BEYOND ENMESHMENT: EVIDENCE FOR THE INDEPENDENCE OF INTRUSIVENESS AND CLOSENESS-CAREGIVING IN MARRIED COUPLES

In a 1996 article on family theory, we (Green & Werner) proposed that family enmeshment should not be equated with high cohesion and that the construct of enmeshment fails to discriminate between two distinct relationship processes: Closeness‐caregiving and intrusiveness. In this study, our mode...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of marital and family therapy 2001-10, Vol.27 (4), p.459-471
Main Authors: Werner, Paul D., Green, Robert-Jay, Greenberg, Joseph, Browne, Timothy L., McKenna, Tricia E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adult
Aged
Anecdotes as Topic
Behavior
Behavior Patterns
Closeness
Cognitive Development
Communication
Couples
Emotions
Empathy
Family Dynamics
Family Life
Family Relationship
Family Systems Theory
Female
Humans
Individualized Instruction
Intrusiveness
Male
Marriage
Marriage - psychology
Middle Aged
Personal relationships
Personality Inventory - standards
Psychology
Self Concept
Self Disclosure (Individuals)
Sex Factors
Spouses
Spouses - psychology
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In a 1996 article on family theory, we (Green & Werner) proposed that family enmeshment should not be equated with high cohesion and that the construct of enmeshment fails to discriminate between two distinct relationship processes: Closeness‐caregiving and intrusiveness. In this study, our model of these two independent dimensions of family connectedness was tested by assessing spouses from 264 couples, using the california Inventory for Family Assessment (CIFA). The CIFA scales showed acceptable reliability. Significant interspouse validity correlations also were obtained. As predicted by our theory, factor analyses distinguished dimensions of intrusiveness (blurring of boundaries) from dimensions of closeness‐caregiving (such as warmth and nurturance). On all but two factors, behaviors of only one spouse (but not of both) had interpretable loadings. That is, in most areas, the two spouses' behaviors did not load together to form meaningful factors. The latter finding suggests that family systems theory‐with its central notion of reciprocally contingent behaviors between family members‐may be useful in understanding only a few dimensions of spouses' behavior (such as reciprocal aggression) whereas personality‐in‐context theories may be better for understanding most other dimensions (such as warmth and nurturance).
ISSN:0194-472X
1752-0606
DOI:10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb00340.x