Families evolve at multiple levels.

At least, that’s what Kagitcibasi’s (2007) family change theory suggests.

These levels are defined by cultural orientations, living conditions, and family structures.

Before we delve into this recent research, let’s define the levels of Family Change Theory.

Levels of Family Change Theory

  • Level 1: The first level involves the overall cultural orientation and socio-ecological conditions. Whether it’s individualism versus collectivism or the urban-rural divide, these factors shape the very fabric of family structures (i.e. the close-knit extended families of collectivist societies or the independent nuclear families of individualistic cultures).
  • Level 2: The second level is the heart of family change theory. Here, the structure of families, according to their cultural and socio-economic factors, is centric. From high or low fertility rates to the presence of material and emotional interdependencies, these aspects create certain cultural family dynamics.
  • Level 3: The third level involves the family systems. Here, parents’ socialization values and practices sculpt the developing self and value orientations of their children. The essential distinction between material and emotional interdependencies becomes apparent. In this model, emotional closeness and relationship orientation remain the same, while personal autonomy, no longer a threat, rises according to the modern work environment.

The Study & the Model of Emotional Interdependence

This study focuses on the last level of Family Change Theory: the model of emotional interdependence.

In independent Western cultures, autonomy reigns supreme.

Material and emotional interdependencies are de-emphasized, as modern social security systems offer economic independence.

Meanwhile, across the vast non-Western, collectivist territories, the family model of (total) interdependence thrives. 

Here, extended families and high fertility levels abound. 

Children are valued for both emotional and utilitarian reasons, shouldering the responsibility of supporting the family and caring for their elders. 

Material and emotional interdependencies reign, as personal autonomy takes a backseat.

The model of emotional interdependence, on the other hand, is a synthesis of these contrasting models.

As modernization processes sweep through interdependent family cultures, material interdependencies wane, and traditional hierarchies crumble. 

Yet, emotional closeness and relationship orientation remain, fostering a balance where personal autonomy coexists harmoniously with family bonds.

Results

Using these models, researchers studied two generations of three diverse cultures – Germany, Turkey, and India.

A total of 919 mother-adolescent dyads were submitted to the study.

Three distinct clusters were revealed, each representing a distinct family model: independence, interdependence, and the synthesis of the two, emotional interdependence. 

The discovery of this emotionally interdependent value pattern was an empirically groundbreaking validation of family change theory.

The second significant revelation came from the comparisons across cultures, social strata, and regions within Turkey and India. 

As anticipated by family change theory, the preferences for these family models differed significantly among the three cultures and even within regions and generations. 

The allure of specific family models appeared to be influenced by cultural backgrounds and the ever-evolving societal landscape.

The third key insight emerged from the examination of intergenerational value similarity within families. 

The study revealed that while there was significant similarity in family models across cultures, the level of generational resemblance was not extraordinarily high. 

This suggests that family models are subject to relative transmission within individual families, offering insights into the complexities of cultural stability and change.

However, what truly captivated the researchers was the family model of emotional interdependence. 

It blended emotional and material interdependencies, presenting a compelling transitional phenomenon. 

In this model, family members emphasized strong emotional bonds, while material interdependencies (and traditional hierarchies) seemed to wane due to the impact of modernization processes. 

This balance of emotional closeness and rising autonomy orientation challenged conventional assumptions, hinting at the possibility of evolving family dynamics.

While the cross-sectional design of the study presented some limitations, it offered a fascinating glimpse into the cultural traditions and societal changes within families. 

The intriguing question of whether the family model of emotional interdependence might eventually lead to the independent family model opens up new horizons for future research.

Leave a comment