Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: I. Cohesion and Adaptability Dimensions, Family Types, and Clinical Applications^†

Conceptual Definition and Significance of Family Cohesion

The definition of family cohesion used in this model has two components; the emotional bonding members have with one another and the degree of individual autonomy a person experiences in the family system. At the extreme of high family cohesion, enmeshment, there is an overidentification with the family that results in extreme bonding and limited individual autonomy. The low extreme, disengagement, is characterized by low bonding and high autonomy from the family. It is hypothesized that a balanced degree of family cohesion is the most conducive to effective family functioning and to optimum individual development.

These three points on the continuum can be represented conceptually by three different poems.

Some specific variables that can be used to assess the degree of family cohesion are: emotional bonding, independence, boundaries, coalitions, time, space, friends, decision-making, and interests and recreation. In Table III (Clinical Section), these variables are arrayed under the four levels of family cohesion. It is hypothesized that when the levels of cohesion are balanced, there will be a more functional balance of the issues identified and the family will deal more effectively with situational stress and developmental change. Because of differences in cultural norms, it is possible for some families to operate at these extremes without problems. However, these extreme patterns are more problematic in the long run for most families who are acculturated to the norms in this society.

The significance of the cohesion dimension in our culture is attested to by the large number of terms from several different disciplines that refer to cohesion or to a concept relating to one extreme of this dimension. Psychiatrists, family therapists, family sociologists, small-group theorists, group therapists, social psychologists and anthropologists have all utilized the cohesion dimension in their work. Table I lists approximately forty concepts subsumed under the cohesion dimension and Table II provides brief definitions and sources for these terms.

With the exception of the terms developed by Olson (58), Hess and Handel (29), and Rosenblatt (66), (see Table I) all the recent terms describing family cohesion have been developed by psychiatrists specializing in family therapy. Most of the terms describe the two extremes of the cohesion dimension with less attention given to the middle range, owing in large part no doubt to the fact that these extremes are more representative of the kinds of families who were seen by the psychiatrists who developed many of these concepts. The clinician's concern with extremely high family cohesion is also expressed in a recent GAP (24) report on the Treatment of Families in Conflict, which reported that a primary goal of 87 per cent of family therapists (N= 290) was to improve the autonomy and individuation of family members.

It is no historical accident that most of these recent concepts were developed by psychiatrists working with clinic families. These family therapists, working within a general systems orientation, have been primarily describing families of schizophrenics. While the originators of these concepts shared a common interest in family oriented treatment and a focus on families of schizophrenics, they each developed their own terminology — even when the professionals were working in the same town or, indeed, the same building. For example, the extreme of family togetherness was described by Wynne et al. (88) as “pseudo-mutuality,” by Bowen (6) as “undifferentiated family ego mass,” by Stierlin (79) as “binding,” and by Reiss (61) as “consensus-sensitive families.” All of these psychiatrists worked in the same Adult Psychiatry Branch of NIMH during the past ten years. Historically, Murray Bowen and Lyman Wynne first worked there together. Later Helm Stierlin and David Reiss both worked at NIMH while Lyman Wynne was director, and they each became acting directors after Wynne left the Branch.

Historically, Wynne et al. (88) were among the first to note that some families, particularly those with a schizophrenic, have a predominant concern with fitting together at the expense of developing personal identities. They described this process as pseudo-mutuality;

Stierlin (79) clarified the struggle to balance separateness and togetherness in families by identifying two opposing forces, centripetal and centrifugal. High family cohesion can be viewed as centripetal force pulling family members toward one another into an intellectual and emotional “oneness.” This cohesiveness is contrasted with the centrifugal force, which pulls family members away from the family system. He identifies three transactional modes that characterize parent-adolescent relationships. Two of these modes (binding and delegating) are centripetal and the third (expelling) is centrifugal. These modes are generally functional for families but become dysfunctional when they are inappropriately timed or excessively intense so that only one extreme predominates. He proposes, in essence, that a family system operates most effectively when these two opposing forces operate in a more or less balanced manner.

Considerable interest in extremely high family cohesion continues, as witnessed by recent articles in the literature (Schaffer, 74; Hoffman, 34; Karpel, 37; Klugman, 41). Hoffman describes the dysfunctional nature of enmeshed or too richly cross-joined family systems. Minuchin calls attention to the point, often overlooked, that dyadic groupings have difficulty functioning in enmeshed family systems because of interference from another (third or fourth) party: “Dyadic transactions rarely occurred. They become triadic or group transactions that promoted a sense of vagueness and confusion in all family members” (50, p. 248). As indicated in Table I (see Olson), weak family coalitions or parent-child coalitions characterize disengaged or enmeshed family systems, respectively. A strong marital coalition correlates with balanced family cohesion. In this regard Satir clearly states that

Karpel (37) has recently proposed a model that describes how individuals can deal with the duality of distance (the “I”) and relation (the “We”) and how they would vary on the stages of maturity (immature, transitional, and mature). In the immature stage, individuals deal with distance by being unrelated or with relation by pure fusion. Only in the mature stage can individuals maintain both relation (through dialogue) and distance (through individuation). The importance of this “I” versus “We” balance in mature relationships is emphasized in that individuation and dialogue facilitate each other.

Family sociologists have also identified the cohesion dimension in their work. One of the earliest was Angell (1), who identified “family integration” as a key dimension along with the dimension of “family adapt. ability,” which relates directly to our dimension of family adaptability. Hill (30) also combined the variables of “adaptability” and “integration” to assess dynamic stability in his study of families under stress from war separation and reunion. Hess and Handel (29) used the dimension, calling the extremes “separateness” and “connectedness,” as the central theme of their middle-range theory of family behavior. Nye and Rushing (53) identified six dimensions of family solidarity, which are conceptually similar to what we are calling family cohesiveness. These six dimensions are: associational integration, effectual integration, consensual integration, functional integration, normative integration, and goal integration. Three of these (associational solidarity, affectual solidarity and consensual solidarity) were later empirically investigated by Bengtson and Black (4).

Another sociologist, Colette Carisse, (9), recently developed a typology of leisure styles that utilizes cohesion as one of the major dimensions. The two extremes of her model are similar to those of others. Extreme togetherness is defined as “pathogenic pursuit of consensus, or total identification,” and extreme separateness as “pathogenic pursuit of interpersonal distance” and (9, p. 195).

Small-group theorists and researchers have also identified the dimension of cohesion as a useful one in describing ad hoc groupings. They have often used the term solidarity and defined it as the members' attraction to the group (Festinger, Schachter, and Back, 17; Fiedler and Neuwese, 18; Thibaut and Kelly, 81). Cartwright and Zander (10) describe cohesion as “the resultant of all the forces acting on all the members to remain in the group” (10, p. 74).

After working with ad hoc groups of individuals in counseling, Yalom (89) emphasized the importance of cohesion as a therapeutic factor in group psychotherapy. He described “group cohesion” as a precondition for effective treatment and reviewed the relevant literature supporting this idea. He also developed his own scale and found it to be related to positive outcome in group psychotherapy. He concludes that “Cohesiveness is a widely researched, poorly understood, basic property of groups” (89, p. 37).

Social psychologists interested in the family as a small group have also identified the cohesion dimension. Levinger (44) discusses marital cohesiveness and marital dissolution, utilizing a definition of cohesion similar to that from small group research. He sees marital cohesion as a special case of group cohesion. Marital cohesion is described as a direct function of psychological attraction and barrier forces inside the marriage and inversely related to the attractiveness of alternative relationships.

Recently Paul Rosenblatt (64, 65, 66), whose orientation includes both social psychology and anthropology as applied to the family, has begun work on the cohesion dimension. He describes the extremes as the “togetherness” and “apartness” that families need to find an optimal balance between time together and time apart. Basing his work on the fact that American norms assume family togetherness, he has identified the ways in which families avoid togetherness while appearing to be together. Rosenblatt and Titus (66) describe how family members legitimate being away from home but also isolate themselves from each other when they are at home. Rosenblatt and Budd (64) demonstrated how territoriality and privacy are maintained in married versus unmarried cohabiting couples. In another study, Rosenblatt and Russell (65) describe the togetherness problems that families have during vacations and how they cope with this pressured togetherness. Rosenblatt and his colleagues at Minnesota are continuing work on this dimension and are currently preparing a monograph on their findings.

Anthropologists have also described the significance of togetherness in our culture in contrast to other cultures (Stephens, 78). Some cultures maintain such separateness in the family that the husband and wife do not live, sleep, or even eat together. Although our culture encourages individual freedom and autonomy, it also espouses the normative belief that couples and families should spend considerable time together as a unit.

In conclusion, this conceptual review of the literature from various fields demonstrates that the cohesion dimension is an important aspect of both ad hoc and family groups. The relevance of the dimension to several social science disciplines provides a type of cross-validation of its salience and significance. The most recent interest in the dimension has come, however, from family therapists who have developed numerous concepts that relate primarily to the extreme ends of the dimension. Cohesion, therefore, is one of the two central dimensions for developing the circumplex model of marital and family systems.

Conceptual Definition and Significance of Family Adaptability

The definition of adaptability used in this paper is: the ability of a marital/family system to change its power structure, role relationships, and relationship rules in response to situational and developmental stress. The assumption is that an adaptive system requires balancing both morphogenesis (change) and morphostasis (stability).

The specific variables that are of interest in terms of this dimension are: family power structure (assertiveness and control) negotiation styles, role relationships and relationship rules, and feedback (positive and negative). Table IV (in Clinical section) shows how these specific variables are arrayed under the four levels of adaptability.

Basically, the most viable family systems are those in the two central levels of the adaptability dimension. It is hypothesized that when there is a more free-flowing balance between morphogenesis and morphostasis, there will be a mutually assertive style of communicating; equalitarian leadership; successful negotiation; positive and negative feedback loops; role sharing and role-making; and rule-making, with few implicit rules and more explicit rules. Conversely, more dysfunctional family systems will fall at either extreme of these variables.

Our definition of adaptability is highly compatible with the definition of family systems proposed earlier by Wertheim (86, 87). She states that

However, our definition of adaptive family systems is more concrete and specific for it relates to concepts that can be operationally defined and measured.

As mentioned earlier, Angell (1) identifies family adaptability as being a significant dimension in understanding family success in coping with the stress of prolonged unemployment. Hill (30) utilized this concept in his study of war separation and reunion and found that highly adaptable families had the best adjustment to both stressor events.

The dimension of family adaptability has also been identified by other theorists as important to consider. In an excellent discussion of family adaptability, referred to as “familia spongia,” Clark Vincent (83) points out that this aspect of the family is often overlooked. He maintains that this function is vital to highly changing societies since it serves the mediating function between individuals and other social structures. He states:

In another article on family adaptability, Kieren and Tallman (39, 40) define this dimension more as an individual property: “… a spouse's ability to deal effectively with a problematic situation by changing roles and strategies in terms of new or modified assessments of the situation to which he/she is confronted” (40, p. 248). They maintain that spousal adaptability is composed of three interrelated concepts: flexibility, empathy, and motivation. Their recent work in developing scales for these concepts is reported in another paper (39).

Again, the family therapy literature also speaks to the importance of focusing on the adaptability dimension. The Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry (GAP) report (24) describes a primary goal of family therapists (N= 290) to be provision of more flexible leadership (66 per cent) and improved role agreement (64 per cent) in the families they treat. Both leadership and role relationships are important concepts of the adaptability dimension.

In summary, the family adaptability dimension appears to be one of considerable interest to family theorists and family therapists. Again, there have been few attempts at conceptual clarification or integration of this dimension with other relevant family concepts.

Development of the Model

Before elaborating on the characteristics of the circumplex model — identifying the 16 types of family systems, and the clinical applications — it seems useful to trace briefly the development of the model. The process began about three years ago as a result of our frustration at trying to present a growing list of rather disconnected but interesting concepts from the fields of family therapy, family sociology, and small group research. It then appeared that the two dimensions of cohesion and adaptability were salient dimensions in a variety of social science fields. Applying them to the family seemed intriguing and when the process began, it became increasingly clear how many concepts actually fit along these two dimensions. Simply describing them seemed useful, but not very integrative. Then the idea struck us of putting family cohesion and family adaptability into a circumplex model. This logically led to the notion that types of marital and family systems could be delineated utilizing the various regions of the circumplex model (see Figure 1).

Although we were aware of the literature dealing with the two dimensions separately, it was only after the model was developed that we discovered that Angell (1) had developed conceptually very similar dimensions that he called family integration (rather than cohesion) and family adaptability. He defined integration as “the bonds of coherence and unit running through family life, of which common interests, affection, and a sense of economic interdependence are perhaps the most prominent” (1, p. 15). In considering family adaptability, he looked at how the family as a unit functioned rather than at individual adaptability. Adaptability referred to the family's flexibility as a unit in meeting difficulties, to the family's readiness to adjust to changed situations, and to its habits of collective discussion and decision. His classic study was entitled The Family Encounters the Depression (1). Dividing families into high, medium, and low categories on these two dimensions, he formed nine types of families, eight of which he empirically located and described.

Angell discovered the significance of these two dimensions by working from case records, using the approach Glaser and Strauss (22) have called “grounded theory.” Angell said:

Even after the two dimensions were discovered, he developed and tested five conceptual schemes before he realized the predictive advantage of combining integration and adaptability into the same model.

It is actually fortunate for us that we located the work of Angell. It provides greater validity to these dimensions owing to their discovery by a different route and their salience three decades ago in discriminating among family types. Following the work of Angell, Hill (30) in his study of Families Under Stress also used these two dimensions in order to understand war separation and reunion. Hill combined integration and adaptability into a measure called dynamic stability. Hill et al. also included these two dimensions in a study of personal and family adjustments to rapid urbanization entitled Eddyville's Families (32). Since then, there has been a lack of conceptual or empirical work directly following up these early studies of cohesion and adaptability.

After discovering the similarity between the current circumplex model and the work of Angell in 1936, it appeared as though we had discovered the wheel, or as Shakespeare more eloquently stated it: “The wheel is come full circle.” We almost became violators of the dictum: “Originality is the art of concealing your source” (Franklin P. Jones, date unknown). After our struggles to locate these two dimensions, to measure them conceptually and empirically, and to illustrate how they can be used clinically with couples and families, the quote from Little Gidding by T. S. Eliot takes on more meaning for us:

Circumplex Models of Behavior

Once the two dimensions were located, they were placed into a circumplex model. Guttman (25) is credited with proposing the use of circumplex models, and many have followed his lead. Schaefer (72, 73) described mothers' perceptions of their behavior with children, using such a model, and Becker and Krug (3) followed with a description of children's behavior. Bronfenbrenner (7) proposed a theory of optimum levels of parental behaviors that grew out of a circumplex model. Devereux (13) used the three dimensions of parental supportiveness, control, and involvement in a three-dimensional circumplex model for describing parental socializing practices in England, Germany, and the United States. Straus (80) combined power and support into a circumplex model for describing parental behavior and children's personality.

Foa (19) used it to describe interpersonal behavior, Leary (42) to describe personality, and Kerckhoff and Bean (38) used Leary's scales to describe couples, based on self and spouse perceptions.

Olson, Miller, and Ryder (56) have recently developed a typology of marital interaction based on couples' discussion of items from the Inventory of Marital Conflicts (Olson and Ryder, 57). These types were empirically derived, using Tryon and Bailey's (82) cluster analysis program. The current paper extends circumplex models by identifying two salient dimensions and then describing 16 types of marital and family systems.

Other Typologies of Marital and Family Systems

There has been considerable interest in the last few years in developing typologies of couples and families. The goal of these typologies is to move beyond a simplistic description of couples and families using single variables to a multidimensional approach that provides a more comprehensive and realistic picture of the complexity of these systems. It is also assumed that typologies will facilitate more relevant diagnostic assessment and provide more statistical power in empirical description and prediction.

Although some of the recent typologies have been empirically based, most have been intuitively (clinically or theoretically) derived and seldom empirically validated. Cuber and Haroff (12) developed one of the first intuitively derived typologies of marriage based on interviews with higher-status couples. Other intuitive typologies include Ryder's (70) typography of early marriage, which was based on personality traits of husbands and wives that emerged from condensed interview reports with 200 couples.

Lewis et al. (46) provide a descriptive analysis of dysfunctional, mid-range and healthy families who were divided into adequate and optimal groups. Some attempt was made to validate these types empirically, but conceptual confusion and methodological weaknesses limited the clarity of the results. Beavers (2), a collaborator with Lewis, recently elaborated on the clinical description of these types.

Kantor and Lehr (36) provide an intriguing analysis of open, closed, and random family systems. To date, no empirical validation has been done with their types. Recently, Constantine (10) has extended Kantor and Lehr's four-player model into a more comprehensive and unified systems model that has considerable promise for integrating various theories of behavior and for clinical applications.

Wertheim (87) developed a typology based on three aspects of the morphogenesis dimension: induced morphogenesis, consensual morphostasis, and forced morphostasis. Using high and low dichotomies for these three processes, she described eight types of family systems: two open, two partly open, and two closed. These types were compared with Reiss' (61, 62) three empirical types: environmental sensitive, interpersonal-distance sensitive, and consensus sensitive, respectively. While Wertheim's work is provocative, it deals primarily with the dimension of adaptability and as yet has not been operationalized or empirically validated.

The empirical approach to developing typologies for marital and family systems is becoming more popular because of the recent development of cluster-analysis computer programs such as the one developed by Tryon and Bailey (82). Some of the first attempts to cluster couples empirically were done by Goodrich, Ryder, and Rausch (23) and Ryder (70) in which profile rotation (Ryder, 69) was used to describe types of newlywed couples. Shostrum and Kavanaugh (75) used a self-report scale to describe couples on the dimensions of anger-love and strength-weakness. Using the Ravich Interpersonal Game/Test, Ravich and Wyden (60) described eight types of marital interaction patterns. Recently, Olson, Miller, and Ryder (56) used cluster analysis to describe nine types of marital interaction based on how couples made decisions and resolved disagreements on the Inventory of Marital Conflicts (Olson and Ryder, 57).

While the previous empirical typologies described couples, some work has also been done with family types. In addition to Reiss' (61, 62) work mentioned above, Moos and Moos (51) developed a typology of family types based on their Family Environment Scale.To date, there has been little attention given to how these typologies can be used in diagnosis and in planning treatment for couples or families.

Objectives and Characteristics of the Circumplex Model

The impetus for developing this circumplex model arose out of frustration with the lack of integration of theoretical concepts and empirical studies in the marital and family process literature. It should be pointed out that this paper describes the model after three years of development. The objectives used as guidelines in developing the model were to:

Sixteen Types of Marital and Family Systems

The circumplex model proposed in this paper was intuitively derived and has been empirically validated in two separate studies by Russell (68) and Sprenkle and Olson (77). The types were developed by classifying the two dimensions into four levels: very low, low to moderate, moderate to high, and very high. This 4x4 matrix forms 16 cells, each of which identifies one possible type (see Figure 1).

In labeling these types we tried to avoid value-laden terminology, i.e., clinical terms or clinical types of families (schizophrenic, delinquent, neurotic). The two descriptive terms for each type are related to the level of adaptability and cohesion, respectively. The terms are intended to describe the underlying dynamics of a marital or family system.

Although it is empirically and conceptually possible that all 16 types realistically describe some couples and families, it is assumed that the four central and four extreme types are the most common. It is assumed that the other eight types are dynamically less frequent because if a couple or family is extreme on one dimension, they will also tend to be extreme on the other dimension.

Figure 1 identifies the 16 types in the circumplex model. The four types in the central area reflect balanced levels of both adaptability and cohesion and are seen as most functional to individual and family development. The four extreme types reflect very high or low levels of adaptability and cohesion and are seen as most dysfunctional to individual and family development.

The central area, which represents moderate cohesion and adaptability, is seen as most functional and indicates a balance on both dimensions. This formulation is conceptually similar to what Bronfenbrenner (7) describes as a “theory of optimum levels.” He maintains that healthy personality development in children requires a balance of parental support and control. Too much or too little is seen as detrimental to a child's development. This results in curvilinear relationships between parental behaviors and a child's development. The optimum level of support and control is hypothesized as moderate, which is the central area of the circumplex model.

Although it is generally assumed that the central area of the model is most functional to individual and family development over time, it is possible that extreme family types can be functional at some times for families. For example, extreme cohesion in a family might be functional in the short run after they have experienced a crisis — such as the loss of a family member — or after a significant addition — such as the birth of a child. However, if this pattern of relating becomes the predominant style across the various stages of the family life cycle, it could become problematic for one or more of the family members. For example, the extreme family type of being rigidly enmeshed might be functional for taking care of an infant, but it would be less functional when the child becomes an adolescent.

This circumplex model also provides a conceptual linkage to typologies developed by Kantor and Lehr (36) and Wertheim (86), both of whom refer to open and closed family systems. Kantor and Lehr (36) describe open families as having a central theme of adaptability, whereas closed families emphasize stability and random families attempt to maintain free exploration. Wertheim describes open, partly open, and closed family systems.

The four types in the central area of the circumplex model are open and are similar to the open types described by Kantor and Lehr (36) and Wertheim (86). The two extreme types of rigidly disengaged and rigidly enmeshed relate to Kantor and Lehr's and Wertheim's closed types. The other two extreme types of chaotically disengaged and chaotically enmeshed systems relate to Kantor and Lehr's random types. The eight additional types in Figure 1 that are high or low on one dimension and moderate on the other are similar to Wertheim's partly open types.

Four Balanced Types: Open Systems

Based on the design of the model and the scaling of the dimensions, the four types in the center circle (flexible separateness, flexible connectedness, structured connectedness, and structured separateness) represent more functional marital and family systems. An open system is distinguished by the ability of individuals to experience and balance the extremes of being independent from and connected to their families. Individual family members have the freedom to be more alone or connected to each other as they wish. However, they seldom remain at either extreme for long periods of time.

The model is dynamic in that it assumes that changes can occur in family types over time. Families are free to move in any direction that the situation, stage of the family life cycle, or socialization of family members may require. A retrospective look at a family known to one of the authors illustrates the dynamic nature of the model.

Steve and Sally were both raised in rather traditional homes. Three years after they were married, they became parents for the first time, and Sally resigned from her teaching job. Because of the dependency needs of their son and their own desire for mutual support in this transition period, they developed a moderately high, but not extreme, level of family cohesion. Also, their upbringing led them to be moderately low, but not rigid, on the adaptability dimension. They were comfortable with a rather traditional husband-dominant power structure and segregated role relationship, preferring the relative security of these established patterns to the ambiguities of continually negotiating them. Using the current model, we would classify their family type as structurally connected, an option that seemed to be satisfying to them at the time.

When Sally's and Steve's son became a teenager, Sally started pursuing a career, and both parents experienced a good deal of “consciousness raising” about sex roles through the media and through involvement in several growth groups. Because of their son's needs for more autonomy at this age, as well as the parents' separate career interests, they began operating at a lower level of cohesiveness, moving from being connected to being more separated.

Furthermore, the family power structure shifted from being husband-dominant to a more shared pattern. Sally exercises much more control in the relationship than previously, and the couple is struggling, almost on a weekly basis, to redefine the rules and role relationship that will govern their relationship. Although they occasionally yearn for the security of their earlier more structured relationship, both find excitement and challenge in this more flexible relationship style. In short, flexibly separated best describes their current family organizational pattern.

This brief case history illustrates the dynamic nature of the model, which allows for movement within reasonable limits. It also seeks to recognize diverse values and legitimize the diverse organizational ideals of families. None of the four types in the inner circle is designated as “the ideal” at any given stage of the family life cycle, but all are more functional than the extreme types.

Four Extreme Types

The four extreme types in the outer circle are seen as least functional to individual and family development: chaotically disengaged, chaotically enmeshed, rigidly enmeshed, and rigidly disengaged. Families in these categories can be described by the extremes of family cohesion and adaptability.

In defining these four extreme types, we believe that these behaviors are continuous with functional behavior but represent an exaggerated version of it. Even the pioneer family therapists were impressed with the fact that “normal” families displayed some of the same behavior, albeit limited, as the clinical families they were describing as dysfunctional. The current typology makes this connection explicit, i.e., chaotically disengaged is an exaggerated form of the flexibly separated type.

Second, we have endeavored to avoid developing a classification system for families based upon individual psychology. We have tried to go beyond the crude practice of using the symptoms of one family member to characterize a family, such as a “delinquent family” or a “schizophrenic family.” Third, we tried to select terms with a less value-daden history than the types just mentioned.

Finally, we tried to create a classification system that might be useful to clinicians in determining treatment goals for a wide variety of clients. Many family categories or clinical labels, e.g., embroilment, extraordinary mutual involvement, have been of limited value to therapists since (a) the labels were designed to apply primarily to families with one specific difficulty (e.g., schizophrenia); (b) they are unidimensional, most frequently centering on the cohesiveness dimension alone; and (c) they assume a simple linear continuum from more of the property to less of the property, one end of the continuum representing functional behavior and the other dysfunctional.

There are a wide variety of ways in which extreme types of couples and families encounter problems. First, one family member may want more cohesion or adaptability than the other family member(s). For example, a common problem with divorcing couples is that one partner wants more closeness and the other more individual autonomy, i.e., freedom. They are really at opposite ends of the cohesion dimension. Often, as they struggle to maintain these extreme postures, they sometimes flip positions. This could be interpreted to mean that they are not satisfied with either extreme all the time but really want to have both closeness and freedom. The balance between having closeness at times and also having individual freedom is often what both want. The problem is working on finding the best balance for both of them in terms of what they want individually and what their partner can tolerate. Although couples have some difficulty knowing what they want, they have more difficulty learning how to achieve these goals in their relationship. Napier (52) describes in greater detail the struggle that divorcing couples have in dealing with their conflicting needs for closeness and separateness.

A second problem encountered by couples is that both partners are at the extreme on one or both dimensions. For example, if both partners are at the disengaged extreme, they are often afraid to be close. They rigidly try to maximize their autonomy. Couples who are emotionally enmeshed with each other are often afraid of developing their own autonomy because it might mean losing the approval and love of their partner. Both of these couples need to experience and learn that it is possible to have both closeness and autonomy and that these are not mutually exclusive experiences.

Hypotheses Derived from the Model

One of the assets of a theoretical model is that hypotheses can be deduced and tested in order to evaluate and further develop the model. The first hypothesis was tested with couples (Sprenkle and Olson, 77) and with families with an adolescent (Russell, 68); these studies have generally supported the hypothesis.

Indicators of Family Cohesion: Clinical Assessment

While there has been considerable interest and discussion about the importance of the cohesion dimension, little attention has been given to how to define and measure cohesion operationally. This section will focus on specific indicators of family cohesion that can be used in doing a clinical assessment of a couple or family. The empirical assessment of family cohesion and the research scales currently available for research purposes are described in another paper (58) and are systematically incorporated into FACES.

It is possible to determine clinically the degree of cohesion of a marital or family unit by assessing how the members handle the nine basic issues of emotional bonding, independence, boundaries, coalitions, time, space, friends, decision-making and interests and recreation.Table III provides a general guideline for such assessment.

In doing the general classification of a marital or family unit, it is important to consider each member, each dyadic unit, other combinations of family units, and the entire system. It is also important to remember that all family members or dyadic units in the family will not be classified in an identical manner. In fact, one dyadic unit might exhibit behavior that is opposite from the other dyadic units on the dimensions of cohesion and adaptability. This is naturally the kind of diagnostic information that can be useful to a therapist.

It is also important to remember that this is a general and subjective assessment based on an individual's self-report. Although this method does provide interesting subjective data, it should be expected that individuals within the same family may see things differently and that these reports may not be equivalent to a more objective assessment (55). Because of the difference among family members' reports and behaviors, it is necessary to make some judgment on where to place a given couple or family on each scale.

Once an assessment is done for each area, it then becomes possible to develop an overall assessment foor the couple or family. Families very low on cohesion are described as disengaged, moderately low as separated, moderately high as connected, and very high as enmeshed (see Figure 1). Again, there are no absolute guidelines, but couples with extremely low cohesion in six or more areas would be considered disengaged on cohesion. Conversely, couples with six or more areas in the extremely high region would be considered enmeshed on cohesion. Couples or families dealing with most of these areas in the central areas would represent those who have a more balanced orientation to individual autonomy and family cohesion.

More importantly, however, than simply classifying a couple or family in terms of cohesion, Table III enables one to identify the specific areas in which individuals are more or less connected to each other. This becomes particularly useful when couples or families come for treatment of relationship problems that are often related to their being either too enmeshed or too disengaged from each other. Treatment can then be focused on the areas that seem to be the most problematic in keeping the couple/family too connected or disconnected from each other.

Indicators of Family Adaptability: Clinical Assessment

As was discussed in regard to the dimension of family cohesion, it is possible operationally to define and assess adaptability both sclinically and empirically. The following discussion will focus on how a clinical assessment can be made using the variables of assertiveness and control, discipline, negotiation style, role relationships, relationship rules, and system feedback identified in Table IV. (An empirical assessment based on relevant research scales is described in another paper ([58] and included in FACES.) Many marital and family therapists already typically make some observations and clinical assessment of these variables. Table IV provides a framework into which these observations can be placed and organized for a more systematic assessment of overall adaptability.

Once a clinical assessment is made for each of these seven variables, a therapist will then have both an overall assessment of a family's adaptability and a specific breakdown for each variable. If a couple or family is high, moderate, or low on five or more of these variables, the therapist derives a modal pattern for the couple or family. The extremes of family chaos and family rigidity are typically most problematic for both individual and family functioning. Variables that fall into these extremes are, therefore, of considerable clinical interest and value because they are often problematic. The treatment goal would be to facilitate movement on these problematic areas to make them less extreme.

Figure 1 indicates the descriptive terms that can be used for indicating the degree of adaptability in a marital or family unit. Families very low on adaptability would be described as rigid, those moderately low as structured, those moderately high as flexible, and families very high as chaotic. As with the cohesion dimension, these terms are intended to indicate the increasing levels of adaptability. Rigid and chaotic families represent the low and high extremes, respectively, and structured and flexible represent the moderate levels.

Diagnosis and Treatment Planning

Once a clinical assessment has been made of a couple or family on both the cohesion and adaptability dimensions, it is possible to place the couple or family into one of the sixteen cells of the circumplex model (Figure 1). As previously mentioned, couples and families in the four extremes will often have the most difficulty as a system, whereas those in the central areas usually experience less difficulty as a unit. It is possible that the marital, parental, and sibling subsystems within some families occupy different regions in the circumplex model. Treatment goals would naturally have to take these dynamics into account.

In addition to the general assessment on both dimensions, the therapist also has specific information on the nine variables related to cohesion and the seven variables related to adaptability. This information can aid a therapist in deciding what areas might be the most beneficial to focus on in treatment.

Once the diagnostic assessment is made, the therapist can begin to formulate treatment goals. If a couple or family is extreme on either cohesion or adaptability, the model suggests that the family would function more adequately in a more moderate degree on that dimension. Clinically it has been found useful to try to move a couple or family only one level on a dimension. This can be done on one dimension or on both dimensions. If too dramatic a change is imposed on the system, such as moving a chaotic family to a structured one, the family will often resist or do a dramatic shift to the opposite extreme. As Stierlin observed in regard to treatment of families:

The decision of what dimension and what specific variables related to that dimension require change is one that needs to be made by the therapist in consultation with the couple or family. Therapists differ greatly in the extent to which they involve the family in the decision regarding the treatment goals. However, we believe that it is therapeutically useful to share the diagnostic assessment with the family and involve them actively in the decision regarding the specific goals of treatment on both the two dimensions and on the specific variables related to each dimension.

While the circumplex model is useful for diagnosing family functioning on the dimensions of cohesion and adaptability and for deciding on treatment goals on these two dimensions, the model does not specify what therapeutic techniques will be most helpful in achieving these goals. Techniques are for the most part atheoretical and can be used regardless of the therapist's theoretical orientation. The therapist must, therefore, select from the techniques with which she or he is familiar and use those that are likely to be most effective in achieving the treatment goals for the couple or family. As Minuchin so clearly stated:

Case Example of Dysfunctional Family Type

The W. family came to see one of the authors for treatment and were diagnosed as a chaotically disengaged family. The presenting problem was the 15-year-old daughter who was labeled delinquent because she stayed out all night, was truant, and was seen as sexually promiscuous.

In doing the clinical assessment on the cohesion dimension (see Table III), it was learned that not only did the daughter spend time away from the family, but she also spent time with friends whom her family considered undesirable. When she was home, she spent most of the time in her room alone with the door closed. She refused to let her parents make any decisions for her and sometimes purposely made decisions she knew would upset them. Her parents also had an emotionally distant relationship. They spent most of their evenings together in the same house but rarely interacted except over issues related to the daughter. They had separate friends and rarely spent time with others as a couple. He occasionally played poker and went bowling with his men friends, but she seldom went out except to do routine shopping. In other words, this family was characterized as low on cohesion because none of the dyadic units — neither the parents nor the mother-daughter or the father-daughter — appeared to be emotionally connected to each other.

On the adaptability dimension (Table IV), the family appeared to be chaotic. The father was passive at most times but would explode if things did not go his way. The mother and daughter were usually passive, and both felt that they had little power in the family. In terms of discipline, the parents vacillated between being laissez faire and autocratic and found that neither extreme seemed to work. Currently, the family had poor problem-solving skills and even had difficulty listening to each other. In terms of rules, most of them were implicit. While the parents complained that the daughter stayed out too late, they had difficulty making specific rules and rarely enforced them with any consistency.

In terms of the dimensions of the model, the W. family seemed to be very low on cohesion (disengaged) and very high on adaptability (chaotic): hence, they could be classified as chaotically disengaged. After ascertaining what the family wanted from therapy, the therapist set as his major goal the movement of the W. family from chaotically disengaged to flexibly separated, a functional type one level less extreme on each dimension. This showed a basic respect for the family's organizational goals and style, and it was a less radical version of their current behavior.

The initial goals for Mr. and Mrs. W. included spending more time together as a marital unit in order to increase their cohesion. As parents, they also agreed to work together to formulate a reasonable set of rules that they would jointly negotiate with their daughter, thereby decreasing their adaptability. As is typical in these cases, the daughter actually preferred more rules and was cooperative in both suggesting them and establishing a system for their enforcement. The daughter was also given the opportunity to specify some shared activities she would enjoy doing with each parent and with both as a family.

This brief discussion illustrates the attempt to facilitate some change in the family on both the cohesion and adaptability dimensions. As mentioned earlier, the circumplex model provides a framework for making a clinical assessment of a couple or family and for specifying treatment goals. Once the diagnosis and treatment goals are specified, it is up to the therapist to decide what specific treatment strategies or techniques will be most effective with a given case. Once treatment has begun, the therapist can also use the model to assess what changes have taken place on the concepts related to each dimension. In addition to using the model to assess treatment progress, it can be used at the end of treatment for determining the overall outcome of therapy.