5 Family of Origin – Patterned Behavior

Culture, gender, sexual identity, race and many other factors shape families of origin. These factors often provide messages and shape interactions in families. They can proscribe roles that certain people should take on or behaviors that a person should do. In addition, the family is where we learn how to “be” in relationships. In our families of origin, we learn how to interact and regulate our emotions. Often these interactions that help us regulate our emotions happen over and over again – resulting in what is called patterned behavior. These patterned behaviors can be useful, creating predictability and stability. However, there are times when these patterns can become problematic. Let’s explore some common types of patterned behavior in families and how they affect how and who we are in relationships.

Pursue-Withdraw

One of the most commonly observed patterns in relationships is the purse-withdraw pattern. It goes by many names – pursuer/distancer, demand/withdraw – but typically it follows the same route. In relationship, the person who is more of a pursuer tends to respond to stress in the relationship by trying to increase closeness, connection, and to minimize distance. If there is a lot of stress happening in the relationship, they may try to fix it. If fixing it doesn’t work, they may resort to criticizing. The person who is more of a withdrawer often deals with stress by trying to create distance. If they are stressed, they may want space – whether that be physical or emotional space. In some cases, they may zone out or tune into other activities to create this space.

This pattern is illustrated in this clip by Alison Poulsen.

Overfunctioning-Underfunctioning

Another common pattern that we see in relationships is over/under functioning. This pattern can happen between a parent and a child, between siblings, or between partners. It may also happen intergenerationally. Michael Kerr and Murray Bowen (1988) described this pattern:

The overfunctioning person is typically one who feels responsible for the emotional well-being of others and who works to compensate for the perceived (real or imagined) deficits in their functioning. The Underfunctioning person, on the other hand, feels dependent on the overfunctioning one to do things that he feels reluctant or unable to do himself (p. 56).”

This pattern, in the short-term, often has a stabilizing functioning – it allows for each person to have their define roles. For example, if a person in the family is sick, it allows for adaptablitly to care for that person. One person can take on the role of care-giver and the other can take on the role of care-reciever. However, if the pattern occurs for a long period of time, it can lead to conflict and frustration. If, for example, the person who has sick recovered but the over/under functioning pattern still exists, then conflict or other problems may arise in a relationship.

Boontarika Sripom describes it in more detail here.

Triangulation

Another common family pattern is triangulation. Rudi Dallos and Arlene Vetere (2012) defined triangulation as “the idea that what is happening in a significant relationship between two people in a family can have a powerful influence on a third family member, and vice versa, in mutually reinforcing ways (p. 119).” They also provide a common and powerful example.

“Two parents are discussion an issue that arouses anxiety and one or both begin to show signs of discomfort. The young child, playing in the room, gets up and toddles over to one parent, who with some relief, bends down, pick up the child, puts them on their lap and pats them, and so on. And thus, the difficult adult conversation is interrupted, unhelpful arousal is calmed by the action of attending to and soothing the child and the child learns, before they can even use language, how they can be helpful to their parents. If this sequence is repeated and positively reinforced a few times it could become established as a pattern or a set of expectations about how to manage unhelpful arousal (p. 119-120).”

Triangles are seen in almost all relationships. In fact, they are so common that they are often used in literature and media as plot points. This is what we call the drama triangle.

Watch this video that discusses how the drama triangle works.

Family Functioning

The patterned behaviors described above shape who we interact with our families. More specifically, they shape who close and connected we are to family members and how we adapt to stress. David Olson (2019) has developed a way for families to better understand how these patterned behaviors shape our family system through is Circumplex Model.

The Circumplex Model is based three important dimensions in family system functioning. The first is cohesion. Olson defines cohesion as, “the emotional bonding that a couple and family members have toward one another…Cohesion focuses on how systems balance separateness and togetherness (p. 201).” The second dimension is flexibility. Olson defines flexibility as “the amount of change in [family] leadership, role relationships, and relationships rules…Flexibility focuses on how systems balance stability with change (p. 202). The third is communication. Communication is viewed as the dimension that facilitates cohesion and flexibility in the family. “Good communication helps couples and families alter their levels of cohesion and flexibility to better deal with developmental or situation demands” (p. 202).

Olson proposes that healthy families have balance. But balance doesn’t mean equal levels of flexibility, cohesion, and communication – balance isn’t moderation. Rather, he says that:

“Individuals and family systems need to balance their separateness versus togetherness on cohesion, and their level of stability versus change on flexibility…[Balanced] families do not always operate in a ‘moderate’ manner. Being balanced means that a family system can experience extremes on the dimensions when appropriate, as in times of trauma or stress, but they do not typically operate at these extremes for long (p. 202-203).”

In other words, healthy families can fluctuate between being really connected sometimes and distant other times. Unhealthy family dynamics occur when families can’t adapt to stress and get stuck in the same levels of cohesion or flexibility.

David Olson uses a case example to show how families may adjust their levels of flexibility and cohesion across the lifespan:

“Figure 2 illustrates (click on link to view figure) the changes one young couple experienced in a period of 7–8 years from dating to having their first child to when the child was 4 years old. During their dating period (1), the couple had a very flexible and very connected relationship. They felt close (very connected) and had a very flexible style in terms of leadership and decision making. Since dating moved them toward marriage, they have become increasingly close and are trying out different ways of operating as a couple in term of flexibility.”

“During the first year of marriage (2), the newlywed couple was best described as flexible or overly connected. They were generally flexible because they were still getting organized in terms of their roles and leadership. Being in love and enjoying spending maximum time together, they were still in the “honeymoon” phase and were emotionally enmeshed.”

“By the end of their second year of marriage (3), the so‐called honeymoon effect had worn off, and the couple became somewhat flexible or connected. Each person’s excitement with the other was not as great as it had been, and their togetherness became more balanced as each got more into his or her individual life. They also developed more routines in their roles and lifestyle and became somewhat flexible.”

“During the third year of marriage, the couple had a baby (4). The infant dramatically changed the couple relationship as they became a very flexible or somewhat connected family. Change was high at the time, and the couple was forced to adapt to the new challenges of parenting. Their life was in relative turmoil because they were up each night to feed and attend to the baby. The infant’s unpredictable behavior often created chaos, and it was very difficult for the couple to keep to a fixed routine; hence, they became a very flexible family. The baby’s presence initially increased the sense of bonding between husband and wife, who felt united in their goal of rearing their child. As time went on, the infant took a great deal of the mother’s time and energy, and the couple found it difficult to spend time to stay connected as a couple. While the mother and infant were very close, the couple became somewhat connected.”

“By the time the child was 4 years old, life stabilized for the family (5). They are now functioning as a flexible or connected family and experiencing very few changes. Formerly a dual‐career couple, they shifted toward more traditional gender roles, with the mother staying at home, but she returned to work part‐time. While the husband spent little time with the infant, he has been more focused on his job and seeking a promotion. Both their closeness and flexibility have dropped a level and life has become more manageable for both of them.”

Oslon, Waldvogel, & Schlieff, 2019, p. 205-206

References

Olson, D. H., Waldvogel, L., & Schlieff, M. (2019). Circumplex model of marital and family systems: An update. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 11(2), 199-211.

Dallos, R., & Vetere, A. (2012). Systems theory, family attachments and processes of triangulation: Does the concept of triangulation offer a useful bridge?. Journal of Family Therapy, 34(2), 117-137.

Kerr, M. E., Bowen, M., & Kerr, M. E. (1988). Family evaluation. WW Norton & Company.