Confusions and Conclusions: A Response to Doane

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate critically the logic and conclusions of Doane's article (14), and in so doing, to raise serious questions regarding her evaluation of the family interaction literature. In particular, we suggest that Doane's paper is characterized by (a) a confused and inaccurate presentation of previous reviews; (b) a vague and contradictory set of terms around which she attempts to recast previous findings; (c) an arbitrary and unsystematic selection of findings used to support suggestions regarding reliable group differences; (d) uncritical and erroneous interpretations of findings that ostensibly support suggested differences between groups; and (e) a superficial acceptance of recent family interaction data concerned with the relationship between communication deviance/clarity and psychopathology. We hope our detailed critique will stimulate other observers of family interaction research to contribute more accurate and significant perspectives to the field than those presented in Doane's review.

Paradoxes, Double Binds, and Reflexive Loops: An Alternative Theoretical Perspective

“…Ringuette and Kennedy (48) found very low interjudge reliabilities among expert judges closely involved in the development of the concept who were asked to identify double‐bind messages ( r = .19). The debate over the predictive power of double‐bind theory has continued since Olson's review (13, 19, 30). Some scholars argue that paradox can have the beneficial effects of establishing self‐identity (31) and enhancing creativity (65).…”

Statistical Significance Versus Theoretical Clarification: A Comment on the Doane‐Jacob and Grounds Dispute

“…362, 363, 365, 370, 371) to gain empirical support for the hypothesis that normal and disturbed families differ in their interactions along various dimensions. Jacob and Grounds (16, pp. 382, 389), on the other hand, explicitly dismissed this study because “no statistical tests are performed.” Having read only this one paper from our project, I feel that Doane perhaps overestimated the qualitative analyses and findings, which were presented as tentative (29, pp.…”

“…If this is really going to be the case, however, one has to inquire more systematically into basic issues concerning, for example, the nature of human communication (5, 21, 22, 23) and the state of empirical data in the social sciences in general (10, 26, 27). Only on the basis of thorough analysis of the nature of these riddles underlying family interaction research does it make sense to follow Jacob and Grounds (16) in dismissing studies because “no statistical tests are performed” (16, p. 382) or because the data are “based on clinical descriptions rather than statistical assessment” (16, p. 382). Kind of data and type of assessment should not be discussed apart from what the underlying problems are assumed to be.…”

“…But the findings referred to by Doane have later been corroborated further under more heavily controlled conditions of analysis (1, 7, 11, 14, 17, 19, 29, 30). In their insistence on “statistical tests,” however, Jacob and Grounds (16) seem totally to miss or ignore the major objective of this study. This is worth mentioning because a fundamental disagreement as to what the hurdles are and what should consequently be done is revealed.…”

“…Hence, the contribution of this study—if any—is that we attempted to derive from the general theory of communication (3, 23) a type of (demanding) communication situation that could distinguish between people demonstrating certain basic capacities for communication (for example, the capacity to decenter and take the perspective of the other) and those falling short with regard to such capacities (5, 6). We may seem to be even more pessimistic than Jacob and Grounds (16), because we feel that to make any progress one at present should be more concerned about establishing adequate theoretical frameworks. If one succeeds in this fundamental enterprise, it is our conviction that “statistically significant results” can be easily established.…”