Is Family Cohesion a Risk or Protective Factor During Adolescent Development

This study investigated linear aspects of family cohesion using a cohort sequential design. Adolescents (N = 4,677) were surveyed and followed in three cohorts from 6th to lOth grade. Family cohesion was measured using the cohesion subscale of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales. Latent Growth Curve Modeling procedures were conducted to explore whether family cohesion decreased, increased, or remained stable from early to middle adolescence. Results show a linear trajectory with statistically significant decreases in family cohesion from 6th through ]Oth grades. The findings support the linear nature of the trajectories but the decrease in levels may not be substantive because of the large sample size. Key Words: adolescence, cohort sequential design, family cohesion. Contemporary research on the contextual aspects of adolescent development often includes family processes as these relate to risk, resiliency, and developmental outcomes. Family cohesion, a process considered important to family functioning, has been implicated in both positive and negative outcomes. Definitions of family cohesion generally include affective qualities of family relationships such as support, affection, and helpfulness (Moos, 1974). Olson, Russell, and Sprenkle (1983) define family cohesion as "bonding within the family," whereas Epstein, Bishop and Baldwin (1982) use the definition "affective involvement." Problematic to investigations of family cohesion is conceptualizations that tie levels of cohesion to both pathological and adaptive family functioning. Such conceptual models posit a curvilinear relationship between cohesion and family functioning. Within these models high levels of cohesion represent enmeshment, a pattern of family relating that facilitates psychological and emotional fusion resulting in poor individuation and foreclosed psychosocial maturity (Barber, Olsen, & Shagle, 1994; Olson, et al., 1983). Conversely, low levels of cohesion are termed disengagement and represent a failure in affective involvement. Mid levels indicate that family members are both separated and connected and thus mid levels are considered the most viable for family functioning (Barber et al., 1994; Beavers, Lewis, Gossett, & Phillips, 1975; Olson et al., 1983). Some scholars have criticized the conflation of enmeshment with cohesion (Anderson & Sabatelli, 1990) and some research has not supported the curvilinear hypothesis (Anderson, 1986; Anderson & Gavazzi, 1990; Farrell & Barnes, 1993). Alternative models conceptualize cohesion solely as a protective factor and a global indicator of family support that is positively and linearly related to family functioning (Farrell & Barnes). It is notable that family cohesion is often conceptualized as static in the literature; what has not been fully addressed, however, is a more dynamic approach to variations in levels of family cohesion. It may be the case that levels shift across the family life cycle. For example, there are theories of adolescent development that hypothesize changes in the qualities of relationships as a function of development and the launching phase (Conger & Ge, 1999; Laursen & Collins, 1994; Smetana, 1988). Theories that propose such shifts include psychoanalytic, sociobiological, and cognitive. Psychoanalytic models propose emotional distancing and the withdrawal of psychic energy from parents as a part of the maturation process (Blos, 1979). Sociobiological models suggest emotional distancing functions as a prelude to the selection of sexual partners and cognitive-developmental models postulate distancing as fundamental to shifts from unilateral to greater mutuality in decision making (Smetana, 1988). Empirical support for the distancing hypothesis, with decreases in family cohesion, has been reported by Conger and Ge (1999). In contrast, the social-relational models postulate continuity in the emotional bonds between the parent and the adolescent rather than emotional distancing. …