Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Marginalized family members feel different from and are often disapproved of or excluded by multiple family members. These feelings arise from interactions that create relational distance. Although being marginalized from one’s family typically is a chronically stressful process, the ways in which marginalization is accomplished likely varies across individuals, families, and/or time. Guided by social identification and confirmation theories, we sought to identify specific types of marginalized family members based on three dimensions of marginalization: difference, disapproval, and exclusion. Cluster analysis of survey reports (N = 315) revealed that marginalized family members can be grouped into three types: dissenting, questioning, and diverging. Content analysis of open-ended survey responses was used to name and further distinguish the types of marginalized family members. The types vary in perceived levels of family confirmation, family identification, and self-esteem. Theoretical implications for elaborating aspects of SIT and confirmation theory and understanding family distancing are discussed along with avenues for future research.

Keywords

Black sheep confirmation theory disapproval exclusion family communication marginalization social identity theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aquilino

W. S.

(2006). Family relationships and support systems in emerging adulthood. In Arnett

J. J.

Tanner

J. L.

(Eds.), Emerging adults in America: Coming of age in the 21st century (pp. 193–217). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/11381-008

Arnett

J. J.

(2010). Emerging adulthood(s). In Jensen

L. A.

(Ed.), Bridging cultural and developmental approaches to psychology: New syntheses in theory, research, and policy, (pp. 255–275). Oxford University Press.

Ashforth

Mael

(2004). Social identity theory and the organization. In Hatch

M. J.

Schultz

(Eds.), Organizational identity: A reader (pp. 134–160). Oxford University Press.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

(1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Braithwaite

D. O.

Bach

B. W.

Baxter

L. A.

DiVerniero

Hammonds

J. R.

Hosek

A. M.

Willer

Wolf

B. M.

(2010). Constructing family: A typology of voluntary kin. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 27(3), 388–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510361615

Caughlin

J. P.

(2003). Family communication standards. Human Communication Research, 29, 5–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2003.tb00830.x

Collier

LaPorte

Seawright

(2012). Putting typologies to work: Concept formation, measurement, and analytic rigor. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912912437162

Dailey

R. M.

(2006). Confirmation in parent–adolescent relationships and adolescent openness: Toward extending confirmation theory. Communication Monographs, 73, 434–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750601055432

Dailey

R. M.

(2010). Testing components of confirmation: How acceptance and challenge from mothers, fathers, and siblings are related to adolescent self-concept. Communication Monographs, 77, 592–617. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2010.499366

10.

DeWall

C. N.

Baumeister

R. E.

Masicampo

E. J.

(2009). Rejection: Resolving the paradox of emotional numbness after exclusion. In Vangelisti

A. L.

(Ed.), Handbook of hurt feelings in close relationships, (pp. 123–141). Cambridge University Press.

11.

Dorrance Hall

(2014, May). Family identification and the transition to college: A mixed method construct exploration [Paper presentation]. Meeting of the International Communication Association, Seattle, WA.

12.

Dorrance Hall

(2017). The process of family member marginalization: Turning points experienced by “black sheep.” Personal Relationships, 24(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12196

13.

Dorrance Hall

(2018). The communicative process of resilience for marginalized family members. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516683838

14.

Ellis

(2002). Perceived parental confirmation: Development and validation of an instrument. Southern Journal of Communication, 67, 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940209373242

15.

Fitness

(2005). Bye bye, black sheep: The causes and consequences of rejection in family relationships. In Williams

K. D.

Forgas

J. P.

Von Hippel

(Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying (pp. 263–276). Taylor & Francis.

16.

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

(1988). Between husbands and wives: Communication in marriage. SAGE.

17.

Gottman

J. M.

(1999). The marriage clinic. W.W. Norton.

18.

Henry

D. B.

Tolan

P. H.

Gorman-Smith

(2005). Cluster analysis in family psychology research. Journal of Family Psychology, 19, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.19.1.121

19.

Hitlan

R. T.

Noel

(2009). The influence of workplace exclusion and personality on counterproductive work behaviours: An interactionist perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 18, 477–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320903025028

20.

Hogg

M. A.

(2005). All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others: Social identity and marginal membership. In Williams

K. D.

Forgas

J. P.

Von Hippel

(Eds.), The social outcast: Ostracism, social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. Taylor & Francis.

21.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. I.

(2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121–140. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.2791606

22.

Koerner

A. F.

Fitzpatrick

(2002). Toward a theory of family communication. Communication Theory, 12, 70–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00260.x

23.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202

24.

McCroskey

J. C.

Richmond

V. P.

Daly

J. A.

(1975). The development of a measure of perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research, 1, 323–332. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00281.x

25.

Murray

S. L.

Holmes

J. G.

MacDonald

Ellsworth

P. C.

(1998). Through the looking glass darkly? When self-doubts turn into relationship insecurities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1459–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.6.1459

26.

Robins

R. W.

Hendin

H. M.

Trzesniewski

K. H.

(2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272002

27.

Scharp

K. M.

Dorrance Hall

(2019). Reconsidering family closeness: A review and call for research on family distancing. Journal of Family Communication, 19, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2018.1544563

28.

Sieburg

(1973). Interpersonal confirmation: A paradigm for conceptualization and measurement [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Quebec.

29.

Soliz

Rittenour

C. E.

(2012). Family as an intergroup arena. In Giles

(Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 331–343). Routledge.

30.

Whiteman

S. D.

Loken

(2006). Comparing analytic techniques to classify dyadic relationships: An example using siblings. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 1370–1382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2006.00333.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

Explicating dimensions of family marginalization and types of marginalized family members

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material