The Framework of Marriage and Family Counseling - Essay Example

Running head: MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELING The Framework of Marriage and Family Counseling Brittany Mosley Argosy Atlanta The inherent uniqueness of every individual comprising a social unit renders the latter vulnerable to issues or differences. Previous research revealed that introduction of timely interventions in strained relationships usually help maintain the functionality of an organization. In the case of problematic liaisons between married couples and among family members, marriage and family counseling professionals who engage in one-on-one or group initiatives, may be called on to assuage stress and friction from unresolved issues. The paper presented five models used in marriage and family counseling, namely: the Circumplex, SCAMPER, Cultural Context, ABCX and CACHO Models. These models developed over time to facilitate the management of age-old conflicts and modern concerns in the face of rapidly changing responsibilities of counseling practitioners. From the exposition of the five models and supporting research findings, the framework of marriage and family counseling may, therefore, be viewed as an aggregation of elements having specific applications to various issues for the purpose of keeping the family intact and functional as one, happy, cohesive social unit. The Framework of Marriage and Family Counseling “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way” goes a popularly quoted line from the opening of a classic novel Anna Karenina (Tolstoy, trans. 2003). The quotation serves a significant and fitting introduction to an academic paper that tackles the framework of marriage and family counseling. From prose to reality, most counselors would concur with Tolstoy and with me that, indeed, “every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way,” owing to individual differences and a whole lot of factors. However, families may seek assistance from marriage and family counseling practitioners to guide them either in the context of individual or group sessions to assuage issues. The fact that families are different and unique have given way to the establishment of a host of techniques, strategies, and models to facilitate counseling efforts and either bring back or continue on with happy family living. This paper tackles a review of existing literature on the framework of marriage and family counseling by going over both time-tested and newer models used by counselors in their practice. A combination of academic texts and peer-reviewed journals provided rich sources of materials for this paper. From the existing literature and studies, it became apparent that counselors apply different techniques and intervention models that will fit the problem or situation being remedied. Each different model and host of techniques makes up the therapeutic framework of marriage and family counseling. The Circumplex Model Olson, Russel, and Sprenkle (1989) consider the Circumplex Model as an ideal framework for efforts that require a deeper understanding of the structure of the family in terms of flexibility and solidarity. The overall assessment scheme evaluates four primary factors: (1) socio-environmental factors, (2) family factors, (3) individual personality factors, and (4) family of origin factors. In the Circumplex Model, families are appraised using the Clinical Rating Scales (CRS) and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) III. The main difference between these two scales is in the manner of scoring. The counselor provides CRS ratings after three or four sessions. On the other hand, the family members accomplish the rating scale in FACES III under the guidance of the counselor. The object of counselor supervision in scoring FACES III is to discourage a family member from influencing the ratings in any manner. Another difference between the two rating scales is that, in CRS, evaluation scores the whole family as a single unit; while in FACES III, scores from the different family members offer a more complete depiction of the family structure. Plots of scores and graphs ascertain the extent of dysfunction in the family structure. In later developments, FACES as one of the two available measurement instruments for the Circumplex Model has been criticized for its alleged inability to activate the curvilinear aspect of the model. An important research-based input to knowledge regarding the Circumplex Model was contributed by the study of Volker and Ozechowski (2000). In this study, CRS was employed instead of FACES to assess the validity of the Circumplex Model hypotheses. Analysis was performed using the structural equation-modeling approach. Findings revealed support for the effects of cohesion and communication to the functioning of a family, but not adaptability. Volker and Ozechowski (2000) proposed a reformulation of the model to serve the needs of families more efficiently during counseling. The SCAMPER Model Problem solving within the family setting also requires creativity and innovation. From a general viewpoint, Arun (2007) underscored the need for organizations to adapt and change for survival. Organizations, according to Arun, either innovate or die. Families, too, as a fundamental social organization, should welcome innovation in solving functional problems. Developing solutions to organizational problems require an element of creativity. Hence, the SCAMPER model, which was originally developed by Bob Eberle, is also believed to be a good framework for marriage and family counseling. The acronym SCAMPER stands for Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to Other Use, Eliminate and Reverse as possible ways of innovating and introducing creativity in the conceptualization of alternative courses of action, even for marriage and family problems. Gladding and Henderson (2000) tackled the nature and substance of applying creative solutions in family counseling, together with divergent thinking. In their 2000 study, Gladding and Henderson introduced the SCAMPER model of creativity in the theory and practice of marriage and family counseling, where they showed how counselors could use the acronym spelled by the model in applying a creative touch into counseling sessions in order to effect positive changes for problematic families. The Cultural Context Model Hernandez-Wolfe (2008) described the Cultural Context Model as a method by which the principle of social justice may be applied in working with individual persons and families under a general awareness of deliverance from the chain of power, privilege, and oppression. This model is best for handling marriage and family problems whose historical roots are oppressive social forces such as classism, racism, and sexism. Hernandez-Wolfe explained the theory behind the Cultural Context Model is that: Liberation is the key to healing and defines it as a system that embraces critical consciousness, empowerment and accountability as guiding principles … [and that] for liberation to occur for all members of a family, accountability, and empowerment need to operate simultaneously (p. 10). In the Cultural Context Model, accountability is a process within the family, which involves recognition of a person’s responsibility for his own action and the effect of these actions on other people. Accountability encourages actions that tend to heal emotional wounds by way of empathic concern for others, which in turn paves the way for the improvement of the quality of life among family members. On the other hand, empowerment as an element of the Cultural Context Model, has something to do with the “development of a voice to represent one’s self and one’s interests and participation in practices that the challenges any form of oppression” (Hernandez-Wolfe, 2008). Almeida and Durkin (1999) analyzed the aspect of heterosexual dominance across various cultures in order to enhance existing knowledge about domestic violence. This study applied the Cultural Context Model, which was developed decades ago as an approach for handling problems of domestic violence. Almeida and Durkin adopted separate culture circles for the man and the woman before and during the counseling sessions. The study also enumerated guidelines for evaluation and intervention with an added special emphasis on complications brought about by the involvement of substance abuse in marriage and family problems. Family Stress Adaptation Theory: The ABCX Model Grunert and Adomaitis (2008) defined the theory of family stress adaptation as the way families react to various stressors including internal and external sources of stress. Examples of internal stressors are behavior of family member or illnesses in the family, while external stressors may be economic problems or natural disasters. The scientific community generally accepts that the ABCX Model originated by Rueben Hill as the major family stress model. This model describes the major contributors to family stress, safeguards against stress and causal agents of family crisis. The Hill ABCX model of family stress and adaptation posits that stressful events in the family compromise the family equilibrium. The A in the ABCX Model represents an event that causes the disruption of equilibrium. When family equilibrium is compromised, protective factors within the family help cushion the negative effects of stress. These are the B and C factors. The B protective factors include internal and external family resources and support systems that include the church, the community, or special groups. Meanwhile, the C factors represent the perceptions or the shared beliefs among family members regarding the stressor. A family resorts to coping mechanisms when stressors affect family equilibrium. The coping mechanisms help restore family equilibrium when the family develops adaptation to the stressor. Otherwise, the stressor further complicates into a crisis. The X in the ABCX model stands for crisis. The Clark (1999) study is an example of the application of the ABCX Model to a family crisis. Clark evaluated the utility of the model in the restoration of family functioning after rehabilitation of a family from a stroke. Sixty stroke survivors participated in the in-patient rehabilitation program. Clark adopted standard instruments such as the Zun Self-Rating Depression Scale and the Illness Behavior Questionnaire. Path analysis confirmed the ABCX Model. The study revealed poorer family functioning when the stroke survivor suffered from psychological morbidity or when the survivor was unsuccessful in coping with the new condition. Results also suggest that stroke rehabilitation programs should go beyond the physical and emotional health of the survivor, but should also consider potential problems when the patient goes back to the family. The CACHO Model The CACHO Model is one of the newest frameworks used in marriage and family counseling nowadays. Geldard and Geldard (2009) explained that the CACHO Model promotes change in problematic couples and families by enhancing consciousness of the current situation based on the theory of Gestalt therapy. The acronym for the model is named after its four main elements – Communication, Awareness, CHoice and Outcome. Once the family members are aware, about how their marriage or their family functions, it will become apparent that there is an available choice to remain at status quo or prefer to change the condition. When the CACHO Model is used in counseling or therapy, the counselor is not required to formulate hypotheses about the situation or to apply strategies in order to foster a particular kind of change for the family or the system. One of the best features of the CACHO Model is its reverence for each member of the family as a whole unit. The family is encouraged to make its own decision regarding the kind of change needed to improve familial relationships. Figure 1 shows a diagram of the process used in the CACHO Model. Figure 1. The CACHO Model of integrative relationship counseling (Geldard & Geldard, 2009) As depicted in Figure 1, the CACHO framework is circular. The cycle will keep repeating until the family or at times, the couples have reached the goals or the solution to a problem through the process of counseling. Complements of the Marriage and Family Counseling Framework Stanley, Bradbury, and Markman (2000) examined the position of Gottman, Coan, Carrere, and Swanson in 1998 for the abandonment of interventions involving active listening in marital therapy and education. Moreover, the controversial Gottman, et al. recommendation argued, “Anger was not detrimental to marital outcomes” (in Stanley, et al, 2000, p. 256). Likewise, Gottman, et al. pushed for interaction structures where wives elevate concerns in gentle fashion and husbands recognize the merits of wives’ issues. Stanley, et al. countered that the Gottman, et al. propositions were premature to say the least, in consideration of a number of limitations in the methodological and conceptual aspects of the study. Among the issues raised by Stanley, et al. are: (1) non-random selection of research participants; (2) failure in the control of factors where couples have been in pre-differentiated; (3) procedures used in the observation and physiological data; (4) doubts regarding the statistical test used; and (5) use of correlation data to make strong causal inferences. The Johnson, Sandber, and Miller (1999) study described the attitudes and research practices of marriage and family counselors. Using the questionnaire as the research instrument and a random sample size of 100 practitioners from the American Association for Marital and Family Therapy, the study was carried out in three geographically diverse states of the US. The study hypothesized that research training is a predictor of involvement in research. The questionnaire inquired about the willingness of practitioners in being a part or in initiating research projects, and the extent of research utilization in counseling practice. Findings revealed a moderate level of involvement in research among practitioners. The data gathered only partially supported the research hypothesis that research training influences involvement in research among the counseling practitioners. In a related study, Crane, Wampler, Sprenkle, Sandberg, and Hovestadt (2007) investigated the status of the scientist-practitioner model in marriage and family therapy (MFT) for doctoral programs. Their study revealed, among others, that the MFT culture is not generally supportive of research. Recommendations pushed for the inclusion of research as an essential adjunct of MFT and the enhancement of training in research in the MFT doctoral programs. Cognizant of the critical part that the Internet contributes in family crises and problems, Oravec (2000) embarked on the exploration of the social structure of different computer hazards on families including computer addiction and online pornography. Application of the constructivist counseling perspective balanced the cultural and environmental setting of the study. Oravec proposed recommendations for combating marital and familial problems originating from the use of the computer and/or computer technology, one of the newest stressors of family equilibrium. Conclusion In the light of the academic theory and research studies reviewed, the framework of marriage and family counseling parallels a repairperson’s toolbox. The repairperson personifies marriage and family counselors and therapists, and the toolbox contains the various counseling models and strategies that the counselors use for every different problem or issue in order to facilitate conflict resolution. In essence, and as reflected from the models discussed in this paper, the framework of marriage and family counseling diagnoses cohesion and communication, inculcates accountability and promotes empowerment to effect liberation through creativity, innovation and divergent thinking. Coping mechanisms are also important elements of the marriage and family counseling framework. Through such mechanisms, practitioners guide families in preventing stressors from developing into crises. Most importantly, recent theory advocates choice as a necessary adjunct of the framework where couples or families make decisions from alternatives rather than from practitioners’ hypotheses required to foster positive change. To date, the toolbox is almost complete and continuously stocking to enable the repairperson to deal with age-old problems or modern concerns in the face of rapidly changing responsibilities in keeping the family intact and functional - as one, happy, cohesive social unit. Towards this end, research is always an irreplaceable complement of counseling practice. At status quo, however, there is room for improvement in the area, both in the academe and in practice. Counseling practitioners can maintain the pace at which computer technology and complex stressors shift the focus from one issue to another only by reinforcing practice with research. Applied research completes the framework of effective marriage and family counseling. References Arul, J. P. (2007). Creative problem solving using SCAMPER. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from http://www.insiderreports.com/storyprintpage.asp?storyID=20021134 &ChanID= BZ&DeptID= Almeida, R. V. & Durkin T. (1999). The cultural context model: Therapy for couples with domestic violence. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25(3), 313-324. Clark, M. S. (1999). The double ABCX model of family crisis as a representation of family functioning after rehabilitation from stroke. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 4(2), 203-220. Crane, D. R., Wampler, K. S., Sprenkle, D. H., Sandberg, J.G., & Hovestadt, A. J. (2007). The scientist practitioner model in marriage and family therapy doctoral programs: Current status. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 28(1), pp. 75-83. Geldard, K., & Geldard, D. (2009). Relationship counseling for children, young people and families. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc. Gladding, S. T. & Henderson, D. A. (2000). Creativity and family counseling: The SCAMPER Model as a template for promoting creative processes. The Family Journal, 8(3), 245-249. Grunert, J & Adomaitis, M. B. (2008). Family stress adaptation theory. Retrieved June 19, 2009, from http://stress.lovetoknow.com/Family_Stress_Adaptation_Theory. Hernandez-Wolfe, P. (2008). The cultural context model in clinical supervision. Training in Education in Professional Psychology, 2(1), pp. 10-17. Johnson, L. N., Sandberg, J. G. & Miller, R. B. (1999). Research practices of marriage and family therapists. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 27(3), 239-249. Oravec, J. A. (2000). Internet and computer therapy hazards: Perspectives for family counseling. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 28(3), 309-324. Olson, D. H. L., Smith, C., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1989). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Stanley, S. M., Bradbury, T. N. and Markman, H. J. (2000). Structural flows in the bridge from basic research on marriage to interventions for couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62(1), 256-264. Tolstoy, L. (2003). Anna Karenina. (C. B. Garnett, Trans.). New York: Barnes and Noble, Inc. (Original work published 1875-1877). Read More