How Family-of-Origins Impact Future Marital Relationships

        This study discussed the effects that a dysfunctional family-of-origin has on premarital couples and the maladaptive behaviors brought henceforth into future marriages. Many factors lead to marital dissolution and unhappiness, however, one of the leading causal factors in marital discord is hostile conflict. Researchers (Amato, 1996; Holman & Birch, 2001) have shown that disrupted and dysfunctional family-of-origin histories exert influence on future marital discord if issues are not recognized and worked through. I've heard it said that families are the laboratory of life, which means that we do most of our learning in the family context. The family is where we do the majority of leaning that impacts the rest of our lives. I think of it like training, the way your family of origin deals and respond to conflict teaches us how to deal with and respond to conflict in future relationships. How families manage money, perceive time, work, love, affection and so on affects all our future relationships. 

        Many people who come from "broken" family contexts leave thinking that they're leave all the drama, conflict and pain behind, only to unwittingly respond to future issues in similar ways they did when in their family context. Wherever we go we take with us all our past hurts, joys, pains, relationships, events and actions. Our response to various stimuli is a complex interaction of past events, actions and relationships with the new set of variables. This isn't to say that we don't grow and change, but to some varying degrees, we can never extricate ourselves from our family contexts. Our past and memories largely constitute our identity.

The intention of this study was to understand was to demonstrate empirically what was discussed above, how “select family-of-origin variables, measured premaritally, were predictive of hostile conflict in early marriage” (Topham, Larson & Holman, 2005). For premarital couples, having an understanding of what factors may cause hostile marital conflict in their future marriage would be incredibly valuable information. Unfortunately little to no research has been conducted on the connection between premarital factors and marital hostile conflict, there have only been correlations discovered between premarital factors and marital dissolution and unhappiness.  

        The theoretical frameworks Topham et al based their hypotheses on were Social Learning theory, Multi-generational family theory and Attachment theory. Each of these theories look at the role family-of-origin play in offspring’s future marital satisfaction, stability and the transmission of dangerous behaviors. Six hypotheses were tested but for the sake of brevity I will only mention those which provided statistical significance. The predictive factors for marital conflict included the wives’ family-of-origin environment and approach to discipline. This reinforces the notion that wives are the “gate-keepers” of marriage relationships, since those factors didn't significantly affect husbands. Topham et al proposed this may be that after marriage the wife's family maintains active contact with their daughter and new husband. This, in general, is not true of the husband’s family, they tend to "let go" easier. Therefore, it is likely that unhealthy behaviors, relationships and mindsets are maintained because of the wives’ continued contact with her family. This has been consistent with my own observations as well.

        The theories were well chosen for the issue of research and provided much insight into the phenomenon. The importance of this study is that it provides a tool for couples coming from dysfunctional families, allowing them to consciously recognize their family’s influence on their behavior and cognitions, and take steps to ensure a stronger and better informed marriage. To be forewarned is to be forearmed. The better understanding one can have of the problem, the more effectively one can step towards healing and growth.

References:

Amato, P. R. (1996). Explaining the intergenerational transmission of divorce, Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 628–640.

Holman, T. B. & Birch, P. J. (2001). Family-of-origin structures and processes and adult children’s marital quality. In T. B. Holman & Associates (Eds.), Premarital prediction of marital quality or break up: Research, theory, and practice. New York: Plenum Press.

Topham, G. L., Larson, J. H., & Holman, T. B. (2005). Family-of-origin predictors of hostile conflict in early marriage, Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal, 27, 101-121.

SEX, CULTURE AND WORLDVIEWS

            Have you ever wondered how culture affects our conception of sexuality? If there is a consistent standard of sexual practices in every culture? How do different cultures see sexual problems or disorders? It is true that the perception of a sexual disorder can differ from culture to culture and for that matter the definition of sexuality can differ from culture to culture. The textbook "Abnormal Psychology" written by Barlow and Durand provides some examples of differing cultural views of sexuality, such as the sexual practices of Sambian adolescent boys in Papua New Guinea. The people believe that the male body doesn't produce its own semen naturally and that it’s inappropriate to masturbate, so the young boys roughly 7 engage in oral sex with older teenage boys. The boys then become semen providers for others, when the boys become teenagers they enter into a heterosexual marriage. Or take the example of a group in India who encourage the opposite of the Sambian tribe, the natural view of them is to have children to live together and engage in heterosexual intercourse. And one last example, in Swedish culture women are much more promiscuous, which reflects the general acceptance of promiscuity in the public eye. With so many views in mind how can we effectively asses disorder in the realm of sexuality?

          As you can see from the various examples given, there is little consistent cross-cultural standard or norm. We must also take into account that cultural conceptions change, this makes matters worse if we are to make and accurate analysis. Take for example the issue of homosexuality in the United States. Some researchers have tried to make the case that homosexuality, a sexual practice historically considered in our society a paraphilia, is due to biological factors, but the study that proposes this view has yet to be replicated and recognized by the scientific community. In my opinion, I don’t understand why we are associating what is cultural with what is right. 

           This speaks to the issue of worldviews and which worldview truth claims best correspond to reality. Since this is a rather large issue, I will only address a few points briefly here and who knows, maybe write full fledged blog one day on the issue of worldviews. The two main worldview at least in the US are Christian Theism, and Materialism, which usually entails Naturalism, Darwinian Evolution, and Atheism. Christian Theism takes into account what is, but its primary focus is on what ought to be. In other words, Christian Theism provides a philosophical and conceptual ground of what is, why things are, and the way they should be. It provides grounds to be prescriptive and not merely descriptive. So when we take the issue of sexuality, we have the groundwork for establishing norms, and recognizing deviations. In terms of a Materialistic worldview and all its entailment's we only have data on what is, that is to say, we only have descriptive data, and therefore there is no basis for making the assertion of norms, should's and prescriptive statements. 

          How does this work itself out in the real world? If you buy into the Materialistic worldview and you read the part mentioned above about the Tribe in Sambian that forces young boys as young as 7 to ingest the semen of older males, and you had a reaction of disgust, moral outrage, and you felt that the practice was wrong, then based on you're worldview, you would have no justification for feeling that way. In fact you should rightly have no feeling about it at all. The most qualitative statement you could make in regards to that issue would be a mere descriptive one, "It is something that occurs." And you would have no conceptual basis for thinking it is wrong. And yet you do, something deep inside you senses that forcing young boys against there will to perform sexual acts with an older male is intrinsically wrong. But how can this be when you're worldview doesn't allow for thinking that way. You cannot derive an "ought" from an "is."
        On the other hand, the Christian Theistic worldview has a conceptual framework that serves as a ground for thinking prescriptively about what is. We know that forcing young boys against there will to perform oral sex and ingest the semen of older males is intrinsically wrong because it violates what is right, and we know what is right because what is right is reflective of the character and nature of God. And so, the Christian Theist is justified in reacting to the sexual practices of the Sambian Tribe with disgust, moral outrage, and thinking that they are wrong for doing that. There is a logical and rational justification for thinking this way, there is no logical and rational justification for thinking this way in the Materialistic worldview, they are being illogical and irrational for thinking that is wrong. The Materialist doesn't realize it, but in order to make that qualitative claim of wrongness, they must borrow from the Christian Theistic worldview. And therefore, their worldview is utter lacking.
          If what I said is true, wouldn't it stand to reason that what I have described plays a major factor in many other debates such as the homosexuality discussion? Abortion? Contraceptives? Cross-Cultural Analysis?

Reference

 Barlow, David H. & Durand, V. Mark (2008).   Abnormal Psychology: An Integrated Approach, CengageNOW™