THE INTRAHOUSEHOLD COMMUNICATIONS STUDY: 

A TYPOLOGY OF FAMILY COHESION 

Leslie A. Miller and Clyde Tucker, Bureau of Labor Statistics 

Leslie. Miller, BLS, 2 Massachusetts Ave., N.E., Rm. 3650 Washington, DC 20212 

KEY WORDS: Proxy reporting, consumer 

expenditures 

The problems associated with proxy 

reporting are well documented (e.g., Tanur, 

1990). However, for household surveys, it is 

neither reasonable to expect, nor practical to 

seek, individual reports from each family 

member in every household. Some members 

can not be contacted, others would refuse, and 

all of these individual reports would require a 

much greater expenditure of resources. Instead, 

it might be possible to find some method for 

estimating the accuracy of proxy responses 

from specific households. Interviews with 

every family member would only be attempted 

in those households with a very low probability 

of accurate proxy knowledge. Even if this 

information were not used to screen families, it 

would provide a means of evaluating the quality 

of survey estimates. 

In order to explore the possibility of 

collecting such information, BLS contracted 

with Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) 

to conduct an experimental study of the level of 

proxy knowledge and the communication 

pattems within selected households conceming 

the employment history and expenditures of 

individual members (the Intrahousehold 

Communications Study (IHCS). 

We believe that certain family 

demographic and situational characteristics may 

be useful for predicting the level of proxy 

knowledge within households. Specifically, we 

believe that certain demographic and situational 

characteristics are related to different levels of 

family cohesion, which are reflected in the 

amount of knowledge family members share. 

In this paper, some of the data collected in the 

IHCS are used to classify families according to 

their extent of cohesion. The associations 

between cohesion and various household 

characteristics are examined. 

A Typology of Family Cohesion 

As early as the 1930's, the family 

sociologist Angell (1936) identified cohesion as 

an important dimension for trying to understand 

interactions among family members (or "family 

integration.") More recently, in their 

examination of the research on families, Olson, 

Sprenkle, and Russell (1979) found cohesion to 

be one of the two concepts most often used in 

describing family behavior. In fact, they use 

cohesion in developing a "family systems" 

model for clinical application. They identify 

two components of family cohesion: "the 

emotional bonding members have with one 

another and the degree of individual autonomy 

a person experiences in the family system. " 

(1979, p.5, italics are theirs). 

From our perspective, family cohesion 

is a group-level concept, but it must be 

measured in terms of specific interactions 

among family members. We believe the family 

exists to meet three types of needs of the 

individuals in it -- social, emotional, and 

material. The interactions between family 

members are designed to accomplish this goal, 

and a particular interaction can be classified 

according to which one of the three needs it 

primarily addresses. Thus, the level of family 

cohesion, or the particular balance achieved 

between the two opposing forces identified by 

Olson, Sprenkle and Russell (1979), is 

determined by the ways in which a family goes 

about meeting the social, emotional, and 

material needs of its members. 

We measured the amount of cohesion 

demonstrated in the performance of one family 

activity, the purchase of goods and services. To 

do this, we developed three indicators of the 

interactions surrounding this activity 

936 
corresponding to the three classes of needs. 

Interactions conceming the joint participation of 

family members in making the expenditures 

were taken to reflect level of attachment, or the 

strength of emotional bonds. Interactions 

indicating the nature of the communications 

between family members about expenditures 

were considered to be ones satisfying social 

needs. Interactions having to do with the 

division of financial responsibility for economic 

transactions, or the degree of economic 

independence of various family members, were 

classified as material interactions. 

Details about the creation of these 

indicators and the way they were combined to 

measure cohesion are given in a later section; 

but, eventually, families were assigned to one of 

four levels of cohesion resembling a collapsed 

set of the categories developed by Olson, 

Sprenkle, and Russell (1979). The four levels 

of cohesion, in ascending order, are (1) 

disengaged, (2) separated, (3) connected, and 

(4) enmeshed. In the disengaged family, the 

members are independent, and the emotional 

bonds are weak. Limited communication takes 

place among the members. Members of 

separated families exhibit considerable 

economic independence, but emotional bonds 

are stronger than in disengaged families. There 

is also a moderate amount of communication 

among family members. Connected family 

members display less economic independence, 

and the emotional attachments are relatively 

strong. All family members communicate well 

with one another. There is little economic 

independence in enmeshed families, and the 

emotional bonds are quite strong. 

Communication is high in a least one direction, 

but the lines of communication may not travel 

both ways. 

Unlike Olson, Sprenkle, and Russell 

(1979), we are not interested in family 

pathologies. In fact, it is quite likely that each 

state of cohesion is more functional than the 

others for at least some tasks. Our interest is in 

the association between family cohesion (or its 

components) and the level of proxy knowledge 

about expenditures. We believe that some 

states of cohesion are likely to be more 

conducive to the creation of proxy knowledge 

than are others. We are ~so interested in which 

family characteristics are associated with the 

different states of cohesion and, therefore, might 

affect proxy knowledge. 

Family Characteristics 

A total of sixty-nine households and 

166 people participated in this study. 

Households including at least two members 16 

years of age or older were recruited from the 

Knoxville, Tennessee metropolitan area. Sixty 

of the sixty-nine families were included in our 

analyses. Nine families were deleted because 

they did not fit our definition of a family or had 

too much missing data. 

Five family-level independent measures 

were created to predict the level of cohesion 

within families, but they can also be used to 

describe the families. These characteristics 

include family age, family education, family 

size, family type, and family income (See Table 

1). While family age and family education were 

created based on those family members who 

participated, the other measures reflect the 

entire family. 

For age, if both a husband and a wife 

participated, family age was the average of the 

husband's and wife's ages. If only a wife or a 

husband participated, the family age was the 

age of the one participating, If no husbands or 

wives participated, the family age was the age 

of the oldest person participating. For 

education, if both a husband and a wife 

participated, then the family education was the 

father's education. If only a wife or a husband 

participated, the family education was the 

education of the one participating, If no 

husbands or wives participated, then the family 

education was the education of the oldest person 

participating. 

Design and Procedure 

A computer assisted personal interview 

survey was developed consisting of eight 

modules of questions. Upon arriving at the 

testing site, all participants were asked to 

provide their name, address, and phone number. 

They were asked if they had any questions 

937 
about the survey they were about to complete. 

Instructions were then given to participants 

about how to use the computer. 

An experimenter worked with each 

household to answer the first module of 

questions which included household level 

questions inquiring about 1) the number, names, 

and ages of all household members, 2) which 

members were participating, 3) who in the 

household owns or rents the dwelling, 

4) what is the association between each of the 

participating members, 5) who is responsible for 

the financial/accounting records for the 

household, 6) who maintains records for income 

tax purposes for the household 7) who is 

responsible for writing checks to pay bills for 

the household, 8) who is responsible for 

balancing the check book each month for the 

household, 9) who in the household has credit 

Table 1 

Demographic Characteristics of Families 

Demo~raohic Characteristic No. of % 

_ _ 

Families 

Family 

Age 

Family 

Educ. 

Family 

Size 

Family 

Income 

Family 

Type 

<30 

30-50 

>50 

HS, tech, or less 

Some college or 2 yr degree 

Collese del~ree or more 

2 person 

3 or 4 persons 

5 or more persons 

< $15,000 

$15,000-$29,999 

$30,000-$44,999 

> $45,000 

Youngest <13 

Youngest 13- 17 

Youngest > 17 or no children 

22 37% 

23 39% 

14 24% 

16 27% 

22 37% 

22 37% 

29 48% 

25 42% 

6 10% 

9 15% 

13 22% 

21 35% 

17 28% 

15 25% 

6 10% 

39 65% 

cards, 10) who buys groceries regularly for the 

household, 11) whether the household shops for 

regularly for clothing, 12) whether the 

household shops for clothing on special 

occasions, 13) the total household income in 

1990, 14) how many members of the household 

worked for pay or had a job last week, and 15) 

how many of these were employed full time, 

that is, 35 hours or more. 

After completing the household level 

questions, subjects began their individual 

sessions at separate terminals. Two to five 

members of a household were interviewed 

simultaneously on individual computer 

terminals. Each household member gave 

individual demographic information (module 2) 

and reported employment and expenditure 

information for themselves and one or two other 

members of their household (modules 3,4,6, and 

7). For each proxy report about mother 

household member, respondents answered 

communications questions conceming how they 

leamed about that person's employment (module 

5) or expenditures (module 8). Here we are 

only concemed with the first module of family 

level questions, and module 8, conceming how 

respondents communicate expenditure 

information. 

Participants were asked not to discuss 

the questions or talk during the survey. They 

were also told not to look at each other's 

screens. One of the researchers was always 

present in the room to answer any questions 

during the survey. Paper and pencils, 

calculators and calendars were available for all 

participants to use. 

Upon completing the survey, 

participants were debriefed, compensated, and 

thanked for their participation. 

Measurement of Family Cohesion 

Although both dyadic (i.e., family 

member pairs) and family level summary 

measures were created, only family level 

measures are discussed in this paper. At the 

family level, three dependent summary measures 

were developed to classify our families with 

respect to cohesion. The creation of these 

measures is summarized below. 

Each of the sixty households was 

classified as 1) enmeshed, 2) connected, 3) 

separated, or 4) disengaged based on the 

substance of their social, emotional, and 

physical interactions. Three summary measures 

captured the character of the family's social, 

938 
emotional, and material interactions'l) the 

nature of the communication between family 

members, 2) the strenuth of the bonds between 

v 

family members, and 3) the degree 9f 

inde~ndenc,¢ of family members. 

The nature of communication between 

family members was measured by the degree to 

which family members communicated by 

conversation, notes, and observation. The 

degree of independence of family members was 

measured in terms of how many family 

members had full time jobs, and how many 

participated in various a~spects of the family's 

finances. The nature of the bonds between 

family members was measured by the degree to 

which family members participated in shared 

economic activities. 

Family scores on each of these three 

summary measures were classified into three 

categories based on their location in the 

distribution. Families were either independent, 

somewhat independent, or dependent. Families 

either had strong bonds, moderate bonds, or 

weak bonds. Lastly, families either had high 

communication, moderate communication, or 

low communication. 

Overall, eleven households were very 

independent, forty-two were moderately 

independent, and seven were dependent. Twelve 

of the households had strong bonds, forty-two 

had moderate bonds and six had week bonds. 

Seven of the households had high levels of 

communication, forty-five had moderate levels 

of communication, and eight had low levels of 

communication. 

Analysis revealed an association 

between two of these summary measures. A 

families' level of communication was related to 

the nature of bonds between family members 

(X 2 (4, N= 60) = 40.658, 12<.000. That is, 

families who communicated a lot tended to have 

the strongest bonds. Families who 

communicated to a moderate extent tended to 

have moderate bonds. Lastly, families who 

communicated very little tended to have weak 

bonds. 

This finding may be due to the 

similarity between the methods for measuring 

these two dimensions and their close proximity 

in the instrument. We do believe that the bonds 

measure is the weakest. Although not 

significant, the analysis also revealed that 

families who were very independent were more 

likely to have moderale to low communication. 

Families that were somewhat independent were 

more likely to have moderate communication. 

Families that were dependent were more likely 

to have moderate communication. There was no 

association between independence and bonds. 

From these three summary measures, 

families were classified as enmeshed, 

connected, separated, or disengaged (See Table 

2). Of the sixty households, eleven were 

Table 2 

Freq0encies of Family Types 

Family Type No. of 

Families 

Emneshed 11 

Connected 35 

Separated 10 

Disengaged 4 

18% 

58% 

17% 

7% 

enmeshed, thirty-five were connected, ten were 

separated, and four were disengaged. We 

expected the distribution to be skewed toward 

the high cohesion end because the families 

willing to participate together in the study were 

likely to be relatively cohesive. Within a 

category, however, the families are hopefully 

representative. In the population, we believe it 

is likely that connected and separated families 

predominate. 

This assignment largely followed from 

the characterizations of the different levels of 

cohesion presented earlier. Some difficult 

decision, however, had to be made about 

combinations, which, conceptually, fell on the 

border between two categories. 

The enmeshed families were those that 

were dependent with moderate bonds and 

moderate communication or ones that are 

somewhat independent but have strong bonds 

and a high level of communication. The 

939 
connected families fell in one of four groups. 

They were somewhat independent with strong 

bonds and moderate communication, somewhat 

independent with moderate bonds and high 

communication, somewhat independent with 

moderate on the other two dimensions, or 

independent with strong bonds and high 

communications. Families that were somewhat 

independent and had moderate bonds and weak 

communication, weak bonds and moderate 

communication, or weak bonds and low 

communication were classified as separated. So 

were families that were independent and had 

either strong bonds and moderate 

communication. Disengaged families were 

independent with either moderate bonds and low 

communication or weak bonds and low 

communication. 

Results 

The analyses presented below was 

restricted to bivariate relationships given the 

relatively small number of families. Thus, the 

effects of each of the independent variables 

cannot be isolated, and this confounding must 

be kept in mind when interpreting the findings. 

Association Between Family Characteristics 

In considering the associations between 

family characteristics and cohesion, a problem 

arises from the fact that the different 

characteristics are not independent of one 

another. For example, we found several 

significant associations in our data. Family 

type and family age were related (p=.002). 

Families without children tended to have an 

average adult age of less than 30, while those 

with children older than 17 were more likely to 

have spouses over 50. The average age of 

parents with children under 18 was likely to be 

between 30 and 50. Given these results, it is not 

surprising that family size was related to age 

(p=.001). 

Family income was related to both the 

age and the size of the family. Income tended to 

increase with age (p=.02). Large families were 

the ones most likely to have high income 

(p=.02). 

Association Between Family Characteristics 

and Tvnolo~v of Familv Cohesion 

--Our-results indicated that only family 

size was related to family cohesion (See Table 

3). Families with 5 persons or more were most 

likely to be enmeshed families (67%) and, to 

some extent, connected families (33%). 

Families of three or four persons were most 

likely to be connected families (72%). Two 

person households fell in all categories, but a 

majority (52%) were connected families (See 

Table 4). 

In several cases, family characteristics 

were related to the separate components of 

cohesion (See Table 3 and Table 4). Smaller, 2 

person families tended to be somewhat 

independent (55%) or very independent (38%). 

Three to four person families were almost 

exclusively somewhat independent (96%), 

whereas larger families, tended to be dependent 

(67%). 

Family income was related to 

communication Families with higher incomes 

(between $30,000 and $44,999 and greater than 

$45,000) tended to have moderate to high 

communication. Families with incomes below 

$30,000 were more likely to have moderate to 

low communication. 

Though not significant, family type and 

age showed a tendency to be associated with a 

family's level of independence. Younger 

families were highly or somewhat independent 

families. Families between the ages of 30 and 

50 tended to be somewhat independent, and in a 

few cases, dependent. Older families were more 

likely to be somewhat independent. Families 

who had no children, or their youngest child was 

older than 17, tended to have moderate to high 

communication. Families whose youngest child 

was between 13 and 17 years of age, tended to 

have moderate communication, whereas 

families with young children had the lowest 

communication. 

Discussion 

We stated our belief that certain 

demographic and situational characteristics may 

940 
Table 3 

States of Cohesion by Family Characteristics 

Family Family 

Characteristic~ 

States of Cohesion 

Indep, Bonds Comm. 

Family Type N.S. 1 p<.09 N.S. N.S. 

Family Size p<.01 p<.O0 p<.15 N.S. 

Family Age N.S. p<.09 N.S. N.S. 

Family educ. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 

Family income N.S. N.S. N.S. p<.01 

1X2N.S.= not significant 

predict different levels of family cohesion, 

which in tum are reflected in the level of 

knowledge within families. Our goal was to 

look at the relation between certain demographic 

and situational characteristics and levels of 

family cohesion. To this end, we developed a 

typology of family cohesion based on the 

interactions among family members. Some of 

the data collected in the IHCS were used to 

classify families according to select situation 

and demographic characteristics and according 

to their extent of cohesion. The associations 

between cohesion and these characteristics were 

examined. 

The results revealed no clear connection 

between cohesion and family characteristics. 

However, family size was related to the level of 

cohesion, and several of the demographic 

variables were associated with the different 

dimensions of cohesion. It could be that other, 

less obvious characteristics have more to do 

with cohesion. These might include the prior 

socialization of the parents or other factors 

entangled with family history. Furthermore, 

although there was no clear relationship 

between family cohesion and select 

characteristics, our family cohesion measure 

may still be important for predicting other 

family behaviors, particularly proxy knowledge. 

Tucker and Miller (1993) explore this 

relationship. 

Table 4 

Family Characteristics by Family Cohesion. 

Family Size 

2 persons 3-4 5 or more 

Family Type 

Enmeshed 

Connected 

Separated 

Disengaged 

Indeoendence 

High 

Somewhat 

Low 

14% (4) 

52% (15) 

20% (6) 

14% (4) 

38% (11) 

55% (~6) 

7% (2) 

12%(3) 

72%(18) 

16% (14) 

0% (o) 

0% (o) 

96% (24) 

4%(1) 

67%(4) 

33 % (2) 

0% (o) 

0% (o) 

0% (0) 

33% (2) 

67% (4) 

Familv _ 

Income 

(~ngnuI1- 

ication 

High 

Moderate 

Low 

< $15.000 $15,000 - $30,000 - 2 

$29.000 $44.999 $45.000 

.... 

22% (2) 0% (0) 14% (3) 15% (2) 

56% (5) 65% (11) 86% (18) 85% (11) 

22~ t2) 35~ (6) o~ (0) o~ (0) 

References 

Angel1, R., (1936). The Family encounters the 

deoression, New York, Charles Scribner's 

Sons. 

Olson, D.H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C.S., 

(1979). Circumplex Model of Marital and 

Family Systems" I. Cohesion and 

Adaptability Dimensions, Family Types, and 

Clinical Applications. Family Process, 18, 

pp 3-27. 

Tanur, J. & Shin, Hee-Choon, (1990). 

Reporting job search activity among youths: 

Preliminary evidence from reinterviews. 

Proceedings of the 1990 Annual Research 

Conference, Arlington, VA. pp. 746-779 

We extend great thanks to Sharon Krieger, Stephanie 

Henderson, Lesa Deleonibus, and Ron DeCarlo for doing 

such a comprehensive coding job. 

941