The Science of Family Systems Theory

Jacob Priest

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000365214
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Mental Health in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This accessible text examines how the science of autonomy and adaptation informs all family therapy approaches and discusses how clinicians can use this science to improve their practice.

Uniquely focussing on how to integrate science as well as theory into clinical practice, the book provides an overview of science from multiple domains and ties it to family systems theory through the key framework of autonomy and adaptation. Drawing on research from genetics, physiology, emotion regulation, attachment, and triangulation, chapters demonstrate how a comprehensive science-informed theory of family systems can be applied to a range of problematic family patterns. The text also explores self-of-the-therapist work and considers how autonomy and attachment are connected to systems of power, privilege, and oppression.

Supported throughout by practical case examples, as well as questions for consideration, chapter summaries, and resource lists to further engage the reader, The Science of Family Systems Theory is an essential textbook for marriage and family therapy students as well as mental health professionals working with families.

Chapter 1

An Introduction to Family Systems Theory

When people ask me about my job, I lie – a little bit. When someone asks me what I do, I say, “I’m a family therapist.”

More often than not, they then ask, “So, like a psychologist?”

This is when I lie. I say, “Yes, like a psychologist.”

It’s not a total lie. Like many psychologists or counselors, I do psychotherapy. People come to me when issues or problems come up. They come into my office, we talk about these issues, and we work together to tackle their problems. But my training and way of thinking about their problems are different. As a family therapist, my practice is rooted in family systems theory. This theory is what sets me apart from other psychologists and counselors. It’s what makes family therapists family therapists.

The State of Family Systems Theory

In Family Evaluation (1988), Michael Kerr and Murray Bowen argued that “human behavior is significantly regulated by the same natural processes that regulate the behavior of all other living things” (p. 3). They sought to place the human family in the context of biological science. Throughout their book, the pair drew upon the best available research to demonstrate how evolution and other processes had shaped the family system and could explain the development of problems in families. This was their basis for their family systems theory.

In laying out their theory, they acknowledged that the science of factors that regulate human behavior and the family systems was limited. They suggested that with new knowledge, their ideas about the family system would require adapting or amending. They saw their work as a first step in understanding the family as a natural system, but they noted that researchers had “barely scratched the surface” in uncovering what shapes human behavior and family interactions.

More than 30 years later, the knowledge we have regarding family systems has grown substantially. We now understand more about biological processes such as evolution and genetics and their effect on family systems. We know more about the human brain and body and the role that emotion and attachment play in families. Researchers have uncovered factors associated with loving, committed, healthy relationships, and we know more about how broader sociopolitical forces affect families. If in Kerr and Bowen’s era, the science of family systems had “barely scratched the surface,” today, we have broken through the surface and begun to dig into the core.

But with all this new knowledge, family systems theory has gotten stuck. Karen Wampler and her colleagues (2019) noted that the field of family therapy is still largely reliant on the family systems proposals of people like Murry Bowen, Salvador Minuchin, and Virginia Satir – most are more than 30 years old. They pointed out that, to move the field forward, the hypotheses that accompany family systems theory need to be scrutinized by research. By scrutinizing these hypotheses, we may be able to create greater innovation in systemic family therapy practice.

Theory and research are supposed to have a reciprocal relationship. Theory drives research hypotheses. Research findings provide evidence for or opposition to the hypotheses. Based on the evidence, the theory is supported, adjusted, or discarded. But this hasn’t happened with family systems theory. Though the understanding of the science of family systems has grown exponentially, this evidence we have gained hasn’t been applied to the hypotheses of family systems theory. In other words, family systems theory hasn’t been assessed by the new evidence.

Evidence-Based Practice and Practice-Based Evidence

One reason that family systems theory hasn’t been updated is that researchers, with good reason, have been focusing on family therapy outcomes. Researchers have been seeking to answer the question, “Does family therapy work?” This research, often referred to as evidence-based practice, has provided good evidence that it does. When people work with a family therapist, they tend to get better (Shadish & Baldwin, 2003). We have evidence that family therapy works for childhood problems such as behavioral issues, emotional problems, eating disorders, and many others (Carr, 2014a). We also have evidence that family therapy works for adult problems, including marital distress, sexual dysfunction, intimate partner violence, depression, anxiety, and adjusting to chronic illnesses (Carr, 2014b). Evidence gathered through randomized control trials has found that specific models including functional family therapy (Sexton, 2017) or solution-focused therapy (Gingerich, Kim, Stams, & MacDonald, 2012) help clients reach their goals.

Another area of research, practice-based evidence, is concerned with the question: What makes a good family therapist? The research addressing this question has led to the development of many tools to help therapists get better. Lee Johnson and his colleagues have developed the Marriage and Family Therapy Practice Network (Johnson, Miller, Bradford, & Anderson, 2017). This network provides therapists with assessments that get client feedback and track client growth over time with the goal of improving outcomes. Evidence suggests that when therapists solicit feedback and track client progress, outcomes improve (e.g., Anker, Duncan, & Sparks, 2009; Shimokawa, Lambert, & Smart, 2010). Researchers and practitioners are studying and adapting the research to refine the practice of family therapy; helping to identify what individual therapists bring into the room that help clients get better.

These two research areas have done a great deal to advance the practice of family therapy. Today, therapists have clear ways to improve their practice, and most importantly, they can provide care to their clients grounded in evidence. Though there needs to be continued improvement in evidence-based practice and practice-based evidence (e.g., Dattilio, Piercy, & Davis, 2014; Wittenborn, Blow, Holtrop, & Parra-Cardona, 2019), the evidence we have about our models and our work continues to advance. However, this evidence is skill- and model-based – it’s not focused on supporting the proposals of a theory.

Though these avenues of evidence have added much to the field of family therapy, there needs to be a renewed focus on family systems theory. If we don’t continue to revise family systems theory, based on new evidence, we risk the assumptions of our approaches becoming invalid. If we aren’t keeping up on the science, we risk being left behind or not being viewed as part of the mainstream of therapeutic practice. Though we know family therapy works, by validating family systems theory based on current scientific knowledge, we can do things that work better. We may develop evidence-based treatments that work better than the ones we currently have, and we can spur innovation and creativity both in individual therapists and throughout the field.

What Is Family Systems Theory?

Family systems theory is surprisingly difficult to define. If you ask ten family therapists to define it, you won’t get a consistent answer. When I ask my students or my colleagues to define it, I get a variety of responses. Some have said things like, “It’s the idea that family members’ actions and emotions are connected,” or similarly, the idea that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” Others start talking about the model they use or their own “theory of change.”

Family therapy researchers also don’t have a clear definition of family systems theory. In a review of 275 family therapy research studies, 28 different theories of models were identified as used by family therapy researchers (Chen, Hughes, & Austin, 2017). Some used “systems theory,” but poorly defined it; others used models or “mid-level theories” that are connected to family systems theory but failed to tie the two together. The authors of this review article noted that for family therapy researchers, “Simply stating that a study is guided by a systemic perspective or family systems theory overlooks an opportunity to enlighten the reader on the nuances of theory, as well as extend the theory itself” (Chen et al., 2017, p. 522). In other words, because family systems theory is often defined poorly or in different ways, it’s hard to have a clear definition of what family systems theory is.

Defining Family Systems Theory

So, let’s define it. To build a working definition of family systems theory, let’s break it apart and take a look at each part individually – starting with “theory.”

A theory is a set of testable hypotheses that explains facts about the real world. A theory is not a “best guess,” a perspective, or a speculation. It is a documented set of proposals that can be proven false. For example, atomic theory is a set of hypotheses that predicts how atoms interact, form compounds, and behave. Initially, atomic theory was speculative, but as researchers tested the predictions of this theory the evidence for these principles became apparent. Though we couldn’t see atoms until 1981, most scientists supported atomic theory long before that due to the vast amount of evidence supporting the hypotheses (Coyne, 2010).

Atomic theory also underscores the close connection between theory and research. The hypotheses of a theory are tested empirically – using multiple research methods. If the results of the empirical tests show evidence for a hypothesis, that hypothesis becomes supported. If empirical tests of a hypothesis can be replicated over and over again, we then refer to this hypothesis as scientific fact. But, if we test a hypothesis, and there isn’t evidence supporting it, we must then change or discard the hypothesis and its accompanying theory. In the case of atomic theory, the way it was originally proposed is different than how we understand it now. As researchers tested the hypotheses of atomic theory, they found evidence for major parts of the theory, but others were not supported. As such, atomic theory was adjusted on the basis of the new evidence.

A theory is also different from a model. Atomic theory predicts and explains the function of atoms, yet scientists and researchers use multiple models to test, examine, and manipulate atomic compounds. In the same way, family systems theory is different from family therapy models. Many family therapy models are based on family systems theory, but they use different techniques, approaches, and interventions to manipulate the family system.

With this definition of theory, let’s now define “system.” Ludwig von Bertalanffy is often considered as one of the originators of systems theory. In his book, General Systems Theory, he defined systems and delineated the hypotheses of systems theory. He defined a system as “a set of elements standing in inter-relations” (p. 55). For elements to be interrelated, he argued, the interactions of elements within a system must be different from interactions of elements outside of the system. He then described the hypotheses of systems theory based on this definition. Since von Bertalanffy proposed his theory, his hypotheses have been tested. While many of his hypotheses have been supported, others have been revised by the results of research. Systems theory looks different today than it did when von Bertalanffy first proposed it.

What, then, is family systems theory? Let’s start with defining our system of interest, the “family” system. If we draw on von Bertalanffy’s definition of a system, the family system is a set of humans who stand in interrelations to one another. When we talk about families, this “inter-relation” typically occurs through blood, mating, or adoption – though many family systems include people who don’t fit that criterion. The basic definition of family systems theory would then be a theory that proposes testable predictions about interrelated people. And, to extend it a bit more, it is a theory that predicts and explains how people within a family system interact, and how interactions inside the family system are different from those outside of it.

Which Family Systems Theory?

With this definition of family systems theory, we need to examine the hypotheses of this theory. When you try to find testable predictions regarding family systems, it can be overwhelming. Remember, family therapy researchers have used as many as 28 different theories to explain family systems, each having its own hypotheses about the family system. In 2016, Alan Carr listed 20 proposals of family systems theory. This included things like: 1. The family is a social system that supports the survival and welfare of its members; 2. The family is a system with boundaries and is organized into subsystems; 3. The boundary around the family sets it apart from the wider social and cultural systems; 4. Patterns of family interaction are rule governed and recursive; 5. The overall patterning of rule-governed family relationships may be described in terms of family roles, routines, and rituals; 6. Within the family there are processes that both prevent and promote change; and 7. Patterns in the family system are isomorphic – patterns present in one part of the system are present in other parts of the system.

Though this is an exhaustive list, it still ignores important hypotheses like those put forward by Michael Kerr and Murry Bowen. They proposed that the family system was governed by three other systems: 1. The emotional system – a naturally occurring system that allows all organisms to receive, integrate, and respond to information within itself and from the environment; 2. The feeling system – the system in which humans experience guilt, shame, sympathy, ecstasy, rejection, or sadness; and 3. The intellectual system – which allows humans to have the capacity to know and understand. Kerr and Bowen suggest that these systems are governed by the life forces of individuality and togetherness, which lead to patterned behavior and emotional reactivity. The ability to manage individuality and togetherness in a family system is called differentiation of self. Greater differentiation of self results in better relationships and fewer clinical problems.

But why is it so hard to get a clear answer about what family systems theory is? Why are there 28 or more theories used when doing family systems research? And why do we need more than 20 hypotheses to describe family systems theory?

One reason for these multiple, overlapping, hypotheses is that family systems theory and its proposals have drawn on different epistemologies. In addition to drawing on von Bertalanffy’s systems ideas and other biological conc...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• 1 An Introduction to Family Systems Theory
• Part 1 The Evidence of Autonomy and Adaptation
• Part 2 Linking the Evidence to Theory
• Part 3 Linking Theory to Practice
• Appendix A: Read Better
• Appendix B: Engage Differently
• Bibliography
• Index