness) and their need to become (Autonomy).Nevertheless, for most people, the family is still the place in which thefrustrations of trying to satisfy these needs can fall prey to unrealistic expectationsand emotional reactivity. When this happens, anxiety increases activating oldpatterns of faulty interactions or establishing new faulty patterns of interactions.These serve the purpose of temporarily lowering the anxiety by unfairlydisplacing it on others. However, just as faulty interactions may work in thebeginning, they soon create their own anxiety which then only exacerbates theoriginal problem. In other words, although these faulty interactions may seem toresolve the problem, it is only an illusion, and in most cases the anxiety becomesmore intense and the unresolved problem becomes more difficult to resolve.Faulty interactions, without a theory that makes sense out of them, become rigid146and because of the reciprocal nature of a system, recursive.The concepts within Bowen's theory, such as the family emotional system,the mutual projection process, and the triangling process, explain how faultyinteractions are created and maintained, while the categories of Control ofAnxiety, Acceptance of Difference and Awareness of Triangles, generated inthis study, can guide parents in making the second order change required forelimination and prevention. They give parents the permission for BeingResponsible in their interactions with their children. In this way, each parent canbecome more Awareness of Self, and use problems to Foster Connections inwhich strengths are built upon and weaknesses are compensated for. In adoptingBowen's theory, and letting the six categories guide their behaviour, parents canseek to enable and empower themselves to engage in prevention rather than incrisis.Dunst & Trivette (1987) reiterate this position. They state it is time tochange our orientation of working with families from one of a deficit model toone of enablement and empowerment. The deficit model is based on either layingblame or on inherent family deficiencies that can only be corrected withprofessional interventions. It is a model that robs the family of their power byplacing the power into the hands of the professional expert. On the contrary,enabling families refers to helping families seize the opportunity to display147competence, which then contributes to the family feeling empowered or seeingthemselves as having the ability to bring about change. In other words, insteadof the focus being on error or weakness elimination, it is on individual familystrengths so that weaknesses are accepted and compensated for. Family SystemsTheory can make a major contribution to this new orientation to working withparents. This theory, by explaining relationship dynamics within emotionalsystems can help families begin to observe, detach and make sense out of faultyinteractions, and then plan differentiating moves to correct them. In other words,the theory enables and empowers the family to make the changes necessary topromote belonging and becoming.By recognizing the force for Togetherness and for Separateness, the theoryaccounts for problems as arising out of the family's inability to cope with thedynamic shifting balance of these two forces over the lifespan. Differentiatedbehaviour is the doorway to making adjustments whenever a change in thebalance of the two forces require it. Because it is based upon acting on principlesrather than on emotional reactivity', it creates the flexibility Elkin (1993) isIt might serve to clarify a point about acting on principles rather than emotional reactivity.Although Bowen suggested that principles were "intellectual" as opposed to "feeling", he openedup much space for confusion and criticism. Principles are natural laws of humanity and as suchcome into our awareness through a combination of our intellectual and our feeling states.Principles based purely upon intellectual functioning are simply insensitive subjectivejudgements.148referring to. Principles arise out of natural laws, and as such, exist within eachindividual. At the higher end of the scale, the individual is seen as beinginfluenced more by these inner principles than by the forces of the externalenvironment. However, I believe that parents need to have permission to accessthis principled behaviour and believe that Bowen's theory, and the six categoriesgenerated by this study, represent the key to that access.Parents of young children have come out of an age in which authoritarianrule has been rejected. There has been much discussion in parenting circles aboutwhat to replace it with. After decades of being told how a family should be andhow a child should act, it makes sense that the first shift would be social controlin the guise of discipline. However, I believe that parents are now ready forsecond order change; to begin raising children based upon honouring differenceand using inner principles, such as fairness, integrity, honesty, nurturance andencouragement. Discipline means to teach, not to control and I believe thatparents want to teach their children by giving them permission to access theseinner principles so that the whole family might become principle-oriented andgoal-directed.In light of this, the practical implications of the six categories are evident.The facilitating subcategories outline the requirements for successfuldifferentiation, while the hindering subcategories outline the requirements for149failure in differentiating. In presenting Bowen's Family Systems Theory, to theparental unit, the parents have a theoretical base from which to make the requiredsecond order change and I think that the six categories derived from this study,can guide them in implementing that change. With the theoretical basis, the parentis in a much better position to make changes by predicting the outcome of anyinteraction before it starts. The six categories demonstrate the conscious choicesthe parent can make at the outset in choosing to respond in a differentiating way.This study has not produced any new parenting interventions or strategies.However, the six categories can be taught, and practised so that they replace theunconscious thoughts, feelings and actions that lead families down the roadtowards poor adjustment through faulty interactions. The current parent educationstrategies are really only skills for helping people relate. These strategies can beused to support the parent in incorporating the theory and developing their use ofthe six categories. Table 8 is a summary of the six categories and the parenteducation strategies which support and facilitate attaining a sense ofdifferentiation.Differentiation is very clearly a process and as such involves several steps.First is gaining the knowledge of the theory and the six categories. Second, ispractice and remembering to practice. This means letting go of those times inwhich emotional chaos interferes with remembering to put knowledge into150practice. This can be done by living the philosophy that mistakes are learningopportunities. Rather than let guilt sabotage the process, forgetting to remembercan be turned into a reflection of how to remember the next time. Third is time.Becoming differentiated is a process and time is an element. Fourth iscommitment. Changing one's way of being is going against the homeostasis of thesystem. As much as there is a desire to change, in the beginning of any changethere is an equal or more powerful pressure to change back. Only by making acommitment can change take place. I think the common sense of Bowen's theoryand the six categories can greatly support that commitment. Furthermore, bybeing able to distinguish the criteria that facilitates this process, and by being ableto link it to existing parental education and techniques, there is the possibilitiesthat greater family health and adjustment can be promoted.Table 8 is an attempt to link current programmatic parenting techniquesand strategies with the six facilitating subcategories. What is noticable about thisapproach is that the subcategories are intended as a philosophy of being while thetechniques become the skills that support the philosophy and through which thephilosophy can be lived.TABLE 7^ 151SUMMARY OF CATEGORY SYSTEM & POSSIBLE PARENTEDUCATION/TRAINING STRATEGIES SUBCATEGORIES^PARENTING STRATEGIESBEING RESPONSIBLETaking responsibility for selfBeing able to state one's boundariesAllowing others to be responsibleUsing "I" statementsPractising active listening, empathyDiscipline, i.e., teaching responsible behaviourthrough the use of problem-solving and consequencesACCEPTANCE OF DIFFERENCEAllowing others to have & express ownthoughts/feelings, and to do things inown wayAbility to express an opinion and stickto it in face of differenceActive listening, empathyGiving choices, and problem-solving"I" statementsCONTROL OF ANXIETYMonitoring self anxietyMonitoring the anxiety of othersEffective communication ("I" statements & activelistening)Use of time-out or time-in to dissipate increasinganxietyAdequate sleep and exerciseAWARENESS,OF TRIANGLESAbility to observe conflictual dyadwithout being drawn inGiving support to each member of theconflictual dyadPractising observational skillsUsing empathy to validate experience of both people.Encouraging mutual problem-solvingAWARENESS OF SELFAwareness of strengths and weaknessesAwareness of needs and wantsUsing effective speaking skillsAllowing for flexibility in changing rules, i.e., theconvince me technique, negotiationEstablishing boundaries using rulesFOSTERING CONNECTIONExpectation of commitment to the familyHaving the ability to engage in mutualproblem-solvingHaving the ability to engage in mutualenjoymentEstablishing cooperative family work, i.e., choresEffective use of proximity, i.e., using closeness andtouch to create sense of importance and belongingUnconditional and conditional love and acceptance152IMPLICATONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCHPrior to any longitudinal study being initiated to examine the usefulnessof the category system in promoting differentiation within the family ofprocreation, the categories need to be subjected to more rigorous study todetermine how generalizable they are. By replicating the study using a variety ofpopulations such as single parents, parents without hard to manage children,blended families/step parents, etc., the degree to which the critical incidentscollected fit the existing category system could be assessed. One possible outcomeof this type of study might be the discovery of new categories or a refinement ofthe existing one.If the category system were to hold up, research could be conducted intothe usefulness of the system. One possible use could be in converting it into afamily diagnostic instrument. Farley (1990) has developed what he refers to asa Family Developmental Task Assessment: A Prerequisite to Family Treatment,which may provide a prototype format for this type of diagnostic instrument.Farley suggests that his instrument be used as an interview tool on which thestrengths and weaknesses of a family can be assessed on five different aspects,Regulation of individuation, Management of affect, Regulation of sexual andaggressive impulses, Self-other observation, and Severity of socio-biologicalstressors. The results of the assessment can then be used to guide interventions153that would recognize and utilize the strengths as well as build on the weaknesses.Getz & Gunn (1988) have also created a format in which Family Communication,Emotional Distance and Family Role Structure are assessed for each family thenrelated to parent educational strategies.Another important direction for research, could be to determine ifknowledge of the six categories would, over time, actually raise one's level ofdifferentiation. It is one thing to have knowledge of the basic requirements for themastery of a task, it another thing to be able to put them into practice in order toattain that mastery. The optimism of Bowen's theory is that a person can, bybeing proactive, "carve out a rational self capable of detachment from theprimitive emotionalism that too often overwhelms the human capacity to think"(Simon, 1991, p. 2). Being proactive requires that a person has the knowledge ofwhat to do, has the skills which enables him/her to do it, and the desire to wantto do it (Covey, 1989). In the past, research has only focused on doing this typeof work within an adult's family of origin.A longitudinal study could be set up which divided subjects into one ofthree groups. The first group could receive instruction in the six categories,taught skills to incorporate them, and then given ongoing support andencouragement in being proactive. The second group could also receiveinstruction and skill training but not be given continued ongoing support. Finally,154the third group could be seen as a control, not receiving knowledge, skillstraining or support. In this way, the categories could be assessed as to theirusefulness to raise one's level of differentiation over time by comparing the firsttwo groups to the control group. Furthermore, by comparing group one to grouptwo, the categories could be assessed as to what degree ongoing support andencouragement would play in raising one's level of differentiation as comparedto only receiving knowledge and skills.Finally, I conclude by proposing future directions for improving theexisting state of parent education/training courses. My review of the literaturehighlights the paucity of programs in which the research into family and familydynamics over the last ten years has been incorporated. Courses which have alinear perspective of dyadic interactions contribute to a lack of understandingabout human behaviour and therefore are inherently limiting. Each relationshipwithin the family, whether it be a spousal relationship, a parent-child relationshipor a sibling relationship is only part of an interconnected emotional system.Parent-education programs which focus only on one of these relationships, i.e.,the parent-child relationship, and/or focus on controlling the child's`misbehaviour' through manipulative techniques or strategies exploiting theinherent power imbalance, are out-dated. It is time that new parenteducation/training programs be developed incorporating family theory and155research, such as Bowen's Family Systems Theory, and the six categoriesrevealed in this study.Obviously, any program developed would need to besubjected to research and evaluation so that its efficacy could be validated.CONCLUSIONIn conclusion, this study has revealed six categories which can guide theprocess of differentiation within the family of procreation. The categories werebased upon critical incidents reported by participants in a parenteducation/training workshop which integrated Bowen's Family Systems Theory,and techniques and skills from parenting programs based upon communication,Adlerian, and behaviourial theories. The study suggests that Family SystemsTheory, and in particular the concept of differentiation has a place in promotinghealthy adjustment of family interactions. In doing so, it further suggests thatFamily Systems Theory has a contribution to make to the future of acomprehensive theoretical model of parent education.155REFERENCESAmundson, N. & Borgen, W. (1987). Coping with unemployment: What helpsand what hinders. Journal of Employment Counselling, 24, 97-106.Andersson, B. & Nilsson, S. (1964). Studies in the reliability and validity ofthe critical incident technique. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48,398-403.Barkley, R. (1981). Hyperactive children: A handbook for diagnosis andtreatment. New York: Guilford Press.Becvar, D. & Becvar, R. (1988). Family therapy: A systemic integration.Toronto: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.Bowen, M. (1966). The use of family theory in clinical practice.Comprehensive Psychiatry, 7, 345-374.Bowen, M. (1976). Theory in the practice of psychotherapy. In Guerin, P.J.(Ed.), Family Therapy. New York: Gardner Press.Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York; JasonAronson, Inc.Bowiby, J. (1973). Separation anxiety and anger. New York: Basic Books.Boychuck, R. (1985). A critical incidents study of self esteem. Unpublishedthesis for Master of Arts degree, University of BritishColumbia. Vancouver, Canada: U.B.C.Carter, B. & McGoldrick, M. (1988). Overview: The changing family lifecycle-A framework for family therapy, in The Changing Family Life Cycle: A Framework for Family Therapy. New York: Gardner Press.Clarke, J. (1989). Growing up again: Parenting ourselves, parenting ourchildren. New York: Hazelden Foundation.156Cochran, M. (1985). The facilitation and hinderance of scholarly activity asreported by the U.B.C. education faculty members. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.Coloroso, B. (1989). Winning at parenting without beating your kids. Video,Kids are worth it series.Covey, S. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people. New York:Simon & Schuster.Coyne, J. (1985). A brief, strategic interactional approach to psychotherapy: Handbook of interpersonal psychotherapy (in press) Anchin & Kieler(Eds.), Plenum Press.Davidson, G. & Neale, J. (1986). Abnormal psychology. New York: JohnWiley & Sons.Deri, S. (1981). Acting out. In Object and Self: A Developmental Approach, Essays in Honor of Edith Jacobson. Tuttman, S., Kaye, C., &Zimmerman, M. (eds.), chapter 8, p. 179-189. New York: InternationalUniversities Press inc.DeSalvatore, G. & Rosenman, D. (1986). The parent-child activity group:Using activities to work with children and their families in residentialtreatment. Child-Care-Quarterly; 1986 Win Vol 15(4) 213-222.Dinkmeyer, D. & McKay, G. (1976). Systematic training for effective parenting. Circle Pines, Minn: American Guidance Service, Inc.Dionne, R. (1991). Parent-education: Its usefulness as an early intervention inrelieving the case load of mental health professionals. Unpublishedstudy, Chilliwack Mental Health.Doherty, W. (1992). Private lives, public values: The new pluralism-a reportfrom the heartland. Psychology Today, 25(3), 32-38.Doherty, W. & Ryder. R. (1980). Parent effectiveness training (PET):Criticisms and caveats. Journal of Marriage and Family Therapy, 6,p.109-119.157Dunning, S. & Wills, D. (1981). Parenting groups. Unpublished Major Paperfor Master of Education degree, University of British Columbia.Vancouver, Canada: U.B.C.Dunst, C. & Trivette, C. (1987). Enabling and empoweringfamilies: Conceptual and intervention issues, School PsychologyReview, 16, 443-456.Dreikurs, R. (1964). Children: The challenge. New York: Hawthorn Books,Inc.Eldridge, A. & Schmidt, E. (1990). The capacity to parent: A selfpsychological approach t parent-child psychotherapy. Clinical SocialWork Journal, 18(4), 339-351.Elkind, D. (1992). Waaah!!! Why kids have a lot to cry about. Psychology Today, 25(3), 38-42.Elkind, D. (1981). The hurried child. U.S.A.: Addison-WesleyFaber, A. & Mazlich, E. (1980). How to talk so kids will listen & listen sokids will talk. New York: Avon Books.Farley, J. (1990). Family developmental task assessment: A prerequisite tofamily treatment. Clinical Social Work Journal, 18(1), 85-98.Fine, M. & Gardener, P. (1991). Counselling and educational services forfamilies: An empowerment perspective. Elementary School Guidanceand Counselling, V. 26, 33-43.Flanagan, J.C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin,51(4): 327-358.Freeman, D. (1992). Multigenerational family therapy.Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Bantam Books.158Garfinkel, H. (1980). Family systems personality profile: An assessment instrument based on the bowen theory. Dissertation, California Schoolof Professional Psychology, Fresno Campus.Getz, H. & Gunn, W. (1988). Parent education from a family-systemsperspective. The School Counsellor, 5(35), 331-336.Gilbert, R. (1992). Extraodinary relationships: A new way of thinking abouthuman interactions. Minneapolis, MN: Chronimed Publishing.Gordon, T. (1970). P.E.T.: Parenting effectiveness training. New York:Wyden, Inc.Haley, J. (1971). A reveiw of the family therapy field. In Changing Families,Haley J. (ed.). New York: Grune & Stratton.Hendrix, H. (1988). Getting the love you want. New York: Harper & Row.Hendrix, H. (1992). Keeping the love you find. New York: Harper & Row.Henry, (1990). Differentiation and marital couples. Unpublished thesis forMasters in Social Work degree, University of British Columbia.Vancouver, Canada: U.B.C.Hinde,R. & Stevenson-Hinde,J. (1988). Interpersonal relationships and childdevelopment. Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development; 5-26.Kearney, J. (1986). A time for differentiation: The use of a systems approachwith adolescents in community-based agencies. Journal of Adolescence,9(3), 243-256.Kerr, M. & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based onbowen theory. New York: W. W. Norton.Neufeld, G. (1980). Creative Parenting. Unpublished developmental parentingprogram, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada: U.B.C.Paddack, G. (1987). Evaluation of the creative parenting program.159Unpublished thesis for Master of Arts degree, University of BritishColumbia. Vancouver, Canada: U.B.C.Park, R. (1977). Parent-infant interaction: Progress, paradigms and problems.In G. P. Sackett (Ed.) Observing Behavior, Vol. 1, Theory andApplications in Mental Retardation. Baltimore, M.D.: University ParkPress.Patterson, G. (1974). Intervention for boys with conduct problems: multiplesettings, treatments and criteria. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 471-481.Popkin, M., Garcia, E. & Woodward, H. (1983). Active Parenting. Atlanta,Georgia: Active Parenting, Inc.Richardson, R. (1987). Family ties that bind. North Vancouver: Self-CounselPress.Richardson, R. (1990). Birth order and you: How your sex and position in thefamily affects your personality and relationships. North Vancouver:Self-Counsel Press.Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Simon, R. (1991). From the editor. The Family Therapy Networker: Murray Bowen, Family Therapy's Neglected Prophet, March/April, 2.Toman, W. (1961). Family Constellation. New York: Springer.Whalen, L. (1983). Design of a developmental parent education program forparents of adolescents. Unpublished major paper for Master ofEducation degree, University of British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada:U.B.C.Young, E. (1991). Critical incidents in early school leavers' transition toadulthood. Unpublished thesis for Master of Arts degree, Universityof British Columbia. Vancouver, Canada: U.B.C.Young, R. (1984). Ordinary Explanations , Canadian Counsellor, 18(4),152-159.160APPENDIX APARTICIPANT CONSENT FORM161162Consent FormI^ consent to participate in the study Parenting WithA Purpose: The Effects of a Couples Workshop on Differentiation of Self. This study isconducted by Robert Dionne, a Master's Degree student in Counselling Psychology at theUniversity of British Columbia, and supervised by Dr. Larry Cochran, Professor. This studywill examine what conditions facilitate and what conditions hinder the differentiation of self.Data collection for this study will take four forms:1. You will be required to complete three, 1/2 hourinterviews, of which the mid-session and post-sessionwill be audio-tape and transcribed to ensure moreaccurate data collecting. In the pre-session andpost-session interviews you will be asked to completethree questionnaires. In the mid and post-sessions youwill be asked to relate information pertaining to yourpersonal process of differentiation.2. You will be asked to complete a daily log. This isestimated to take 10-15 minutes a day. As well, theleader will record observations as a result of theinteractions during the sessions.3. Your file information at Chilliwack Mental Healthpertaining to the research maybe accessed.4. The teacher of your child will be asked to complete aquestionnaire pre-session and post-session. Thisquestionnaire takes about 10 minutes to complete.All identifying information will be deleted from any recorded material to ensureconfidentiality. Your name will remain confidential. All tapes will be erased and all writtenmaterial will be incinerated upon completion of the study.The study requires a commitment to attending three-hour workshop sessions and ten tofifteen minutes per day reflecting and writing of a daily log. You have the right to refuse toanswer any questions, participate in any exercise, and may also withdraw from the study at anytime without consequences of any kind. Participation in this study is voluntary.Any questions or concerns can be directed at either Robert Dionne (224-1731) or Larry Cochran(822-5259).I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE ABOVE AND HEREBY CONSENT TOPARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY. I ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THE CONSENTFORM AND ALL ATTACHMENTS.Participant:Researcher:APPENDIX BDAILY LOG163164DAILY LOGYou have been given fifty white and fifty yellow index cards.You are to use these for your daily log recordings. At the end of eachday you are asked to spend ten to fifteen minutes contemplating onyour daily events and write down:"What events and/or experiences have you had during theworkshop or between the workshop sessions, on a dailybasis, which either facilitated or hindered your ability todifferentiate?"Differentiation simply means:I have my own thoughts, feelings and actions and youhave your own thoughts, feelings and actions.I recognize which thoughts, feelings and actions are mineand which thoughts, feelings and actions are yours.I am responsible for my thoughts, feelings and actionsand the consequences of them, and likewise, you areresponsible for yours.Write facilitating events on white cards and hindering events onyellow cards. Write one to three cards daily. Bring these to the nextworkshop session.Thank you.165DAILY LOG1. DESCRIBE the event;What happened?Who did what to whom?2. What was SAID?Who said what to whom?3. What were your THOUGHTS?4. What were your FEELINGS?5. IDENTIFY specifically, what makes this event facilitating orhindering?Example of a Facilitating Event1. My son made a mess in the kitchen and then went and sat in frontof the T.V. without cleaning it up. I went to cook supper and allthe counters were dirty.2. I went into the family room and told him he had a mess to cleanup and asked him if he wanted to do it with the T.V. on or off.3. I thought that I am not going to be able to cook in this mess andthat he had to clean it up quickly so that we would be able to havesupper on time.4. I was angry that there was a mess, and was anxious to get supperstarted.5. This was a facilitating incident because even though I was feelingangry and anxious, I was able to ask my son to clean up the messin a way that motivated him and did not start an argument.Example of a Hindering Event1. My son made a mess in the kitchen and then went and sat in frontof the T.V. without cleaning it up. I went to cook supper and allthe counters were dirty.2. I went into the family room and shut the T.V. off and told him inno uncertain terms that he had better get his butt out into thekitchen before I ground him for he week.3. I thought, I'm tired of being a maid around this house.4. I was frustrated and angry at his irresponsible behavour5. This was a hindering event because in the end we had a terribleargument and I sent him to his room and cleaned up the messmyself.APPENDIX C166LETTERS167Jan. 30, 1992DearThank you for participating in my research study. I think that the researchwill be valuable for extending the knowledge that we have of family interactions.I can also appreciate how difficult it is to attend a first night session. Walkinginto a group situation can be threatening, and I thank you for your courage. Frommy experience in running groups, I have found that it takes three to four sessionsto develop comfortable feelings with the group process.After attending the first session, it is quite common to feel that yourexpectations might not be met. However, previous participants to this workshophave, in retrospect, indicated to me how satisfying the total experience was.I can also appreciate that through the duration of this workshop, you andyour partner might experience some conflict due to the everyday stresses thatfamilies are besieged with. Attending the workshop regardless of this conflict canbe quite a growing experience. It offers an opportunity to put the process ofdifferentiation into practice.I also realize that in the beginning, writing your daily log might seem likea chore. Having gone through the experience myself, I found that my persistencewas rewarded as I learned to enjoy this private daily time. Should you find thatyou are having difficulty understanding the task, I hope that you will bring it tomy attention before or after our session so I can assist you. I can assure you thatit is simple and it will get easier.I am looking forward to seeing you February 5, at 7:00 pm.Sincerely,Robert Dionne168February 6, 1992DearHere are some after thoughts arising from our last workshop that I thoughtI would like to share with the two of you. First of all, after reading thefacilitating and hindering event cards, I must compliment you on the effort thatyou are investing in our research project. I especially like to comment on thedepth of description on many of the cards. I will be curious to read your eventcards, and to hear your comments about having written them for a second weekin a row.I was quite concerned after our last session, because I had to eliminatecertain activities that I had previously planned. I mentioned this to my team andthey pointed out to me that it was a sign of how keenly you were involved in theprocess. Their point was that I had a group that was highly motivated for change,and that I had to expect that your thirst for knowledge needed to be satiated. Inretrospect, I see that my team is 100% correct in their evaluation of you.I will be looking forward to our next meeting. At that time we willlooking at how our communication patterns can lead to recursive faultyinteractions. Many of you have expressed the desire to master this fundamentalskill of parent-child interaction. We begin the process of mastering effectivecommunication on Feb. 12, 7:00 pm.Sincerely yours,Robert Dionne169February 13, 1992DearI had fun at our last session, how was it for you? It is debatable whetheryou are learning more from me or I am learning more from you, thanks.Keep those cards coming in. I really appreciate the fact that you arewilling to share your life with me, and as well help me do my research. Althoughthe thesis will be in my name we are really doing it together.An analogy could be made to a steak house; the questionnaires are thecroutons on the salad, the interview is the baked potato and the cards are thesteak. You might be able to substitute for the croutons and possibly, with somedifficulty for the baked potato, but when you run out of steak you bankrupt thesteakhouse.We have just begun our journey through the difficult challenge of tryingto learn to listen for understanding rather than downplaying what our children aretrying to tell us by lecturing, scolding, analysing, etc. The next session we willexpand on these communication skills and go on to learning how to makeourselves understood.Sincerely,Robert Dionne170February 19, 1992DearAt the end of our last session I tuned into my self, doing my own differentiationwork and realized that I felt quite energized. I wonder if you felt the same way?Remember, being differentiated means allowing others to have their ownthoughts, feelings and actions. In other words, if you did not feel energized,that's ok, it would be a sign of your ability to differentiate and not let myenthusiasm get to you.I was impressed by the large number of facilitating/hindering events that you asa group handed in this week. In family therapy we have discovered that we liveour lives by the stories that we create that give special meaning to ourexperiences. Stories have a being, a middle and an end. They disclose to us whatled up to the event, what happened during the event and what followed afterthe event was over in terms of thoughts, emotions and actions. It just occurredto me that is what you are doing when you write your event cards.As we tell our stories, we grow along the storyline. What this means is that ourstories end up becoming our reality. Therefore, when we have more stories thatindicate a growing differentiated self, we should find that our thoughts, feelingsand actions follow along those lines, that is, we will become more differentiated.In this way, writing the cards facilitate differentiation.Because it is the half-way point of our workshop, it is time to schedule the mid-interviews. The purpose of these is to help me explore your events in more depthto make sure that I fully understand your experiences. I can start seeing coupleson Saturday 29. Think about a time that would be most convenient for you andlet me know next session.Our 5 th session will give us more opportunity to practise the communication skillswe have learned so far, to add to them and take them a step further to look athow to instill a sense of Togetherness through making the family a worthwhileplace to be. Yes, that's right! I'm talking about chores and giving children achance to feel meaningful through the contributions s/he makes around the home.Have a good week,Robert Dionne171February 27, 1992DearI just realized that there are only three more sessions left to go in ourworkshop. There is a lot we could do and so little time left. However, I'mconfident that we will make the most with the least amount of time.Keep those cards coming in! I always look forward to reading them. Ilikewise feel privileged to have this window view into your inner world.By now, I feel bonded with our group and see ourselves as specialpartners in our personal growth. I look forward to seeing you in our next groupsession.I'm wondering how much resistance you might be experiencing ininstituting chores in your home, who in the system is resisting the most and howyou might be handling it with your new knowledge of differentiation and thefamily as an emotional system. In our next session we will be continuing on withour communication skills, and moving on to look at discipline. I look forward tohearing how well you were able to put into practice what you were introduced tolast session.Sincerely,Robert DionneMarch 4, 1992DearBy now you have become real experts at writing your cards. Novak'sFourth Principle tells us that most personal growth occurs during the last periodof any intervention. Therefore, we can predict that this is the primetime for youin your process of differentiation, and so don't be surprised if you have a lot ofcards to write.Novak's Third Principle tells us that people who write things down gainapproximately twice as much benefit from the experience than people who don't.Her Second Principle states that perseverance is the winning edge to overcomingresistance, implying that resistance is the major stumbling block to change.On a less theorectical note, how has giving up punishment been effectingyour system? Do your children like taking responsibility or are they fightingagainst it? If they are how are you resisting changing back? This workshop is aprocess and next session we are going to go further by looking at problem-solvingand how communication and discipline are so important to that process.172See you soon,Robert Dionne173March 12, 1992DearIt is hard to believe that we will be meeting for the last time on March 25. Itreally seems that the past seven weeks have gone quickly. I guess the old adagemust be true... "Time flies when you are having fun."I found that the comment made by one of the participants probably applies tomany of us:"Although I am at the end of the workshop, it feels like I am just atthe beginning of an exciting journey of doing my own work."On the scale of 'Readiness for Personal Work', where do you feel you fit?0^1^2^3^4^5^6^7^8^9^10This is the last call for handing in facilitating and hindering cards. In otherwords, this is the last opportunity for you to give me your exess baggage. Feelfree, I am differentiated enough to take it.But, I'm not sure if I am differentiated enough to ask you whether you have readany of my letters. It takes a certain courage for me to make such an inquiry,since the code of silence about the letters has not been broken once during oursessions. Sometimes I have nightmares that one day I'll wake up to find a bag ofletters stamped "RETURN TO SENDER" on my doorstep.I would like to ask you to bring a symbol of your level of differentiation at thispoint in time, to our last session. This would be an object that is a metaphor forwhere you are at in your relationship with self. For example, for myself it is aseashell. This object represents how I think and feel about myself. A seashellprovides safety and a sense of home no matter where I go, while at the same timeit represents a freedom of movement that allows me to explore my everexpanding horizons.174On the other hand, I can still remember the lowest time in my life when I feltstuck and deflated. My metaphor, at that time was a flat tire.Looking forward to our parting party on the 25 th .Robert DionneApril 2, 1992DearWhen it comes time to say good-bye I sometimes question my level ofdifferentiation; this is one of those times. On the one hand, I realize that sayinggood-bye means that we have been on a really rewarding and successful journeytogether, while on the other hand I shall miss our weekly meetings. I becameattached to you as a group. I wonder, was it as good for you as it was for me?I certainly appreciate your commitment to attending the sessions and investingyou energy into participating in the activities. In particular, I really appreciatedthe trust and hard work it took to consistently write out the daily events. Thankyou for making the research project possible.I wonder where you predict your level of differentiation will be in a year fromnow? I would be curious to know how aware you will be about your awarenessof the impact this eight week workshop will have on your successful process ofdifferentiation? What wisdom have you learned in this process that you would liketo tell others who might want to follow in your pioneering footsteps?Differentiatingly yours,Robert DionneAPPENDIX D175OUTLINE OF THE PARENTING WITH A PURPOSE PROGRAM176THE PARENTING WITH A PURPOSE PROGRAMThis program was developed by me and conducted twice prior to using itfor the purposes of this research. It consists of eight, three hour workshopsessions. It is different from other parenting programs currently on the marketbecause it is based upon Bowen's Family Systems Theory. Bowen's theory is atheory of relationship dynamics. It explains these dynamics in simple conceptswhich can easily be observed and experienced within any significant relationship.The program is also different from other parenting programs because ofits objectives. Most parenting programs, with the exception of Gordon (1970) aredesigned to more or less teach parents how to get greater compliance from theirchildren through techniques of social control. These programs are aimed atteaching parents skills to help them make their children mind. In other words, theprimary aim of these programs are to change the children's behaviour, not theadults. As such, these programs could be classified as falling within a crisismanagement paradigm because the information, and techniques introduced to theparticipants are geared towards managing the acting out behaviour of childrenwhen it occurs.The Parenting With a Purpose program, on the other hand, is designed tohelp parents enjoy the parenting through a process of becoming more self-awareof the role they play in creating and maintaining the acting-out behaviour of theirchildren. The focus is not on knowledge and techniques designed to change thechild's behaviour, but rather it is on knowledge and skill training to help theparent change his/her behaviour in relation to their children. Consistent withBowen's theory, Parenting With a Purpose is a parenting program that seeks toinstill a philosophy of parenting based upon principles and uses current effective177parenting education skills and techniques as an adjunct rather than as means to anend. Thus the program falls within a relationship management paradigm in whichthe parents are empowered to take on a leadership role in modelling healthy, self-responsible relationship behaviour during both crisis and non-crisis interactions.The program is based upon the system's perspective that faulty interactionsoccur because each member involved has a part to play in creating andmaintaining them. Ascribing blame is seen as a useless behaviour which impedesresponsibility rather than enhances it. In other words, changing faulty interactionsby demanding that the other person change is outside a system's perspective.Rather, system's thinking assumes that change occurs by becoming more self-aware and self-responsible. Each person has control over the way he or she isthinking, feeling or acting, and so this program focuses on encouraging theconcerned parent to focus on changing his/her self rather than on changing his/herchild.By stepping back, and assuming the role of active observer, the parent isable to act differently towards lowering or eliminating his/her concern with actionbased upon principles rather than on emotional reactivity or control. Change inthe child's behaviour occurs indirectly because of the reciprocal nature ofinteractions. Parenting With a Purpose places total responsibility for change in theinteractions on the parent because it is usually the parent who has the concern,and because the parent is seen as being the more mature individual within parent-child relationship. These two factors are assumed to be motivational and are morelikely to lead to initiating change that will alter faulty family interaction patterns.In the beginning of each workshop there are usually some parents who areso frustrated with their children that they resist such an idea. These parents areoperating within a paradigm that states that the child is to blame because s/he is178immature and irresponsible. This paradigm robs parents of any hope for changebecause it sees change as lying outside of their control. These parents subscribeto the "my child pushes my buttons" metaphor as a way to justify their ownregressive behaviour in dealing with problems in an emotionally driven manner,and to alleviate the guilt they feel as a result of not being able to control theirchild's behaviour.With control being seen as outside of their grasp, these parents are usuallylooking for "pixie dust" miracles that will transform their children into matureand responsible children. Parenting programs that teach techniques and strategiesthat recognize and exploit the power imbalance within the parent-childrelationship give the illusion that these techniques and strategies are the miraclepixie dust that will do the trick. If knowledge means power, then many of theprograms currently on the market are unintentionally giving parents knowledgeso that they might have more power over their children. Power that may in theshort term appear to be efficient, but in the long term may not be effective.Parenting With a Purpose professes no such illusions. Age appropriatelymature, responsible children are a direct result of living within a mature,responsible relationship built upon principles of integrity, honesty, fairness andhuman dignity. Parents who are constantly regressing to childlike behaviours intheir interactions with their children are modelling that to be an adult means beingimpulsive, and emotionally reactive. Today, both adults and children areexpecting to be in relationships which are based upon the principles mentionedabove and exploiting a power imbalance is contrary to those expectations.The principles of integrity, honesty, fairness and human dignity aresupported by the model "Parent-Child Interaction Roadmap". It promotescooperative relationships through relationship knowledge and the use of patience,179nurturance, communication and encouragement. Children need to be instilled withlove for themselves and others, and a sense of self-discipline. However, parentalinterventions designed primarily for social control rob the child of the very thingit is that the parent is trying to encourage because social control is extrinsic notintrinsic. Techniques of social control often base discipline upon the threat ofwithholding love. However, love and discipline are complementary concepts andwhen one is used as a tool against the other, or without regard for the other, thenthe child has more difficulty becoming self-directed. Having no security inprimary relationships, the child falls into the trap of making other-directeddecisions. In other words, without security, s/he makes decisions at a survivallevel; "I must act in such a way that will ensure that I get love", or "I can not getlove so I must act in a way that will protect myself.Becoming self-directed is a process relying upon making consciousdecisions at the Separateness level. For children who are not able to satiate theirneed for Togetherness, only the illusion of Separateness occurs. TrueSeparateness can only occur when the child feels secure enough in his/herrelationship to attachment figures. In a sense, it is a paradox, the child can onlytruly separate by securely attaching. Inherent in making self-directed consciousdecisions is the unconscious believe that "I will be loved and accepted no matterwhat decisions I make". In Parenting With A Purpose, the assumption is thatgood decision making only arises out of the learning opportunities that poordecision making presents. By focusing on these learning opportunities, rather thanon blame, retribution or social control techniques, poor decision making iselevated to a conscious level.Therefore, instilling a sense of self-direction, self-discipline andcooperation in a child has to be based upon the child's need to be part of180meaningful relationships. Self-love, the basis for loving others, is based upon thechild knowing that s/he is worthwhile within the most meaningful relationships/he has, the parent-child relationship. The child is born with self-love andmaintaining it requires the emotional and intellectual growth of child to besituated in an atmosphere in which problems are seen as mistakes. Furthermore,these mistakes need to be expected, predicted, and accepted as opportunities forlearning. Solutions to problems are not seen as end points, but rather only as avehicles within which learning opportunities can be promoted, and solutions thatwork out or don't work out, are seen as providing important growth facilitatinginformation for further learning.Parents who see their children as immature or irresponsible and use threatsof punishment, coercion or withdrawal of love are working against the child'sability to change towards becoming more mature and responsible. I don't thinkthat the labels are necessarily bad. They give verbal expression to observations,How parents use these observations is what makes the difference. I believe thatall parents want the best for their child and act with the best intentions. Withoutknowing more effective ways to help their children, their methods often workagainst the very change they are after. Punishment, coercion and withdrawal oflove are all methods of low emotional and intellectual maturity.Parenting With a Purpose recognizes this and uses Bowen's FamilySystems Theory to encourage growth towards greater emotional and intellectualmaturity by helping the parents attain a higher level of differentiation. Becomingmore differentiated simply means learning how to stay in emotionally chargedsituations without losing intellectual functioning. In parent-child relationships,emotionally charged situations often arise out of the child's behaviour. Being ableto remain in intellectual control, to see that the child's behaviour was based upon181a decision, the parent can help the child explore the child's experience. Bybringing the decision to a conscious level, it can be explored to learn more aboutother possible decisions that could have been made, and to problem-solve how tohandle the consequences of the behaviour.Parenting With A Purpose is a program designed to help parents learn howto enjoy the parenting process for what it can be, that is, a format for personalgrowth. In this way, it places the onus for change in the parent-child relationshipon the parent. Consistent with system's thinking, when any change in the systemoccurs it reverberates throughout the whole system causing it to adjust. Bowen'stheory states that when one member of a system raises his/her level ofdifferentiation then the whole system benefits by creating space within which eachmember of the system has a greater opportunity to raise his/her level ofdifferentiation.Bowen's theory is a teachable theory and the philosophy of Parenting Witha Purpose gives parents permission to act differently. In an atmosphere of supportand encouragement the parent is enabled to learn, to practice, and to observe howdifferentiated behaviour changes faulty interactions. In learning that change occursby changing self in relationship to others the parent is empowered, and learns togain control over the way s/he responds in crisis and non-crisis interactions.The following is a brief outline of the format of the program, and thetopics covered session by session. It is only intended to give an overview of theprogram so that it might provide some relevant information to the inquisitivereader of this thesis. It is not intended to give the reader step by step instructionson conducting the program, however, wherever appropriate brief theoreticalperspectives will be boxed to increase the understanding of the activity. It mustbe reiterated at this point that the main objective of the Parenting For A Purpose182program is not to give the parents the knowledge and skills to increase theirability to control their children. Rather, the Parenting With A Purpose programis designed to inform the parents of normal emotional relationship dynamics, andto instill a philosophy of relating that is based upon principles of honesty,fairness, personal integrity, human dignity, unconditional love, nurturance andencouragement to name a few. I firmly believe that all people desire to be self-responsible and at the same time connected to others. I believe that teaching aphilosophy that makes sense, giving parents knowledge about emotional systems,and teaching them skills for effectively relating to others will do more for parentsin helping parents enjoy the parenting process than teaching them strategies formaking their children mind. It is my firm belief that the joy in life comes fromthe recognition that much of life is a struggle for meaning, and in creating a senseof oneness with unique others in finding that meaning.For further information as to the exact nature of instruction, the authorcan be contacted through either Chilliwack Mental Health or the ChilliwackSchool Board.PARENTING WITH A PURPOSESESSION ONE Overview: 1. To create a feeling of inclusion, that is, to create a sense oftogetherness among the group members.2. To Introduce the concept of differentiation and relate it to commonfamily experiences.7:05 Objective-^Welcome, information about leader and siteTime-^10 min.Activity-^Introduction of the leader183Debrief-^Any questions7:15 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion'Time-^10 min.Activity-^Learning names of each participant by going aroundand saying name, then each person attempting torepeat everyone's name. Not a contest, but a funinclusive activity that works wonders.Debrief-^What was it like to take a risk like this? Did youfeel anxiety? What emotional words would you use todescribe the feeling (nervousness, fear,embarrassment, excitement etc.)Are you surprised that you learned everybody's nameso quickly? What emotion are you aware ofexperiencing now?7:25 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion1 As a group facilitator, I am always aware of the threestages of group development that individuals within the group, andthe whole group will cycle through. Inclusion means having the feltsense that you belong to the group and that the group belongs toyou. Inclusion can be compared to the Togetherness level of theRoadmap model. Control is the tension within the individual andwithin the group that arises out of deciding how much to beinfluenced by the group or individual members of the group, and howmuch each member wants to influence the other members individuallyand as well as the group. This can be compared to the Separatenesslevel of the model. Intimacy occurs when the tension surroundingthe issues of Inclusion and Control have been resolved for theindividual, as well as for the group as a whole. Intimacy is alsoat the Separateness level of the Roadmap model and the degree ofIntimacy attained within the group will be reflected in the degreethat individuals will be open and honest about sharing intimatestories with the group. The success of Group work (the SocialCompetence level) is dependent upon the three tasks beingsuccessfully mastered so that the individual wants to make thegroup successful. In successful groups the group becomes moreimportant than the individual members, however the implication isthat to the degree that the group succeeds so too will theindividual.184Time-^25 min.Activity-^Divide into foursIntroduce selves, name and ages of children and reasonfor wanting to take a parenting class.Debrief-^Group comes together7:50 Objective-^Group process: InclusionTime-^25 min.Activity-^Divide into fours, different from the firstactivity.Have participants discuss and record hopes and fearsof taking this course.Debrief-^How are the hopes and fears different/similar?8:15 Coffee-break8:35 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion through shared experience oftypical home life...Demonstrate concretely, faultyinteractions and parent's part in maintaining them.Begin ongoing metaphor of parent as activelyinvolved observer.Time-^45 min.Activity-^Sculpting (Virginia Satir) the "Acting Out ChildFamily":1. Demonstrate how the family is oftenpositioned by asking for volunteers and sculptingone "possible" family dynamic.2. Ask for volunteer to sculpt own family withfacilitators guidance.Debrief-^Discuss what was observed and learned....thoughts,feelings and insights into own behaviour and familydynamics.9:20 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeducation; Introduce two of Bowen'sconcepts, the family as an emotion system anddifferentiationTime-^20 min.Activity-^Mini-lecture introducing a systems perspective, and howemotions fit into the system and proceed to defining185differentiation (ability to maintain intellectual functioningduring emotionally significant interactions.)Promote concept of observing skills facilitatingdifferentiation and differentiation facilitatingobserving skills.Debrief-^Questions, discussions, personal relevant stories.9:40 Objective-^Closure, homework assignment, debrief eveningTime-^15 min.Activity-^Discussion centered around handouts and expectationsExplain about the facilitating and hinderingincident sheet.Debrief-^Questions about workshopComments on session9:55 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion (doing chores)Time-^10 min.Activity-^Investment in group by working together to put roomback in order. Expectation that everyone can makea worthwhile contribution to the group. Saying goodbye.SESSION TWOObjective: 1. To introduce the concept of behaviour being linked todevelopmental tasks.2. To introduce the systems concept of becoming an observer and howbeing a detached observer is complementary to remaining differentiated.3. To introduce the Roadmap For Parent-Child Interactions.7:00 Objective-^Group process: InclusionTime-^10 min.Activity-^Welcome everyone back, repeat name learningactivity from session one.Debrief-^Was it easy to remember everybody's nameHow much anxiety was each participant aware of intaking risk?1867:10 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion & Control sharingTime-^20 min.Activity-^Discuss experiences individual participants wish toshare based upon last session and on facilitating &hindering sheets. (Leader's role is to use this time todiffuse any control issues that will naturally begin todevelop, by sharing control through strategic questions andcomments:-Has anyone else had an experience similar tothis one? Tell us about it. What was differentabout the way you handled it? What emotionswere you aware of experiencing? What part didthey play in the outcome?-Did listening to that story make you think ofsomething? Would you care to tell us about it?-That sounds similar to what Joe told us earlier.Joe is it similar?Debrief-^Normalize family life by asking for thoughts andfeelings about the experiences that have beenrelated (predict that each family has situationsmore similar than different)7:30 Objective-^Group Process: Group work; To begin the process ofhaving parents take on the role of active observers(observers of self and others)Time-^45 min.Activity-^Hand-out Developmental worksheet (Erickson's stagesof development and tasks to be mastered).Leader directed discussion.Divide into developmental groups (having children ofsimilar ages), ask participants to discuss how these stagesmight be applicable to what they observe in their child'sbehaviour, how they typically respond to that observationand how it relates to the sculpting that was done in the lastsession, that is, what part do they play in any faultyinteractions that arise from their child trying to masternormal developmental tasks?Debrief-^Bring groups back. What have parents' discovered.Have they had any shift in perception about their child's187behaviour? Normalize child's behaviour by situatingit in the context of mastering developmental tasks.8:15 Coffee-break (Coffee breaks are stimulating andbonding experiences for the participantsin that they relate to each other in anunstructured, informal way about thematerial and their observations of theirown families. Thus on-site coffee-breaksserve a very useful purpose.)8:35 Objective-^Group Process: Inclusion and Psychoeducation; Tointroduce parents to Parent-Child Interaction Roadmap.Time-^25 min.Activity-^Role play by leader to demonstrate use of the roadmap:1. Parent enters interaction beginning at SocialCompetence level with outcomes of anger, yelling,screaming, non-compliance, hurt feelings, control,resentment etc.)2. Same interaction beginning at theTogetherness level, which leads to a greaterpossibility for compliance, support & encouragement,positive feelings for each other, relaxed feelings,etc.)Leader lecture on specific nature of the modelincluding separation of Intellect and Emotions.Debrief-^What are your thoughts? Does it seem realistic?Which outcome do you prefer? Which entry point ismost likely to give you that outcome?9:00 Objective-^Group Process: Inclusion. To situate faulty familyinteractions as being partly created and maintained byunhealthy and ineffective communication patterns.Time-^30 min.Activity-^Video of Communication blocks (Active Parenting)Hand-out of parent-child role play scripts. Parentstands or steps up onto a chair, while the childkneels in front of standing parent or stands in front ofparent on chair. Parent scolds, lectures, etc. as per roleplay in congruent tone. Then participants switch roles and188go through it again.Debrief-^Group comes together. What was your experience inthe role of the parent, of the child? How do youthink these parental behaviours contribute tofaulty interactions, unproductive outcomes etc.?What is the role of the intellect in this type ofcommunication? What is the role of emotions? Whichleads to more productive outcomes, intellect oremotions? Which outcome would you prefer,productive or unproductive? (The idea behind thistype of questioning is the implication thatemotionally driven behaviour in problem-resolution,increases the chance of unproductive outcomes occuring.Through questioning the participants are led to what Epstonand White call a dilemma, that is, knowing which choiceof behaviour leads to a more productive outcome, theyhave no choice but to take responsibility for theirpart in the outcome.9:30 Objective-^Group process- Psychoeducation; reiterate self-responsibility and its relationship to Bowen's concept ofdifferentiationTime-^20 min.Activity-^Mini-lecture reviewing the concept of differentiation,systems concept of faulty interactions resulting from theinteraction between people rather than within people. Theconcept of differentiation is broadened to include the innerseparation of one's emotional and intellectual functioningas well as the separation of thoughts, feelings andbehaviour of self from those of another person.Review of facilitating and hindering incidence worksheetsDebrief-^Questions, insights etc.9:50 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion (doing chores)Time-^10 min.Activity-^Investment in group by working together to put roomback in order. Expectation that everyone can makea worthwhile contribution to the group. Saying goodbye.189SESSION THREE Objective: 1. To situate faulty interactions within a communication breakdownthat is based upon an inability to accept difference. (problemcreation and maintenance is a result in not being able to adjustto the dynamic, shifting balance between the Togetherness andSeparateness forces.)2. To relate how the Parent-Child Interaction Roadmap facilitatesacceptance of difference3. To introduce effective communication skills designed to workat the Separateness level, i.e., explore difference and validatethoughts and feelings and in doing so, prevent travelling on tothe Social Competence level if emotional functioning mightinterfere with intellectual functioning.7:00 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion, Control & IntimacyTime-^20 min.Activity-^Welcome everyone backEncourage discussion of experiences, as related to theworkshop that happened since last seeing each other:-Conscious use of the model "Roadmap"-Conscious awareness of communication blocks-Conscious experience of awareness of emotions andintellectual functioning and the outcomes of varioussituations.Debrief-^What was learned in the sessions and between sessions thatis useful?7:20 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeducation; Systems dynamics-Problem creation and maintenance.Time-^55 min.Activity-^Lecture on Togetherness force and Separateness force.Have volunteers come up and be joined together byhanging onto ropes. Have one move closer or farther away(Tautness of rope symbolizes balance in two forces. Toregain balance volunteers can either move with the otherperson, i.e., regain old balance, or give more rope/tightenup rope, i.e., create new balance).190Questions can be asked about the volunteers' immediatethinking/feeling reaction to the change in tautness of theropes, do they want to "let go" (allow difference) or "pullback" (fear difference).Problems are seen as a change in the balance betweenthese two forces. A change in balance between a dyadchanges the balance between everyone in the system.Demonstration of a system in balance using skipping ropesto join all members of a family (2, 3, 4, 5, etc.). Allropes joining each person to every other person is taut.When one person makes a movement the whole system ofbalance is upset (some ropes become tighter, pulling onthose connections, while others become looser, leavingthose connections loose) . This change can representmovements towards more separateness or more togetherness.Problems are seen as a change in the balance betweenthese two forces. A change in balance between a dyadchanges the balance between everyone in the system.Demonstration of a system in balance using skipping ropesto join all members of a family (2, 3, 4, 5, etc.). Allropes joining each person to every other person is taut.When one person makes a movement the whole system ofbalance is upset (some ropes become tighter, pulling onthose connections, while others become looser, leavingthose connections loose) . This change can representmovements towards more separateness or more togetherness.Debrief-^Thoughts, feelings, insights of group and how thislecture/demonstration relates to what they observehappening in their family.8:15 Coffee Break8:30 Objective-^Group Process: Group work, Inclusion/Control; Experientialexercises designed to concretely, isolate strengths andweakness in communication styleTime-^45 min.Activity-^Series of Experiential exercises to determine whethercommunication style leans towards speaking or listening.The idea is that we can build on the stronger role and usethe stronger role to help compensate for the weaker role.191Communication skills-Experiential exercises:1. Mary, Mary quite contrary: listener constantlydisagrees As tell Bs things that they like, Bs areinstructed to disagree or say Why would you likethat, You really shouldn't, You better not do thatetc.Debrief: How do you feel about telling Babout your life? What do you thinkmight be the long term effectof this style of communication?2. The Chatterbox: listener constantly interrupts Bstry to tell A8 about an experience, while Asinstantly interrupt (interruptions can be relevantor irrelevant.Debrief: How do you feel about telling Asabout your experiences? What doyou think would be the long termeffect of this style ofcommunication?3. Mirroring: i. Partners face each other, holdhands and take turns physically mirroring eachother. One partner represents the speaker anddirects the movement of the arms, while theother partner, represents the listener andfollows. (No talking allowed). Then the rolesreverse.Debrief: How difficult was it to follow; todirect? Which is your strength, asa speaker or as a listener?ii. Partners close eyes and take turnsdirecting and following withouttalking.Debrief: How difficult was it to coordinatedirecting and following? Did oneperson do more of one? Were youparalysed into no movement? Did you192battle over directing?The point to all these exercises is todetermine each individual's strength in communication.Typically, individuals will feel more comfort in talkingor in listening. Comfort in speaking can be refrained ashaving courage to express oneself, while comfort inlistening can be refrained as sensitivity. Effectivelistening requires both courage to express oneself andsensitivity for the other person. Those individuals whoneed more courage can learn to express themselves thenfall back on sensitivity when needed, while those whoneed more sensitivity can be sensitive and then fall backon courageously expressing their fears around being moreopen.9:30 Objective-^Group process: Intimacy, Increase listening skillsTime-^20 min.Activity-^Identifying feeling behind the story. The leader reads outshort dialogues of a child. Each one can be associated witha narrow range of feelings. Participants volunteer the feelingthey think the child is experiencing.Debrief-^How do you think the child might have reacted by havingyou listen for feelings?How did it feel to you to be listening for feelings?9:50 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion (doing chores)Time-^10 min.Activity-^Investment in group by working together to put roomback in order. Expectation that everyone can makea worthwhile contribution to the group. Saying goodbye.SESSION FOURObjective: 1. To introduce the systems concept of triangles and the role they play inproblem formation, and maintenance.2. To investigate family roles, specifically scapegoating, linking roles totypical patterns of interactions, i.e., communication (percentage ofpraise vs criticism given to children in different roles), expectations,193rewards and punishments.3. To continue communication exercises7:00 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion & Intimacy; To provide a forumin which all participants are witnesses and supporters of"doing something different" behaviours.Time-^20 min.Activity-^Welcome everyone backEncourage discussion of experiences, as related to theworkshop that happened since last seeing each other:-Conscious use of the model "Roadmap"-Conscious awareness of communication blocks-Stories of outcomes based on using effectivecommunication-Conscious experience of awareness of emotions andintellectual functioning and the outcomes of varioussituations.Debrief-^What was learned in the sessions and between sessions thatis useful?7:20 Objective:^Group process; Psychoeducation, review of roadmap tofocus group on modelTime:^10 min.Activity:^Mini-lecture; Quick review of Roadmap and its usefulnessin helping to differentiate between intellect and emotion,and to help parents keep goal of interactions in mind so theycan judge where they should be on the Roadmap.Parents often lose sight of the connection betweenthe outcomes they are hoping to achieve in parent-childinteractions, and their own behaviour. As a result, theyoften experience frustration, disappointment, or feelingsof inadequacy or resentment when, instead of cooperativebehaviour, they end up with an outcome of noncompliance.Most faulty interactions could be resolved effectively ifproblem-solving (an intellectual activity) was initiatedonly after emotions were under control instead of whenthey are still out of control. On the roadmap, parentsare encouraged to become observers of the emotions ofself and other. When problem-solving, they are encouraged194to not attempt to problem-solve until emotions are dealtwith or to go back to the Separateness level(communication connecting feelings to story/experience)if emotions interfere.Parents are often driven to go for the efficiency ofa win/lose paradigm, rather than for the effectiveness ofa win/win paradigm. That is, parents often want toresolve the problem NOW with as little input of time aspossible ("You did wrong, now fix it!"), rather than putit on hold until it can be resolved effectively ("So tellme what was happening for you when this occurred?; Whatwere you thinking/feeling/doing?"). The Roadmap helpsparents make sense out of the results of seeminglychaotic recursive and reciprocal faulty interactions byseparating the forces that are interplaying as well as byseparating emotional functioning from intellectualfunctioning.7:30 Objective:^Group Process: Inclusion (group demonstration) & Intimacy(observation and sharing of personal experiences).Introduction of concept of triangles and how effectivecommunication can contribute to healthy triangles insteadof unhealthy ones.Time:^60 min.Activity:^Mini-lecture- (20 min.) Introduce the concept of triangles(Bowen's Family Systems Theory)Demonstration- (15 min) Have volunteers come up andselect other volunteers to represent number of people intheir families. Have each member of family hold skippingropes so that the family becomes a series of dyadicrelationships. Add more skipping ropes to create triadicrelationships. Record number of triangles in each sizefamily (family of 3 members, of 4, 5, 6, 7, or moremembers). Discuss the advantages and disadvantages ofmore or less triangles within families.Small group work- (15 min) Divide into triads. Triads gothrough following role plays:1. Two people having nice pleasant conversation whilethird watches. Discuss observations (T/F/A) 2 about2 Thoughts/Feelings/Actions195being on the inside and on the outside.2. Two people having nice pleasant conversation, third onebreaks in and begins conversation with one of originaltwo. After short time that one breaks in and beginsconversation with one of those two. Discussobservations.3. Two people having an argument, third party breaks inand takes side. Discuss what was observed.4. Two people having an argument, one of insiderstriangles in third party to take sides. Discussobservations.Debrief:^What was it like to be on the inside, on the outside?What ineffective communication patterns happen intriangles?What would be more effective communication patterns touse?8:30 Coffee8:45 Objective:^Group Process: Intimacy (shared personal experiences andobservations).Time:^30 min.Activity:^Group identification of roles they have observed in theirown families such as angel, acting-out or rebellious, pleaser,criticizer, brain, athletic, energetic, lazy, scapegoat, etc.Discuss and group these into classifications of mature,responsible behaviour and immature, irresponsiblebehaviour.Which person in the family is the scapegoat most often?Discuss in which relationships parents observethemselves as acting more mature and responsible and inwhich relationships do they observe themselves asregressing to less mature and responsible behaviour(typically they act less mature and responsible with the lessmature and responsible child). Link the discussion to theFamily Systems concept of reciprocal interactions, i.e., eachperson is influenced and influences the other person.In creating change, reiterate the Family Systems concept ofbeing 100% responsible for one's contribution to any196interaction and how changing faulty interactions occurswhen one person changes their contribution.Debrief:^Discuss what meaning they can make out of this discussion.Objective-^Group process: Group work; Continue communicationwork: Listening skills (connecting feelings to content).Time-^45 min.Activity-^Break group into triads; a listener (parent role), a speaker(child role) and an observer. Hand-out scenarios of parent-child interactions and have the three rotate through thethree roles.Debrief-^What was it like to listen, to speak, to observe.How much awareness did the listener and speaker have ofthe observer, when was the awareness increase (triangleawareness).9:30 Objective-^Introduction of "I"-statement; Learning to increase self-responsibility through effective speaking.Time-^20 min.Activity-^Teach the components of an "I"statement.The "I"-statement allows for the expression ofthoughts and feelings from a self-responsible position.Instead of focusing on the other person and ascribingblame or motive for a situation, it keeps the focus onthe speaker. Through the "I" statement the speaker cantake responsibility for the way s/he thinks, and feels.The "I" statement thus tells the listener what it is thats/he is going to do or how s/he is going to act, ratherthen telling the listener how to be or act.Debrief-^Discuss the meaning that the theory of the "I" statement hasfor the participants.9:50 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion (doing chores)Time-^10 min.Activity-^Investment in group by working together to put roomback in order. Expectation that everyone can makea worthwhile contribution to the group. Saying goodbye.197SESSION FIVEObjectives: 1. To continue to build effective communication skills2. To teach a method of anger management that allows for emotions to bekept at the Separateness level3. To further define problem formation as an inability to adjust to thebalance between the force for Togetherness and for Separateness.Basically, this boils down to the inability to accept difference, that is,typically the parent doesn't mind the child being different as long asthe child is different in a way that is acceptable to the parent. In otherwords, "You can be different as long as you do it my way".4. To encourage the parent to initiate greater faith in the relationship theyhave with their children by enabling them to demonstrate their abilityto make and fulfil commitments to the family.5. To begin the process of using effective communication, knowledge ofemotional systems and the Roadmap to eliminate faulty interactionarising out of a lack of acceptance for the experience of others.7:00 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion & Intimacy; To provide a forumin which all participants are witnesses and supporters of"doing something different" behaviours.Time-^30 min.Activity-^Welcome everyone backEncourage discussion of experiences, as related to theworkshop that happened since last seeing each other:-Conscious awareness of Relationship dynamics anddifferentiation-Conscious use of the model "Roadmap"-Conscious awareness of communication blocks-Stories of outcomes based on using effectivecommunication; validating feelings and using"I"statements-Conscious experience of awareness of emotions andintellectual functioning and the outcomes of varioussituations.Debrief-^Any further questions or reflections1987:30 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeducation/group work; Becomingresponsible for emotional management and in particular,anger management.Time-^30 min.Activity-^Story of the "Hissing Snake"Discussion of the projection process whereby anxiety isprojected inappropriately onto another rather than it beingdealt with by the person experiencing it. Discussion of usingthe "I"statement to help in by taking responsibility for theanxiety.In terms of anger, model the technique of the 60 sec.scolding which combines the assertion of an "I"statementand the nurturance of acceptance. In other words, courageand sensitivity.Divide into dyads and try "Hissing".Debrief-^How was the experience of intellectually controlling angerrather than emotionally allowing anger to control you? Whatare some likely responses by the other person to this typeof assertive expression as compared to the more emotionallydriven aggressive expression?8:00 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeducation/Group work; Learning notto assume or mind readTime-^20 min.Activity-^Using the "Do you mean" phrase for clarifying the otherperson's position to facilitate greater understanding.Demonstration, then divide into dyads to practice technique,combined with the use of empathy (connecting feelings tocontent).Debrief-^What is it like to be able to ask for clarification of another'sexperience. How close were you to understanding what theother was experiencing?8:20 Coffee-Break8:35 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeducation/Group work; Presentationof knowledge and skills to make the family a worthwhileplace to be.Time-^45 min.Activity-^Chores and Family Service Jobs199Chores are jobs that need to be done on aregular basis, i.e., washing dishes, making meals,vacuuming floors, taking out garbage etc. Family ServiceJobs are jobs that never get done mainly because althoughthey maybe important they are not urgent, i.e. , cleaningout junk drawers, washing windows or baseboards,organizing or dusting bookshelves etc.Chores can be understood as contributing to healthyTogetherness by using an economic metaphor. If we investin something, we do it because we think it is importantand worthwhile to invest in. The greater the investment,to a point, the greater the implied sense of importanceand worth. Family members can feel important andworthwhile as a result of making important and worthwhileinvestments in the family. However, chores can alsocontribute to unhealthy togetherness. Chores that areunrealistic, take too much time to complete, are notclearly laid out in terms of expectations, can defeattheir potential for healthy togetherness. As well, choreslaid on in a strict manner in which children have noflexibility to be part of the decision making process, toseek help in doing them, or are restricted in engaging inimportant activities because of them, will create angerand resentment and work against healthy togetherness.Family togetherness is based upon a sense ofcooperation. Children need to know that parents will helpthem in their chores when the going gets tough and whenthe parent has the time to help. This help is seen fromthe perspective of cooperation, support andencouragement. The goal is not to help the child and makethe child feel inadequate, but rather to instill a sensethat the child is part of a family that can support andencourage each other when needed.Chores & Family Service jobs are defined and group isdivided into fours to make a list of jobs that fall underthese categories. Group is brought back to discuss theirlists.Suggestion is made to divide chores by number offamily members, including parents. It is suggested thatchores be selected by each member and an important dailyprivilege (supper, TV, video games, playtime etc.) becontingent upon completion of the daily chore. This givesfamily members four choices: first, what chores to commit200to, second, to do the chore and receive the privilege atexpected time, third, to stall the chore and theprivilege till later, or forth, to not do the chore andnot receive the privilege. Linking chores to an importantdaily privilege eliminates faulty interactions likenagging, gives the child an excellent opportunity tolearn how to make wise decisions.Family Service Jobs are useful to allow flexibilityin the family. These jobs can be negotiated for severalpurposes. For example, whenever chore can not be donebecause of other commitments or activities (sportsevents, club events, sleep overs, etc.) the chore can beexchanged for a family service job to be done at anegotiated later time, for negotiating making extramoney, or as a negotiated consequence in exchange for alogical consequence that would better serve the familysystem. Allowing them to be used to be exchanged for alogical consequence of some behaviour, they can serve asan excellent method of retribution to alleviate guilt forthe child's unwise choice. They serve two purposes inthis way, first they allow the child to make a positivecontribution to the family at the same time asexperiencing a consequence and second, they give thechild a further choice or alternative to the logicalconsequence. Giving people control in their lives, i.e.,choices, increases their ability to become wise decision-makers and problem-solvers, and increases the likelihoodthat they will honour the commitment they make withoutresentment.Debrief-^Questions about effectively using Chores and Family ServiceJobs. How do you think chores and Family Service jobs canbe facilitated by an acceptance of difference (child gets tomake 'which & when' choices in doing chores and bycommunication skills already learned9:20 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeducation/Intimacy; To linkcompletion of chores to a privilegeTime-^30 min.Activity-^Barbara Coloroso Video tape demonstrating Premacprinciple, and three healthy responses to not getting ownway. Discuss idea of linking chore to privilege in order togive child control.201The parents are given two guidelines about a childreceiving a privilege contingent completion of a chore.These are that the privilege has to be important to thechild and something that the child likes to have or doeach day. The purpose of linking the privilege to thechore is to eliminate faulty interactions around chores,to give the child power over his/her life, to create anopportunity for family investment and cooperation andfeelings of worth and meaning. In theory and in practice,the privilege is not withheld from the child by theparent, rather the child has control over whether or nots/he experiences the privilege. In reality the child hasthree choices: To do the chore and receive the privilege,to do the chore later and receive the privilege later, orto not do the chore and to not receive the privilege. Ifparents decide to use "Your chores need to be done beforedinner", that parent has put clearly stated when thechore has to be done by. The child can then chose whens/he wants to eat dinner. The parent then only has torepeat the phrase, "As soon as you finish your chores,you may have dinner" rather then get into debates,nagging or arguments. The parent is not preventing thechild from eating, if the child wants to eat, the childcan make the decision to do the chore.Parents need to anticipate that employing thischange will meet with some resistance, and that, as inthe example above, the child may choose to not eat withthe family for a night or two. Because this can bepredicted the parents can anticipate how they will resistentering into faulty interactions around scolding,lecturing, etc. A review of family systems concept ofhomeostasis may be necessary.Debrief-^Make predictions about how the child will react to this typeof change to try to get the parent to change back, and howthe parent will resist this force to restablize the system bychanging back.9:50 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion (doing chores)Time-^10 min.Activity-^Investment in group by working together to put roomback in order. Expectation that everyone can make202a worthwhile contribution to the group. Saying goodbye.SESSION SIXObjectives: 1. Discussion of Bowen's concept of fusion and operational style on thecontinuum from emotional cut-off to enmeshment.2. Begin work at the Social Competence level: discipline and problem-solving.7:00 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion & Intimacy. To provide a forumin which all participants are witnesses and supporters of"doing something different" behaviours.Time-^30 min.Activity-^Welcome everyone backEncourage discussion of experiences, as related to theworkshop that happened since last seeing each other:-Conscious awareness of Relationship dynamics:family emotional system, differentiation, triangles,projection, family roles-Conscious use of the model "Roadmap"-Conscious awareness of communication blocks-Stories of outcomes based on using effectivecommunication; validating feelings and using"I "statements-Conscious experience of awareness of emotionalfunctioning and intellectual functioning, and theoutcomes of various situations.-Chores and the three healthy responses-Stories of courage and sensitivity (the hiss)Debrief-^Any further questions or reflections7:30 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeducation; To further expand onfusion which creates unhealthy Togetherness (fusion) andunhealthy Separateness (emotional cut-off).Time-^30 min.Activity-^Mini-lecture on fusion and operational styles of emotional203cut-off and enmeshment, (often described by parents interms such as pursuer-distancer, or needy-cold, clinging-detached). Suggest that in unconscious systems, if oneperson takes on the role of pursuer, then the other willlikely take on the role of distancer.Have parents reflect on family and assess the typicaloperational style of each member.Ask for sharing of personal observationsDebrief-^What meaning does this lecture have in terms of parentingor observations of how individual family members interact?How does this knowledge give the parent information aboutchanging the way s/he acts within faulty interactions?8:00 Objective-^To define punishment and disciplineTime-^30 min.Activity-^Lecture on difference between punishment and discipline,and how they relate to the concept of differentiation.Parents often want children to pay for their crimes(punishment) . Parenting With A Purpose does not subscribeto a "child is evil" paradigm. If a child actsinappropriately those actions are seen as being amistake, that is, an unwise choice. In this way, mistakesgive the parent information on what the child needs tolearn (discipline) and creates excellent learningopportunities to increase the likelihood of making wiserdecisions in the future. The learning opportunity isoften interfered with because of the manner in which theparent approaches problem-resolution. When a parent usesthe roadmap, the child gets a sense that s/he is stillaccepted and loved even though a mistake has been made(Togetherness level), is helped to explore his/herexperience leading up to and after the mistake(Separateness level), and is supported in takingresponsibility for the consequences and in handling theconsequences of the mistake (Social Competence level).When a parent interferes by using punishment, the focusis taken away from the mistake and is directed towardsthe parent-child relationship. This is usually in theform of emotional reactivity, resentment and anger. Whenthis happens, the child misses an important opportunityto demonstrate remorse and self-responsibility.204Debrief-^Clear up any questions about the difference betweenpunishment and discipline.8:30 Coffee-Break8:45 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeduction; To define natural, logicaland related consequencesTime-^30 min.Activity-^Mini-lecture to define what a natural, a logical and a relatedconsequence is and how they can become expectations ofall decision-making.No decision is consequence free. Therefore, anexpectation of being responsible for the consequences ofthose decisions should not be in question. Becoming moreself-directed requires opportunities to make decisions,and to handle the consequences of those decisions withoutinterference by parental judgements, labels orpunishments. The parent needs to shift perception frommaking the "child pay for his/her behaviour" to one ofexpecting that the child makes mistakes because the childhas either made an uninformed decision (one in whichknowledge of the consequences of the decision were notknown) or an informed decision (one in which theconsequences were known). In either case, the child isexpected to take responsibility for the consequences andthe parent's role is to support and encourage the childin that process by following the roadmap. Family System'sTheory sees personal responsibility as being moreproductive than ascribing blame.Debrief-^Observations, questions etc.9:15 Objective-^Group process: Group work/Control; To give participantsexperience in recognizing consequences.Time-^35 min.Activity-^Divide into groups of four and give them each a series ofscenarios in which children have acted in 'inappropriate'ways. Ask them to generate consequences by following theguidelines for consequences (related, reasonable, respectful).Have group come back, share and critique the consequences205generated (there should be a number of likely possibilitiesfor each scenario).Debrief-^How does using discipline compare with using punishment?Which is likely to be more efficient? Which is likely to bemore effective? In making a switch from parent takingresponsibility for child's decisions to child takingresponsibility for own decisions, it is likely, from asystem's perspective that the child will attempt to sabotagehaving to do it. How will the parent resist not changingback? What changes does the parent have to do in order tobegin trusting that their child can handle the consequencesof his/her decisions without interference from the parent?9:50 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion (doing chores)Time-^10 min.Activity-^Investment in group by working together to put roomback in order. Expectation that everyone can makea worthwhile contribution to the group. Saying goodbye.SESSION SEVENObjectives: 1. To introduce a problem-solving model.2. To suggest that problems are not resolved unless they are win/winsolutions.3. To practice using Roadmap to get to win/win solutions.7:00 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion & Intimacy; To provide a forumin which all participants are witnesses and supporters of"doing something different" behaviours.Time-^30 min.Activity-^Welcome everyone backEncourage discussion of experiences, as related to theworkshop that happened since last seeing each other:-Conscious awareness of Relationship dynamics:206family emotional system, differentiation, triangles,projection, family roles-Conscious use of the model "Roadmap"-Conscious awareness of communication blocks-Stories of outcomes based on using effectivecommunication; validating feelings and using"I "statements-Conscious experience of awareness of emotionalfunctioning and intellectual functioning, and theoutcomes of various situations.-Chores and the three healthy responses-Stories of courage and sensitivity (the hiss)-Stories of taking responsibility and givingresponsibilityAny further questions or reflectionsGroup process: Group work/Control; To shift perspectivefrom win/loseparadigm to win/win paradigm.30 min.Arm wrestling exercise: an experiential exercise designedto compare cooperation (win/win) with competition(win/lose). Partners asked to get into position whereby theirelbows are resting on a surface. They are instructed to joinhands as modelled (do not say arm-wrestling at any point),and are quickly told that you are going to time them for 30sec. in which they have to count the number of times theyfeel the back of their hands touch the surface. Start timing.At end of time ask them to add the two figures together andrecord them on a board. Typically, those that cooperatedwill have high numbers and those that competed will havelow numbers.Debrief: How did you decide to interact? Was it better toco-operate or compete? Which do you think ismore fun? Which is more your style? Which wouldbe more productive in problem-solving?Debrief-7:30 Objective-of problem-solvingTime-Activity-8:00 Objective-^Group process: Psychoeducation; To introduce a problem-solving modelTime-Activity-Debrief-20 min.Mini-lecture introducing problem-solving model anddemonstrating it.Questions, confusions, concerns etc.2078:20 Coffee-BreakTime-Activity-Group process: Psychoeducation; Demonstration of model15 min.Audio and video demonstration of model (How to talk soKids Will Listen-Adele Faber).Observations of the demonstrations.Group process: Group work/Control; To practice problem-solving45 min.Divide into triads (parent-child-observer) and give scenariosthat need require problem-solving. Have parents practicestarting at the Togetherness level (Unconditional love andacceptance, proceed to the Separateness level (exploringexperience using communication), and finally to the SocialCompetence level (problem-solving).Discussion of experience of problem-solving model.Group process: Intimacy/Inclusion; To bring to participants'attention that next week is final session.To discuss concept of metaphor as a concrete way ofexpressing where each participant is in his/her process ofdifferentiation.15 min.Discussion of metaphors and symbols to concretelyrepresent view of self in relation to the workshop and toprocess of differentiation.Questions.Group process: Inclusion (doing chores)10 min.Investment in group by working together to put roomback in order. Expectation that everyone can make8:35 Objective-Time-Activity-Debrief-8:50 Objective-Time-Activity-Debrief-9:35 Objective-Debrief-9:50 Objective-Time-Activity-208a worthwhile contribution to the group. Saying goodbye.SESSION EIGHTObjectives: 1. To reiterate the importance of satiating the force for Togetherness sothat the force for Separateness can be healthy.2. To create a forum in which each person's growth can be witnessed.3. To have a celebration and to say good-bye to friends.7:00 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion & Intimacy; To provide a forumin which all participants are witnesses and supporters of"doing something different" behaviours.Time-^30 min.Activity-^Welcome everyone backEncourage discussion of experiences, as related to theworkshop that happened since last seeing each other:-Conscious awareness of Relationship dynamics:family emotional system, differentiation, triangles,projection, family roles-Conscious use of the model "Roadmap"-Conscious awareness of communication blocks-Stories of outcomes based on using effectivecommunication; validating feelings and using"I"statements-Conscious experience of awareness of emotionalfunctioning and intellectual functioning, and theoutcomes of various situations.-Chores and the three healthy responses-Stories of courage and sensitivity (the hiss)-Stories of taking responsibility and givingresponsibility-Stories of using the model in its entiretyDebrief-^Any further questions or reflections7:30 Objective-^Group process: Control; To emphasize the importance ofsatiating the force for healthy Togetherness.Time-^20 min.209Activity-^Story: "Dory the Cat"Debrief-^Discuss the various meanings that the participants createdwhile hearing the story and how each meaning relates to theworkshop they are just completing.7:50 Objective-^Group process: Group work/Control; To practice employingthe complete modelTime-^30 min.Activity-^Divide into triads: Observer, Parent, ChildPractice using the Roadmap with scenariosDebrief-^Now that the participants have some experience in using theRoadmap ask: How things will be different in their familiesin six months if they work towards using it consistently?How will things be different in their families in six monthsif they don't work towards using it consistently? Whichdifference would they prefer? Now that they know that theyare 100% responsible for their contributions to allinteractions.8:20 Objective-^Group work: Inclusion/Control/Intimacy; To solidifylearning from workshop metaphoricallyTime-^45 min.Activity-^Each participant presents a metaphor or a symbol of theirgrowth towards becoming more differentiated. All otherparticipants are witnesses to this metaphor and canencourage, support and validate the presenter's experience.Debrief-^Thank the group for the intimacy that takes place9:05 Objective-^Group process: Intimacy; Saying goodbye to new friendsTime-^45 min.Activity-^Informal ritual of saying good bye; each person gets toshare warm expressions of appreciations for the support,honesty, encouragement etc of other participants. This isdone while sharing special coffee break goodies.Debrief-9:50 Objective-^Group process: Inclusion (doing chores)Time-^10 min.Activity-^Investment in group by working together to put roomback in order. Expectation that everyone can makea worthwhile contribution to the group. Saying goodbye.