Characteristics of Strong Families:Perceptions of Ethnic Parents

Douglas A. Abbott, William H. Meredith

Authors’ address: D. A. Abbott and W. H.Meredith, Dept. of Human Development and theFamily, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln,NE 68583.

Over five hundred parents from four American ethnic groups (American Indian,Hmong refugees, black, and Chicano, with a white comparison group) weresurveyed by questionnaire and by interview concerning characteristics that pro-mote a strong and healthy family. Although group differences were found in therelative importance of specific traits, there was general consensus that the inti-mate environment of a strong family was one of trust, support, and effectivecommunication. Moral principles of behavior are taught, and family memberswork together for the welfare of the group. While being together was important,encouragement of individuality was also characteristic of healthy families. Thispreliminary study supports the contention that traits of strong families extendbeyond ethnic boundaries.

Learning more about the characteristics ofhealthy families and understanding minorityfamily systems are two areas of family re-

search currently receiving more attention andstudy (Curran, 1983; Hamner & Turner, 1985;Queen, Habenstein, & Quadagno, 1985; Sta-ples & Mirande, 1980; Stinnett & DeFrain,19~5). However, there is little extant researchcombining these topical areas for the purposeof studying the strengths of minority families(Berardo, 1980).Family strengths of ethnic groups have

been observed and discussed by ethnic schol-ars and have been examined through empiri-cal research (Casas et al., 1984; Hill, 1972;

McAdoo, 1978; Redhorse et al., 1978; Sena-Revera & Moore, 1985; Sequin, 1980). How-ever, we know littlc about healthy family pro-cesses in ethnic families or even what ethnicfamilies consider to be important characteris-tics of functional families (Mindel & Haben-stein, 1981; Stauss, 1987).The majority of our family science research

has examined the functioning of white, mid-dle-class families. This may lead some to as-sume that the healthy family processes thusidentified can be applied universally acrossfamilies of various ethnic heritages. Some in-terventionists may hold the tacit assumptionthat family dysfunction has a common threadand all families (regardless of race, religion,or social grouping) can be evaluated as

healthy or pathological according to a set ofstandard criteria.

Peterson and Ellis (1987), however, suggestthat family scientists need to overcome suchethnocentric and mainstream thinking. Cul-tural patterns of white, middle-class peopledo not serve as the standards of formality forother ethnic groups. One cannot merely as-sume that families of different ethnic heritage

Support for this project was recoived from theResearch Council of the University of Nebraska at tLincoln. A version of this paper was presented atthe annual meeting of the National Council onFamily Relations, Dearborn, MI, 1986.

141

operate successfully in the same way. Theyadd that what may appear to be deficienciesand deviations from the Anglo-American pat-terns may, in fact, be sources of strength forsome ethnic families. Understanding andhelping ethnic families require some familiar-ity with the family’s social milieu and the val-ues considered important in that cultural

group.Such concerns led authors of this report to

ask these questions: What are the similaritiesand differences in family processes in familiesof different cultural heritage? What do ethnicfamilies value as important to healthy familyfunctioning? Are there some common charac-teristics indicative of successful family livingacross ethnic groups?

What is a Healthy Family?Many authors have attempted to describe

healthy family functioning-those character-istics, qualities, or interactional processesthat contribute to successful marriage andfamily relations (Fisher, Giblin, & Hoopes,1982; Gantman, 1980; Green & Kolevzon,1986; Walsh, 1982). Barnhill (1979), Wilcoxon(1985), and Olson and McCubbin (1983) havesuggested that three of the most importantfamily processes are cohesion, adaptability,and communication.Cohesion refers to the degree to which in-

dividuals in the family are connected to eachother: the extent of their emotional bonding.Healthy families (at least many white, middle-class American families) maintain a moderatelevel of cohesiveness the majority of the time.Family members spend time together andshow interest and concern for each other, yetallow for personal freedom and age-appropriate autonomy. The parental coalitionis more cohesive than the parent-child bond.Family members are not so loosely bondedthat they feel alienated and separated fromeach other, nor so highly enmeshed thatoverdependency results.The healthy family is also adaptable, having

the ability to change its power structure, rolerelationships, and family rules in response tochanging circumstances or situational or de-velopmental stress. Such families draw upon

personal and family resources to cope withcrises. Family members have the problem-solving skills needed to negotiate most con-flicts, but are willing to seek outside help withunresolved problems.

Effective communication is a third charac-teristic important to healthy family function-ing. This dimension operates differently fromcohesion or adaptability in that communica-tion is a facilitative component that enablesthe family to make changes in the former twoprocesses. In healthy families, members in-teract with clear, direct, and spontaneouscommunication. Empathic listening is charac-teristic of intimate communication. However,individuals are free to disagree or to chal-lenge incongruent communication. Positiveaffective communication is plentiful in

healthy families. Words and gestures of ap-preciation, praise, warmth, and acceptanceare shared with all members.The dimensions of cohesion, adaptability,

and communication appear to have real im-

portance to the healthy functioning of white,middle-class families. However, in nonwhiteethnic groups these processes may operatesomewhat differently (Maynard & Olson,1986). For example, in some East Asian cul-tures such as the Chinese, the spousal bondwould not be characterized by the high levelof cohesion and communication assumed

typical of happily married white, middle-classAmerican couples (Liang-Lin, 1986). Further-more, the same-sex, parent-child coalitionwould very likely be more important to Ori-ental family life than the spousal relationship.In addition, respect for, obedience to, andthe care of elderly family members may bepredictive of successful family functioning inmany Chinese American families, but mayhave little relevance to the successful func-

tioning of white, middle-class families.

Purpose and PredictionsDespite the abundance of rational support

for the importance of such family processes,little empirical research has been conductedto evaluate the relevance of cohesion, adapt-ability, and communication to the successfulfunctioning of American ethnic families. It

142

would be reasonable to assume, however,that such family processes (or characteristicsof healthy families) would likely have rele-vance to any family system. It was hypothe-sized that a similar core of family characteris-tics would emerge when parents of differentethnic groups were asked to identify traitsthey considered important to healthy familyfunctioning. !f a central core of traits could befound, these traits would likely be related tothe more general family processes of cohe-sion, adaptability, and communication.A secondary purpose of this research was to

gain additional insight into the concept offamily strength by examining variables con-sidered to be associated with strong families.The predictive power of marital and parentingsatisfaction, as well as the contribution of so-ciodemographic factors such as parents’ edu-cation and income, were correlated with ameasure of far~ily strength.

METHOD

Subjects and ProcedureA purposive, nonrandom samples was ob-

tained through professional contacts in a va-riety of community-based recreational, edu-cational, and human service organizationsserving minority persons in a large midwest-ern city. Self-report questionnaires were dis-tributed through these outlets and returnedto the authors by mail. Seventy-four percentof the surveys distributed were returned, to-taling 555 parents: 210 white, 103 black, 105Chicano, 80 Laotian Hmong refugees, and 57American Indian parents. The Chicano, black,and Indian samples were approximately 66percent female. The white and Hmong sam-ples were composed of nearly equal numbersof mothers and fathers.

Using Scheff6 multiple range tests, statisti-cal differences between groups on some so-

ciodemographic variables were noted. As ex-pected there were differences on income be-tween the groups. Average householdincome for the white families was $25,000,compared with $20,000 for the blacks and Chi-canos ; $15,000 for the Hmong; and $10,000

for the Indian parents. The white parents (M= 14 years) had more formal schooling thanthe Indian parents (M = 11) and Hmong par-ents (M = 10). The entire sample had an av-erage of 2.2 children per family, with differ-ences only between the white sample (M =1.8 children) and the Hmong (M = 3.2 chil-dren).Three months after the survey, follow-up

interviews were conducted on a convenience

sample of 10-15 parents from each ethnicgroup to obtain qualitative data. These inter-views were conducted by trained ethnic col-lege students matched by background (i.e.,the Chicano parents were interviewed by aChicano student, the black parents were in-terviewed by a black student, etc.). The inter-views lasted approximately 15-30 minutes.The parents were asked what characteristicsor qualities they believed were needed tobuild strong families.

InstrumentsThe questionnaire was composed of four

measures. A description of each, with avail-able validity and reliability information, fol-lows.

Family Trait Checklist. This list of 56 traitsof healthy families was developed by Curran(1983), based on lists of traits of healthy fam-ilies drawn up by more than 500 selected pro-fessionals in education, religion, health, andfamily counseling. The 56-trait list includeditems related to cohesion, such as &dquo;spendingtime together,&dquo; &dquo;accepts and encourages in-dividual values,&dquo; &dquo;respects personal privacy,&dquo;and &dquo;participates in family traditions.&dquo; Indica-tors of adaptation included such traits as

&dquo;wiliin~ to seek help with family problems,&dquo;&dquo;shares responsibility for family welfare,&dquo;&dquo;has a sense of play and humor,&dquo; and &dquo;has

negotiable family rules.&dquo; Several checklistitems were considered indicators of familycommunication, including &dquo;communicatesand listens well,&dquo; &dquo;is affirming and sup-portive,&dquo; &dquo;allows for freedom to dis-

agree,&dquo; and &dquo;teaches moral values.&dquo; For thisstudy, respondents were first asked to checkthe 15 most important traits for healthy family

143

functioning. Respondents were then asked torank order the five most important traits.Family Strengths Scale. The Family

Strengths Scale (FSS) was developed by Ol-son, Larson, and McCubbin (1982) and is a12-item measure of the amount of familypride, trust, loyalty, and competency involvedin resolving problems. Responses were scaledfrom strongly agree to strongly disagree.Scores could range from 12 to 60, with the

higher scores indicative of higher levels offamily strength. The range of alpha reliabili-ties reported was .73 to .88, and test-retestreliabilities ranged from .73 to .79.

Marital Satisfaction Scale. This subscale of

Spanier’s (1976) Dyadic Adjustment Scale(DAS) is composed of 10 five-point, Likert-

type items that propose to measure the posi-tive and negative behaviors in the marriageand the overall degree of marital happiness.The subscale has been found to be highly cor-related with the overall DAS, r = .95 (Abbott& Brody, 1985). Internal (alpha) reliability hasbeen reported to be .94, and support for thevalidity of the scale is extensive (Spanier,1976).Parent Satisfaction Scale. Previous re-

searchers have attempted to measure parentsatisfaction; however, the validity and reli-

ability of these scales are not well established.Chilman (1983) used a four-item scale, andMullis and Mullis (1982) designed a 14-itemscale. Campbell (1981) and Schumm (1986)have employed one-item measures of parentsatisfaction, but the authors believed that oneitem could not adequately encompass thecontent of the concept. Building on this pastresearch, the authors designed a five-itemscale using a nine-point Likert format. Re-

spondents were asked to agree or disagreewith questions regarding (a) their satisfactionwith parenting, (b) the balance of the rewardsand costs in parenting, (c) whether they con-sidered themselves effective and competentparents, (d) the degree of difficulty they ex-perienced in handling parenting problems,and (e) whether they had mixed feelingsabout being a parent. Scores ranged from 5 to45, with higher scores representing a higherdegree of parent satisfaction. For this study

the scale had an alpha reliability of .79 anditem-total scale correlations ranging from .49to .69.

Interviews. The interviews were con-ducted using a flexible standardized interviewguide composed of three questions: (a) Whatdo families do that makes them strong, suc-cessful, and happy? (b) !f you could look intoa home of someone you know who has a

strong, successful family, what would thatfamily be doing? How would they be interact-ing ? and (c) What characteristics or qualitiesdo families need in order to be strong andsuccessful? The interviewers could use

prompting and clarifying statements such as&dquo;Give me an example of that,&dquo; &dquo;What do youmean by that?&dquo; &dquo;Nlould you please explainfurther?&dquo; or &dquo;I do not fully understand;would you repeat what you said?&dquo; Interviewswere tape recorded for later analysis as towhat characteristics were most important forstrong families.

RESULTS

Traits of Healthy Families: SimilaritiesTable 1 (p. 144) presents the total frequency

distribution on the Family Trait Checklistitems for each ethnic group. Four traits wereselected by all five groups as the most impor-tant characteristics for a strong and healthyfamily: to be affirming and supportive; to useeffective communication and listening skills;to be trusting and trustworthy; and to teach asense of right and wrong behavior. A fifthtrait, teaching respect for others, was a topfive selection by all groups except theHmong, who valued family traditions as theirfifth-most important family trait.Some commonalities were also noted in the

next-most frequently selected traits. Respectfor the privacy of family members was impor-tant to all five groups. Most of the parentsalso believed that a strong family shouldspend time doing things together. Many par-ents also reported that strong families wouldfeel a sense of shared responsibility for familywelfare. The presence of both parents was re-ported as being characteristic of a strong fam-ily by many parents across ethnic groups.

144

Over one-third of all parents in all groups re-ported that financial security was a key trait inbuilding a strong family. For many parents(except the Hmong), having a sense of playand humor was considered characteristic of a

healthy family.Another analysis was conducted to evaluate

the hypothesized consensus among groupson important traits of healthy families. All 21traits were rank ordered for each ethnic

group. For example, in the white group, 88%considered &dquo;communication&dquo; important, andit was ranked number 1. The black parentsranked &dquo;communication&dquo; number 4 with 67%

(following &dquo;teaches right and wrong,&dquo; 77%;&dquo;affirming,&dquo; 70%; and &dquo;trusting,&dquo; 69%). TheChicanos ranked &dquo;communication&dquo; second,the Hmong ranked it first, and the Indian par-ents ranked it fifth. Using Spearman Rho

rank-order correlations the trait rankings foreach group were compared to all other

groups (Bohrnstedt & Knoke, 1982). Table 2reports the results, showing strongly signifi-cant positive correlations between mostgroup rankings and support for the hypothe-sized similarities between rankings.’ This pro-vides additional evidence of consensus byparents as to the relative importance of these21 traits. The Hmong ranking, however, wasnot significantly related to the rankings of thewhite and Indian parents.

1 It should be noted that correlations were only con-sidered significant if alpha <.005. This was done becausethe 10 comparisons would inflate the predetermined al-pha of .05 to .5 (10 comparisons x .05 = .5). Selecting themore conservative alpha of .005 would then bring theexperiment-wise alpha to .05.

145

Traits of Healthy Families:Ethnic Differences

Table 1 also shows the results of a 2 (impor-tance of trait: yes or no) x 5 (ethnic group:white, black, Chicano, Hmong, Indian) chi-square analysis. This analysis shows that formost of the 21 traits, one’s ethnic group wasrelated to the relative importance of a specifictrait. As discussed in the preceding para-graph, there was overall agreement on therankings of the entire package of traits. Thisanalysis shows the unique emphasis by groupon certain specific traits of healthy families.

For example, certain traits were empha-sized as more or less important by specificethnic groups. Chicano parents (66%),Among (54%), and Indian parents (79%) be-lieved that strong families showed respect forelders. Likewise, 45% of the Chicano parentsand 64% of the Hmong reported that a collegeeducation was valuable to strengthening fam-ilies. Forty-one percent of the Chicano and38% of the Hmong parents thought that beingrespected in the neighborhood was impor-tant, and 39% of the Hmong also reportedthat having roots in the community was char-acteristic of strong families. The Hmong andthe Indian parents believed it important tohave a high income (58% to 39% respectively)and to own their own homes (58% to 51 °/&reg;).

Family Strength InterviewsInterview data were coded and categorized

by similarity of content. The majority of par-ents in each ethnic group stated that the fol-

lowing were important characteristics ofstrong families: doing things together; com-

munication, including the ability to listen em-pathically and express feelings openly; work-ing together for family welfare; being encour-aging and supportive, understanding andtrusting; and showing respect for others.Many of the black, Chicano, and Indian par-ents also thought that religion (beliefs, prac-tices, and teaching of moral values) was help-ful to building strong families.

Predicting Family StrengthOur second purpose was to examine pre-

dictors of family strength.2 Marital and par-enting satisfaction, parent age, sex, educa-tion, family income, and family size were cor-related with the Olson Family Strength Scale(FSS) using stepwise multiple regression. Forthe white and Hmong parents, the best pre-dictor of family strength was marital satisfac-tion, having zero order correlations of r = .41and r = .55 (p < .05), respectively.

For the white sample, marital satisfactionalong with parent satisfaction (r = .27, beta =.16) and parents’ education (r = .21, beta =.16) accounted for 22% of the variance in fam-

ily strength. For the Hmong, marital satisfac-tion was the best and only significant corre-late, accounting for 30% of the variance in

family strength.Parent satisfaction was the best predictor of

family strength for the black and Chicano par-ents, r = .44 (p < .001) and r = .40 (p < .01),respectively. For the black parents, parent sat-isfaction along with marital satisfaction (r =

.32, beta = .19) and income (r = .25, beta =

.16) accounted for 26% of the variance in fam-

ily strength. For the Chicano sample, parentsatisfaction combined with parents’ educa-tion (r = .31, beta = .21), and income (r =

2 There is some support in our data for the contentvalidity of the Family Strength Scale (FSS) for use withethnic parents. Using the Family Trait Checklist, the eth-nic parents identified important traits of healthy families,and Olson’s Family Strength Scale contains items concep-tually related to those traits (i.e., communication, sup-portiveness, trust, commitment, and showing respect forand appreciation of family members). Further support forthe content validity of the FSS for use with ethnic parentscame from the interview data. When parents were askedto evaluate each FSS item, the great majority of parents(82%) stated that all the items on the FSS were good orfair indicators of family strength.

146

.25, beta = .15) accounted for 22% of the vari-ance in family strength.

For the Indian sample, there were no sig-nificant predictors of family strength at the .05level. However, the highest zero order corre-late of family strength was parent satisfaction(r = .24).

DISCUSSION

The most striking finding of this study wasthe consensus among all five ethnic groupson those traits that were considered most im-

portant to healthy family functioning. Thiswas confirmed through both written ques-tionnaires and in-person interviews. Thesetraits can be couched in terms of their rela-

tionship to the basic family processes of co-hesion, adaptability, and communication.A healthy family is moderately cohesive:

family members share similar values, spendtime together in leisure activities, and sharefamily traditions; yet, they encourage individ-uality and respect personal privacy. Cohesionis further enhanced by the feeling that familymembers can be trusted and will act in waysthat will show respect and support for oneanother.A strong family also has an effective com-

munication system. Individuals listen to eachother and speak their minds openly. Mem-bers speak in ways to affirm and support oneanother, which would seem to imply the useof positive and encouraging communication.The active teaching of moral values is a part offamily life and is another feature of healthyfamily communication.A healthy family is also adaptable. The wel-

fare of the family is a mutual concern of all.Although family interaction is governed by abasic set of parental rules, negotiation ofthese rules is possible. Crises may be moreeasily handled if members possess a sense ofplay and humor and if families are willing toseek help with unresolved problems. Adapt-ability may be increased if family membershave similar religious beliefs, as there is someevidence that religious faith and participationassist families in managing crises (Stinnett,

Walters, & Kaye, 1984).The correlates of family strength provide

additional information to our understandingof strong families. Besides the apparent use-fulness of the family processes of communi-cation, cohesion, and adaptability, it appearsthat emphasis should be directed toward thehealth and vitality of the marital and parentalsubsystems. If optimal functioning of thesesystems is strongly related to the overall as-sessment of family strength, then our educa-tion and counseling efforts should continueto target these relationships as the keystoneto building family. strengths (Mace & Mace,19~0) .The interpretations made and the conclu-

sions drawn from the results of this study aretentative. The nonprobability sample was rel-atively small-especially for the Indian sam-ple-and encompassed only urban parents.These preliminary findings, however, do sup-port the contention that what farnilies see asimportant to building strong families extendsbeyond ethnic boundaries. Strong families ina variety of cultural groups share some com-mon characteristics. Family interventionistsmay find such information useful, althoughethnic differences should not be forgotten.With some confidence, family life educatorsand therapists can teach about healthy familyprocesses in general and yet recognize cul-tural diversity and differences.

REFERENCES

Abbott, D. A., & Brody, G. H. (1985). The relationof child age, gender, and number of children tothe marital adjustment of wives. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 47, 77-84.

Barnhill, L. R. (1979). Healthy family systems. TheFamily Coordinator, 28, 94-100.

Berardo, F. (1980). Decade preview: Some trendsand directions for family research and theory inthe 1980s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42,723-728.

Bohrnstedt, G. W., & Knoke, D. (1982). Statisticsfor social data analysis. Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock.

Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being inAmerica. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Casas, C. C., Stinnett, N., Williams, R. C, DeFrain,J., & Lee, P. A. (1984). Identifying familystrengths in Latin American families. Family Per-

147

spective, 18, 11-17.Chilman, C. S. (1983). Significant differences be-tween parents with high satisfaction scores andparents with low scores: 1973-1981. Unpublishedmanuscript.

Curran, D. (1983). Traits of healthy families. Min-neapolis : Winston Press.

Fisher, B., Giblin, P., & Hoopes, M. (1982). Healthyfamily functioning: What therapists say and whatfamilies want. Journal of Marital and Family Ther-apy, 8, 273-284.

Gantman, C. A. (1980). A closer look at familiesthat work well. International Journal of FamilyTherapy, 2, 106-119.

Green, R. G., & Kolevzon, M. F. (1986). The corre-lates of healthy family functioning. Journal ofMarital and Family Therapy, 12, 75-84.

Hamner, T. J., & Turner, P. H. (1985). Parenting incontemporary society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Hill, R. (1972). The strengths of black families. NewYork: Emerson-Hall.

Liang-Lin, K. (1986). Explaining the marital qualityof the Chinese-American couple from a socialexchange perspective. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the National Council on Fam-ily Relations, November 1986, Detroit, MI.

Mace, D., & Mace, V. (1980). Enriching marriages:The foundation stone of family strength. In N.

Stinnett, B. Chesser, J. DeFrain, & P. Knaub(Eds.), Family strengths: Positive models for fam-ily life (pp. 89-110). Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press.

Maynard, P. E., & Olson, D. H. (1986). The cir-

cumplex model of family systems: Diagnosticsand treatment used in therapy. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the National Council onFamily Relations, November 1986, Detroit, MI.

McAdoo, H. (1978). Factors related to stability inupwardly mobile black families. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 40, 762-778.

Mindel, C. H., & Habenstein, R. W. (1981). Ethnicfamilies: Patterns and variation (2nd ed.). NewYork: Elsevier.

Mullis, A. K., & Mullis, R. L. (1982). Satisfactionswith parenting. Paper presented at the NationalCouncil on Family Relations, October 1982,Washington, DC.

Olson, D., Larsen, A., & McCubbin, H. (1982). Fam-ily Strengths Scale. In H. McCubbin & J. M.

Patterson (Eds.), Systematic assessment of familystress, resources, and coping: Tools for research,education, and clinical intervention (pp. 78-92).St. Paul, MN: Family Social Science Department,University of Minnesota.

Olson, D. H., & McCubbin, H. I. (1983). Families:What makes them work? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Peterson, G. W., & Ellis, G. J. (1987). Counteringethnic and cultural myopia in the study of fami-lies. Family Perspective, 20, 237-240.

Queen, S. A., Habenstein, R. W., & Quadagno,J. S. (1985). The family in various cultures. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Redhorse, J., Lewis, R., Feit, M., & Decker, J.(1978). Family behavior of urban American Indi-ans. Social Casework, 59, 67-72.

Sena-Rivera, J., & Moore, C. (1985). La familia chi-cana. In L. Cargan (Ed.), Marriage and family:Coping with change (pp. 30-40). Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Sequin, R. T. (1980). The successes of the Indo-chinese within Arlington County. Proceedings ofthe first annual conference on Indochinese ref-

ugees. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.Schumm, W. (1986). The Kansas Family Life Satis-

faction Scale. Psychological Reports, 58, 976-980.Spanier, G. B. (1976). Measuring dyadic adjust-

ment : New scales for assessing the quality ofmarriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriageand the Family, 38, 15-28.

Staples, R., & Mirande, A. (1980). Racial and cul-tural variations among American families: A de-cennial review of the literature on minority fam-ilies. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42, 887-903.

Stauss, J. H. (1987). The study of American Indianfamilies: Implications for applied research. Fam-ily Perspective, 20, 337-342.

Stinnett, N., & DeFrain, J. (1985). Secrets of strongfamilies. New York: Berkley.

Stinnett, N., Walters, J., & Kay, F. (1984). Relation-ships in marriage and family. New York: Mac-millan.

Walsh, F. (Ed.). (1982). Normal family processes.New York: Guilford Press.

Wilcoxon, S. A. (1985). Healthy family functioning:The other side of family pathology. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 63, 495-499.

Received December 9,1987; accepted February 25,1988.