![Unravelling the Complexities of Families
According to Segrin and Flora (2011), the Pritchett family demonstrate the more negative
aspects that are inherent in perceptual inaccuracy and these aspects manifest in terms of making
attributions. Perceptual inaccuracy is when an individual holds a perception that is not aligned
with reality. Perceptual inaccuracy can often be viewed in in regards of making attributions or
explaining behaviors in a way that does not match reality. For example, the interaction between
Jay and Mitchell at the mall where Mitchell is playing the piano best demonstrates the problems
inherent in making inaccurate attributions. Mitchell pretends to play the piano and states “[I am]
getting pretty good huh?” Jay responds, “yeah but you were always good I am just glad you
stuck with it.” Jay retorts, “seriously? [The piano] is playing itself. You honestly thought I just
became a piano virtuoso dad? You have known me my whole life. Have you ever seen me take a
lesson?” Although engaging in perceptual inaccuracy can often present benefits, this specific
communicative exchange demonstrates the potential pitfalls.
According to McNulty and Karney (2004), perceptual inaccuracy can be beneficial only
if person who is being judged has the skills or is capable of performing these positive
expectations. However, if these skills cannot be acted out or confirmed by the recipient, because
they lack the skills then relationship satisfaction greatly declines. To put it simply, making
inaccurate attributions can be positive only if the receiver of these attributions can confirm them
and negative if they cannot. The dialogue exchanged between Jay and Mitchell demonstrates
these pitfalls in several ways. Since Mitchell was unable to act out the positive expectations held
by Jay, Mitchell felt that these compliments were not genuine as they did not pertain to his
abilities. As a result, Mitchell felt that his father was inattentive or disinterested in his life,
because of the insincere feedback.
6](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/7a9c2ca1-47c2-4974-b5fd-2cae3dca9a2d-160314193235/85/Writing-Example-6-320.jpg)
Writing Example.
- 1. Unravelling the Complexities of Families 1 Unravelling the Complexities of Families Dylan T. Nowe University of California Santa Barbara Communication 124
- 2. Unravelling the Complexities of Families Family communication is often deemed by many as a simple process. This is not the case. Family dynamics is not only remarkably intricate, but the television show “Modern Family” episode “Sleeper” takes these complexities and multiplies them by showcasing the interaction between three interrelated families. By looking at the dialectic tension of privacy versus disclosure, pluralistic family orientations, conflict strategies, and perceptual inaccuracies, one can become more knowledgeable on the constructive and destructive patterns of family communication. Through examining these patterns in the Dunphy and Pritchett families, one is able to recognize and begin to apply some of these positive patterns to their own family communication and steer clear of destructive patterns. After closely examining “Modern Family” it has become abundantly clear that that Phil and Claire Dunphy are experiencing dialectical tensions within their relationship and appear to struggle with the notion of disclosure versus privacy. According to Segrin and Flora (2011), the dialectical perspective holds that there are tensions in every relationship and couples often struggle with these tensions, because they desire to strike a balance between two contradictory desires in their relationship. These contradictory forces manifest in the relationship between Phil and Claire as they struggle between being completely open and honest with one another while also maintaining a level of privacy. For example, Phil tries to hide the fact that he purchased music that he was planning on listening to purely for the purpose of reliving and remembering a sexual encounter with someone other than his wife. On the other hand, Claire also hides the fact that she flirted with a police officer to get out of a ticket. Although this couple appears to be caring by not disclosing potentially hurtful information, by not being entirely open with each other they are exhibiting a harmful communicative pattern. 2
- 3. Unravelling the Complexities of Families Phil and Claire appear to demonstrate patterns of communication that is negatively associated with family satisfaction. According to Cauglin (2003), families have expectations of what communication should entail and if these standards are not met then family satisfaction decreases. Among one of the highest rated standards for strong family communication was found to be openness. That is, openly talking about problems, and concerns was rated as important for satisfaction. Although Phil and Claire conceal some personal information, because they do not want to hurt the other, it appears that being entirely open could strengthen their relationship. If Phil and Claire both engage in open dialogue they can come to trust each other more and help to eliminate the tension they experience between deciding what information to disclose and keep private. Although the relationship between Phil and Claire demonstrates a communicative pattern that is related to lower satisfaction, individuals within the Pritchett family demonstrate much stronger communication via their pluralistic family orientation. According to Segrin and Flora (2011), the Pritchett family best demonstrates being a pluralistic family through being high in conversation orientation and low in conformity orientation. Conformity orientation is the degree to which one feels pressured to a similar perspective to the family, whereas conversation orientation is the degree to which family members perceive the ability to speak freely. For example, the discussion between Jay Pritchett and his son Mitchell Pritchett best demonstrates both orientations. In a private conversation taking place in the kitchen, Jay explains to Mitchell that he is ashamed and embarrassed about enjoying placing his dog in pet shows and that he does not want to go because of those feelings. Mitchell responds, “No you should go! A wise man once told me I do not get it, but if that’s who you are do not dare be ashamed of it!” This communicative exchange demonstrates that the conversations flowed freely, and although Mitchell did not entirely understand Jay’s fascination 3
- 4. Unravelling the Complexities of Families in dogs, he still supported and encouraged him without pushing his views. By having a high conversation and low conformity orientation both Jay and Mitchell demonstrated stronger family communication than families that are not pluralistic. According to Koesten, Schrodt, & Ford (2009) there are many benefits to being a pluralistic family. Families that are pluralistic tend to enjoy greater family satisfaction, strength, and the individuals in the family unit perceive a greater sense of flexibility in their thinking. As demonstrated, Mitchell and Jay were extremely open in their discussion by not stressing conformity, which created an atmosphere that encouraged mutual disclosures. As a result, these mutual disclosures allow Mitchell and Jay to strengthen their bond and deal with their issues more effectively. According to Koesten, Scrodt, & Ford (2009), these mutual disclosures would not have been possible in a high conformity environment, because it discourages free thinking and free conversation which was what led to these mutual disclosures and problem solving. It appears that the current research is in line with what is depicted in Modern Family. Not only is it visible through their smiles that Jay and Mitchell were much more satisfied after disclosing information, but their bond was also much stronger evident by Jay’s arm wrapped around Mitchell’s back. The Pritchett family displays extremely strong communication via their pluralistic family orientation but they also demonstrate strong communication in the way that they handle conflict. According to Segrin and Flora (2011), dealing with conflict cooperatively and directly appears to be the most effective in dealing with conflict. However, there are times when dealing with conflict directly and competitively can also be productive. Addressing conflict directly and cooperatively embodies addressing the problem at hand and dealing with it in a positive manner, whereas dealing with conflict competitively entails addressing the problem at hand but in a 4
- 5. Unravelling the Complexities of Families negative way. Both of these conflict strategies were implemented by Mitchell and Jay and resulted in positive outcomes. For example, during picture taking time, the Dunphy and the Pritchett families, forgot to include Mitchell in a picture. Mitchell responds by saying “nobody noticed I was not here. What does it take with you people?” He then proceeded to storm off into the kitchen and knocking items off the table where Jay followed him and stated “I feel like that was aimed at me. Want to talk about it? If it seems sometimes like we do not notice you it is because we are focused on our own stupid problems and you are so steady.” As a result, shortly thereafter, both Jay and Mitchell conclude their conversation with smiles and laughter. It appears that in dealing with conflict both the strategy and context in which the strategy is used plays a pivotal role in resolving conflict. According to Canary and Lakey (2006), there are multiple ways of dealing with conflict, but the best strategy to use is the one that considers the context of the conflict. To put it simply, to effectively deal with conflict one must call upon a different repertoire of conflict strategies for different given situations. As demonstrated, Mitchell used a direct and competitive strategy which appears to be the most effective in dealing with his problem. He felt that nobody was noticing him and by demonstrating his anger he was able to bring more attention to his problem than using a positive mood, which ultimately led to a productive confrontation between Jay and Mitchel. In this conversation, Jay demonstrated his direct and cooperative strategy by accepting responsibility for the issue by saying “I feel that was aimed at me.” Further, Jay was extremely supportive and understanding, which demonstrates that both of these characters used a different repertoires of dealing with conflict, which is in indication of strong family communication. Although the Pritchett family demonstrate the qualities of strong communication, they are not the perfect family. 5
- 6. Unravelling the Complexities of Families According to Segrin and Flora (2011), the Pritchett family demonstrate the more negative aspects that are inherent in perceptual inaccuracy and these aspects manifest in terms of making attributions. Perceptual inaccuracy is when an individual holds a perception that is not aligned with reality. Perceptual inaccuracy can often be viewed in in regards of making attributions or explaining behaviors in a way that does not match reality. For example, the interaction between Jay and Mitchell at the mall where Mitchell is playing the piano best demonstrates the problems inherent in making inaccurate attributions. Mitchell pretends to play the piano and states “[I am] getting pretty good huh?” Jay responds, “yeah but you were always good I am just glad you stuck with it.” Jay retorts, “seriously? [The piano] is playing itself. You honestly thought I just became a piano virtuoso dad? You have known me my whole life. Have you ever seen me take a lesson?” Although engaging in perceptual inaccuracy can often present benefits, this specific communicative exchange demonstrates the potential pitfalls. According to McNulty and Karney (2004), perceptual inaccuracy can be beneficial only if person who is being judged has the skills or is capable of performing these positive expectations. However, if these skills cannot be acted out or confirmed by the recipient, because they lack the skills then relationship satisfaction greatly declines. To put it simply, making inaccurate attributions can be positive only if the receiver of these attributions can confirm them and negative if they cannot. The dialogue exchanged between Jay and Mitchell demonstrates these pitfalls in several ways. Since Mitchell was unable to act out the positive expectations held by Jay, Mitchell felt that these compliments were not genuine as they did not pertain to his abilities. As a result, Mitchell felt that his father was inattentive or disinterested in his life, because of the insincere feedback. 6
- 7. Unravelling the Complexities of Families The family dynamics in Modern Family are extraordinarily complex. Although all of these families are interrelated, each family demonstrates a different communicative pattern. Moreover, inside each family, there are distinct relationships that manifest different patterns of positive and negative communicative patterns. Through investigating the Dunphy family, it appears that they can relieve some of their tension by disclosing more information. On the other hand, the Pritchett family demonstrates more openness which is a characteristic associated with stronger family satisfaction and strength. Further, the Pritchett family demonstrates strong communication in their ability to call upon different conflict strategy repertoires to deal with conflict most optimally. Although the Pritchett family has many indicators of strong communication, they are not perfect. This family often engages in perceptual inaccuracy in unhealthy ways, which often makes its member feel that that feedback is insincere. Families are often difficult to understand, but looking at the benefits and pitfalls of each family, one should apply this knowledge to improve their satisfaction and strengthen their family bond to new heights. 7
- 8. Unravelling the Complexities of Families References Canary, D. J., & Lakey, S.G. (2006). Managing conflict in a competent manner: A mindful look at events that matter. In J.G. Oetzel & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.) The sage handbook of conflict communication: integrating theory, research, and practice (pp. 185-210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Caughlin, J. P. (2003). Family communication standards. Human Communication Research, 29(1), 5-40. Koesten, J., Schrodt, P., & Ford, D. J. (2009). Cognitive flexibility as a mediator of family communication environments and young adults' well-being. Health Communication, 24(1), 82-94. McNulty, J. K., & Karney, B. R. (2004). Positive expectations in the early years of marriage: Should couples expect the best or brace for the worst?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(5), 729. Segrin, C., & Flora, J. (2011). Family communication. Routledge. 8
- 9. Unravelling the Complexities of Families 9
- 10. Unravelling the Complexities of Families . 10