Journal of Marital and Family Therapy

January 2005,Vol. 31, No. 1, 15–30

THE RESTRUCTURING OF FAMILY SCHEMAS: A

COGNITIVE–BEHAVIOR PERSPECTIVE
Frank M. Dattilio
Harvard Medical School

Cognitive–behavior therapists define schemas as cognitive structures that organize thought and
perception. Schemas are also viewed as having an integral influence on emotion and behavior. In
this article, I examine the role of schema in family conflict and the specific interventions used in
restructuring them during the course of family therapy. Further discussion highlights the concepts
of attributions, assumptions, and family standards, and the role they play in schemas, as well as
the overall family dynamics. Finally, a series of steps are suggested for facilitating the process of
schema analysis and thought restructuring during the process of family therapy.

Because of the complex nature of our modern society and the unrestricted influence that the media have
on family relationships, contemporary family therapists are faced with some of the most difficult challenges
ever. The encroachment of television and the Internet on family life has intensified family conflicts over
issues such as power and control (the relative influence on children of parents’ values and rules versus those
conveyed by the media), and boundaries (children’s greatly expanded contact with both friends and strangers
through the Internet).
The ability of families to resolve conflict and tension depends in part on their communication skills,
but also on the ingrained beliefs of family members about individual and family functioning, or what
cognitive–behavior therapists refer to as schemas. Schemas, along with emotion and behavior, are a
significant part of what constitutes the fabric of the family’s functioning (Dattilio, 1990, 2001a).
The concept of schema was initially introduced in the cognitive–behavior therapy literature several
decades ago in Aaron T. Beck’s (1967) early work with depressed individuals , as it related to basic negative
beliefs that depressed individuals held about the self, the world, and the future. Beck’s work drew from
earlier cognitive theories in developmental psychology, such as Piaget’s (1950) discussion of accommo-
dation and assimilation in schema formation. The work of George Kelly (1955) regarding cognitive
constructs also served to shape Beck’s theory on schema, as well as Bowlby’s (1969) attachment theory. The
concept of schema has since become the cornerstone of contemporary cognitive–behavior therapy. Much as
the cardiovascular system is central to the functioning of the human body, schemas are central to thought
and perception and have an integral influence on emotion and behavior. In essence, schemas are used as a
template for an individual’s life experiences and how he or she processes information. In addition to Beck,
many other researchers have done a significant amount of experimental work in the area of schemas and
their affect on interpersonal relationships (see Baldwin, 1992 and Epstein & Baucom, 2002, for represen-
tative reviews).
Consistent and compatible with systems theory, the cognitive–behavior approach to families is based
on the premise that members of a family simultaneously influence and are influenced by each other’s

Frank M. Dattilio, PhD, ABPP, Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School.

Parts of this article were drawn from a lecture series presented by the author at Massey University in Auckland, New
Zealand, and the Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, during the summer of 2004. The author would like to acknowledge
Eric Frey of Lehigh University for his assistance with the literature review, as well as the support of a visiting scholar grant issued
by Massey University of New Zealand.
Address correspondence to Frank M. Dattilio, PhD, ABPP, Suite 211-D, 1251 South Cedar Crest Blvd., Allentown,
Pennsylvania, 18103. E-mail: [email protected]

January 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 15

thoughts, emotions, and behaviors (Dattilio, 2001a; Leslie, 1988). In essence, to know the entire family
system is to know the individual parts and the ways in which they interact. As each family member observes
his or her own cognitions, behaviors, and emotions regarding family interaction, as well as cues regarding
the responses of other family members, these perceptions lead to the formation of assumptions about family
dynamics, which then develop into relatively stable schemas or “cognitive structures.” These cognitions,
emotions, and behaviors may elicit responses from some members that constitute much of the moment-to-
moment interaction with other family members. This interplay stems from the more stable schemas that
serve as the foundation for the family’s functioning (Dattilio, Epstein, & Baucom, 1998). When this cycle
involves negative content that affects cognitive, emotional, and behavior responses, the volatility of the
family’s dynamics tends to escalate, rendering family members vulnerable to a negative spiral of conflict.
As the number of family members increases, so does the complexity of the dynamics, adding more fuel and
intensity to the escalation process.
Unfortunately, to date, there has been very little empirical research to support this theory of escalation
that involves cognitive, emotional, and behavior components specifically within families. Although the
work of Patterson and his associates (Forgath & Patterson, 1998; Patterson, 1985; Patterson & Hops, 1972)
is pivotal in the literature on empirical studies of negative patterns family interaction, these studies focus
only on behavior interactions, with little or no attention to cognitive processes. The major focus on behavior
has extended to primarily research on behavior family therapy. In contrast, significant research on
cognitions has been conducted with couples (Epstein & Baucom, 2002). Elsewhere, Dattilio (2004) outlines
potential reasons why more empirical process research has not been conducted with families. Because the
dynamics of a couple are so closely aligned with family dynamics, many of the theoretical components in
models of couple interaction can also be applied to families and have been described in detail in the profes-
sional literature (Dattilio, 1993; Epstein, Schlesinger, & Dryden, 1988; Schwebel & Fine, 1992, 1994).
Family members’ perceptions of family interactions provide the information that shapes the
development of their family schemas, especially when an individual member observes such interaction
repeatedly. The pattern the individual deduces from such observations serves as a basis to form a schema
or template that subsequently is used to understand the world of family relationships and to anticipate future
events within the family. Family schemas are a subset of a broad range of schemas that individuals develop
about many aspects of life experiences.

Automatic Thoughts and Schemas

Automatic thoughts are another key form of cognition in cognitive–behavior theory that are sometimes
confused with schemas, particularly because there is some overlap between the two. Automatic thoughts
were first defined by Beck (1976) as spontaneous cognitions that often occur in a fleeting manner and are
mostly conscious and easily accessible. Thus, conscious automatic thoughts provide a pathway to uncover
one’s underlying beliefs or schemas. So, for example, a mother who has difficulty tolerating expressions of
negative emotion by family members might experience the automatic thought, “There’s no room for
emotions in life,” stemming from an underlying belief or schema that emotions equal weakness and
weakness can lead to death. Sometimes, cognitions can also occur beyond an individual’s conscious
awareness, in which certain techniques are used to uncover them (Epstein & Baucom, 2002; Dattilio &
Epstein, 2003). Broad underlying schemas commonly are revealed through an individual’s automatic
thoughts, but not all automatic thoughts are expressions of schemas. For example, many automatic thoughts
express an individual’s attributions about causes of events that he or she has observed (e.g., “My son didn’t
call me because his wife and children are much more important to him than I am”).
Cognitive therapy, as originally introduced by Beck (1976), places a heavy emphasis on schemas
(Beck, Rush, Shaw, & Emery, 1979; DeRubeis & Beck, 1988). Several authors have proposed different
versions of schema theory to account for the processing of information in one’s life. Most of the theoretical
perspectives hold that individuals develop such knowledge structures through interactions with their
environment. Epstein et al. (1988) refer to an individual’s schemas as “the longstanding and relatively stable
basic assumptions that he or she holds about how the world works and his or her place in it” (p. 13). These
assumptions about commonly occurring characteristics and processes serve an adaptive function by

16 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2005

organizing the individual’s experience into meaningful patterns and reducing the complexity of the
environment. By selectively limiting, guiding, and organizing the information that an individual has
available, the person’s schemas make efficient thinking and action possible.
However, in spite of these advantages, schemas also have been found to account for errors, distortions,
and omissions that people make in processing information (Baldwin, 1992; Baucom, Epstein, Sayers, &
Sher, 1989; Epstein, Baucom. & Rankin, 1993). For example, if a child is given love and attention from
parents only when he or she exhibits certain desired behaviors, then the child is likely to develop a schema
that “love and attention are conditional.” The more that belief is either directly or indirectly reinforced in the
environment, the more likely it is to become ingrained, and the more the child may be expected to give and
receive love on a conditional basis in any close relationship. The individual may apply this schema to other
relationships later in life, such as his or her marital relationship and relationships with offspring. Thus,
parent–child relationships are influenced by the relatively long-standing schemas that the parents bring to
the family and by each child’s schemas that develop on the basis of current family interactions.
Consequently, schemas are very important in the application of cognitive–behavior therapy with
families. They are the long-standing beliefs that people hold about others and their relationships. Schemas
are a stable cognitive structure, not a fleeting inference or perception. They are differentiated from
perceptions (what one notices or overlooks in their environment) and from inferences (attributions and
expectancies) that a person makes from the events that he/she notices. Dealing with each family member’s
individual thoughts is central to cognitive–behavior family therapy (CBFT). Although cognitive–behavior
theory does not suggest that cognitive processes cause all family behavior, it does stress the concept that
cognitive appraisal significantly influences family members’ behavior interactions and emotional responses
to each other (Epstein et al., 1988; Wright & Beck, 1993). Just as individuals maintain their own basic
schemas about themselves, their world, and their future, they also develop schemas about characteristics of
their family of origin, which commonly are generalized to some degree to conceptions about other close
relationships. Dattilio (1993) has argued that greater emphasis should be placed on examining not only
cognitions of individual family members, but also on what may be termed the family schema. These jointly
held beliefs among the family members have formed as a result of years of integrated interaction within the
family unit.
Although family schemas typically constitute jointly held beliefs about mostly family phenomena, such
as the day-to-day dilemmas and interactions, they may also pertain to nonfamily phenomena as well, such
as cultural, political, or spiritual issues. Most family schemas are shared. Sometimes, however, individual
family members may deviate from the joint schema, as in the case vignette outlined below. In this respect
then, the family schema is not joint, but perhaps one that is held by the majority of family members. It has
been suggested that individuals maintain two separate sets of schemas about families: (a) A family schema
related to the parents’ experiences in their families of origin and (b) schemas related to families in general
or what Schwebel and Fine (1994) refer to as a personal theory of family life. As noted previously, each
person’s experiences and perceptions from his or her family of origin contribute to forming part of his or her
schema about the current family. This schema is also altered by events that occur in the current family
relationships. For example, a man who was raised with the belief that family problems should never be
discussed with anyone outside of the immediate household is likely to become uncomfortable if his wife
shares personal business with some of her family. The issue may be particularly pronounced if he marries a
woman who was raised with the concept that it is okay to share personal business with close friends. Such
a difference in outlooks could cause conflict, which would in turn affect the schemas of their children and
their beliefs about sharing family business with others. For example, if a father maintains a schema that
“women always try to control men,” then he is likely to make the negative attribution about the cause of his
wife making an assertive request to him as “She is trying to control me again.” This schema may have
developed over the course of his life from previous experiences and now shape his moment-to-moment
thoughts. Consequently, as his children are exposed to such beliefs and interaction between him and his
wife, their own developing beliefs about men and women and the views of relationships are strongly
influenced by what they were exposed to during their upbringing.
Elsewhere, it has been suggested that the family of origin of each partner in a relationship plays a

January 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 17

crucial role in the shaping of the current shared family schema (Dattilio, 1993, 1998a, 2001b). The beliefs
developed in each person’s family of origin may be both conscious and beyond awareness, and whether or
not they are explicitly expressed, they contribute to the joint family schema. A more detailed example of this
process of family schema development is observed in the following case vignette.

Case Example
A family entered treatment with me because of conflict over what they described as mother’s rigid
attitudes. The mother of the family had been raised by parents who were European immigrants, both of
whom were children of the Holocaust. Her own mother, who suffered from severe depression, once
attempted suicide and subsequently blamed her daughter for not being attentive to her emotional deterio-
ration. In essence, the mother’s own mother saddled her daughter with the responsibility for her mental
welfare. The daughter, now a mother herself, tended to overreact whenever she observed any signs of
weakness, such as mild depression, in her husband, her children, or even herself, for fear that deterioration
and possible suicide might ensue. Furthermore, she feared that the blame for such an outcome would fall
on her shoulders. As a result, she became intolerant of any sign of weakness in herself or in her family, such
as crying or complaining. Other family members often felt the need to “walk on egg shells” around her,
begrudgingly complying with her wishes, some of which were unreasonable, to avoid uncomfortable
feelings. It was no surprise that giving attention to this issue led to severe conflict among family members.
The children and husband often became aligned against the mother, regarding her as somewhat of a “nut
case” when it came to issues of emotional expression. Interestingly, the children and father developed a
shared schema that the mother was the “sick” one, much in the same way that she had come to regard her
own mother during her upbringing. In fact, surprisingly, this schema was also a part of the mother’s family
of origin schema, that “mother is ill and needs to be treated special.” The children stated that they were
reluctant to be themselves around their mother, fearing how she might react. In turn, the other family
members’ defensive alliance had caused the mother to feel alienated and increasingly stalwart about her
beliefs that the family members should avoid showing any signs of weakness. Unfortunately, the mother
displayed limited insight into how negatively she was affecting the family.
In contrast, father came from a family of origin in which his own mother was controlling and
overbearing. He often stated in family therapy sessions that he “had an axe to grind” with his own mother.
Hence, some of his reactions toward his wife and the forming of a coalition with his children were viewed
as carry-over from his feelings toward his own mother. This contributed to his avoidance of confronting his
wife directly about the issue at hand.
When I began to investigate how this mother’s thoughts about family functioning developed, she
contended that it was her belief that her own mother had become mentally ill because she was weak, and
that her family of origin had always enabled her mother’s illness by tolerating her statements about being
“overwhelmed,” “tired,” and so forth. She had developed a schema that, to keep her own family healthy and
strong, it was crucial to remain firm, allowing no room for “softness.” When I used the cognitive
intervention technique of “Downward Arrow,” which is implemented by asking a series of questions to
uncover a basic schema underlying more surface-level thoughts, it aided in identifying the mother’s core
belief (see Figure 1). This technique is introduced by asking an individual about a presenting issue and
following the statement by saying, “So, if that were to occur, then what would it mean?”
For example, the mother’s rigid schema led her to think in dichotomous terms, leaving no room for any
negative emotional expression other than the anger she expressed in reaction to what she perceived as other’s
signs of weakness (and for her, anger was an emotion associated with strength and thus more acceptable, as
long as she felt in control; i.e., “There’s no room for weakness in life.”). This undoubtedly had a negative
impact on the rest of the family, who formed a coalition against her. Father’s schema, which was heavily
affected by his relationship with his own mother, contributed to his passive–resistant behaviors of not
confronting his wife. His feelings of being overwhelmed by his mother’s “overpowering style” led him to
find strength in numbers, thus forming a coalition with his children against his wife. Interestingly, this is the
same manner in which he, his father, and his siblings, dealt with his own mother’s overbearing nature during
his upbringing.

18 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2005

 There’s no room for weakness in life.

If they (my family members) are weak, they’ll give into the overwhelming forces of life.

This is when people break down, become immobilized, and become a burden to others,
and a risk to themselves.

This outcome could easily result in death (suicide).

If I’m weak, I’ll die.

Hence, we must avoid any signs of weakness.

Figure 1. Downward arrow

When I questioned the children, they shared with me that they saw their mother as being unreasonable
and unfair. Their attributions about the cause of the tension in the family involved the view that the problem
was connected to their mother’s own rearing as a child, which had fostered in her unyielding views about
“being human.” When I asked two of the children about their automatic day-to-day thoughts, they said that
their mother was being “ridiculous” and controlled the family with the kind of “crazy thoughts” she had
learned as a child from their grandma. Their father fueled the perception of mother being the “perpetrator”
and that he and the children were innocent victims. In my attempts to uncover their core beliefs, or general
schema about the situation, one daughter stated: “I think my mother is probably on the edge with all of the
stress that she’s been under her entire life. Therefore, we must go along with her or something bad might
happen to her and we don’t need that—although we often resent having to live this way—all because of my
stupid grandmother’s problems.” Ironically, the mother was viewed as rather fragile by the rest of the family.
The general schema adopted by this child was: “Children must be cautious with their parents when they have
problems.”

January 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 19

 Parents’ family schemas are often disseminated and applied in their rearing of their children. As in this
case, integration with the offspring’s own perceptions and inferences about the family environment and
other life experiences contributes to the further development of the family schema. The family schema is
subject to change as major events occur during the course of family life (e.g., death, divorce, illness), and
they also continue to evolve over the course of ordinary day-to-day experience. Children may also rebuke
parents’ beliefs, such as the one just described, and may take an opposite stance; for example, “I am not
going to give into how she thinks I should act—I’ll do what I want.”
A central goal of CBFT is to facilitate as much change as possible, given the influence that schemas
have on family dysfunction. Intervention consists of a series of cognitive and behavior strategies used in
restructuring the basic or core beliefs of the family and altering or modifying behavior patterns that are
associated with the schema. The behavior component of CBFT focuses on several aspects of family
members’ actions, including: (a) Excess negative interaction and deficits in pleasing behaviors exchanged
by family members; (b) expressive and listening skills used in communication; (c) problem-solving skills;
and (d) negotiation and behavior change skills (Epstein et al., 1988; Epstein & Schlesinger, 1996). The
theoretical models underlying behavior approaches to family therapy are social learning theory (e.g.,
Bandura, 1977) and social exchange theory (e.g., Thibaut & Kelly, 1959).

The Role of Emotions in CBFT

To ignore emotions in any type of family therapy would be a grave mistake. The emotional component
is one of the many aspects of a family’s dysfunction that brings them into treatment. One of the common
myths about CBFT is that it downplays, or even flat-out ignores, the emotional component of treatment
(Dattilio, 2001a). Lazarus (1991) defined emotions as a complex, patterned organismic reaction to how we
think we are doing in life. Emotions express the intimate personal measuring of what is happening in our
social lives. Therefore, emotions are integral to our close personal relationships, such as among family
members. Cognitive–behavior therapists tend to focus most on those emotions that are associated with
cognitive processes. Within family interactions, the issue pertains to how the emotion, whether positive or
negative, is connected to a specific cognitive experience. Thus, a family member may appear to be experi-
encing anger, but the therapist explores the cognition associated with it to understand the emotion’s origin
within family interactions more fully. For example, a teenager who becomes irate with her parents because
they will not allow her to attend a particular party, may reveal when questioned by a therapist that what lies
beneath the anger is a sense of fear and vulnerability to rejection by her peers if she fails to show up. Thus,
the cognition related to this emotion is, “I might be embarrassed by not being able to go and may be
subjected to ridicule and rejection.” Such a cognition may be associated with the daughter having previously
witnessed a similar situation with a peer in which she was rejected by the social group for the same reason.
This assessment differentiates this situation-specific emotion from a more general emotional state that the
individual may experience overall.
In the cognitive–behavior approach, the therapist assists family members in identifying how emotions
commonly are linked with specific cognitions and helps family members explore the appropriateness and
validity of cognitions that are associated with negative emotions. In this example, helping the daughter to
reexamine how crucial her attending the party really is may serve as an inroad to reducing the intensity of
her anger. Also, interventions that help family members who are upset to self-sooth and reduce emotional
intensity may also facilitate more clear thinking about family problems. An expanded discussion of
procedures used to assess and intervene with emotional responses appears in Epstein and Baucom (2002).
For the purposes of this discussion, it is important to recognize how family schemas may be associated with
strong emotions that may need to be managed so that family members will be able to focus on identifying
and modifying the core beliefs involved in the schemas.

Development of Family Schemas

The development and operation of schemas in family systems is similar to that in individuals and
couples, predicated on prior and current life experiences as perceived by each family member. It was
pioneering family therapist Virginia Satir (1967), who wrote long ago that, “The parents are the architects

20 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2005

of the family” (p. 83). Cognitive–behavior family therapy embraces this concept and contends that the
schemas and life experiences that a couple bring to the relationship are transmitted to their offspring and
shape the family constellation (Dattilio, 1998c). Parents’ beliefs certainly have an effect on how their
offspring perceive and interpret various life events, and they contribute greatly to a child’s conceptualization
of the world. This is clearly seen with the case vignette presented earlier of the mother who was concerned
with signs of weakness in her family members. The notion of schema as applied to families may explain
some of the dynamics that constitute core beliefs and how these beliefs affect emotional and behavior
patterns with family interaction (Dattilio, 1993). The term family schema is highlighted more clearly in the
recent literature by Dattilio (1998a, 2001a). The concept entails the stable, entrenched long-standing beliefs
that family members jointly hold about family life. In the case example, the general family schema is:
“Emotions are an important dynamic in family life and when one is frail, others must act cautiously so as
not to cause the person to experience a mental breakdown.”
As mentioned, family schemas originally develop from individual and conjoint belief systems that
evolved from what the parents bring to the family relationship. Shared schemas evolve within the marital
relationship and eventually contribute to what Dattilio (1993, 1998b) refers to as a joint family schema. It is
these schemas that serve as a template for family members in their functioning within the family unit.
Schemas shape other cognitions about family members, as well as emotional and behavior responses. They
can be a helpful guide for family members in navigating complex aspects of family life, but when they are
extreme or distorted they can contribute to family conflict. In essence, elements such as core and basic
beliefs are structures that are contained within schemas that give rise to one’s assumptions, perceptions, and
personal theories of life. Myths emerge out of schemas that individuals develop, as well as certain standards
and attributions made about self and others and expectations. In a sense, schema becomes a superordinate
or umbrella construct that comprises all of the above.

Dysfunctional Schemas
As is the case with an individual’s personal schemas, family schemas can become dysfunctional and
maladaptive, and are often central to distorted thinking and behavior. When we consider the mother, who
appeared to dominate the family with her schema about weakness, and the father, who silently formed a
coalition with the children against mother, it is easy to see how the family members learned not to express
their emotions openly in her presence. The concept became implicitly understood that the cost was too high
in “rattling mother’s cage” by showing any type of negative emotion. Consequently, the schema evolved in
which family members rarely expressed negative emotions, unless mother was absent. The family held the
joint schema that mental illness can cause weakness and affect the other family members.
However, there were other family schemas that involved everyone but the mother, including that “we
need to walk on egg shells with mom or she’ll give us a hard time.” This is similar to the “family myths”
that systems theorists discuss in family therapy (Nichols & Schwartz, 1998). The schema regarding the need
to not displease the mother by violating her belief about weakness associated with expression of feelings
caused the rest of the family to become aligned against her, which, in turn, increased her suspiciousness of
the other family members’ behaviors, all of which made for a negative circular process and a very tense
atmosphere.
A second aspect of schema is more covert than that just described. The family members also held a
more implicit belief that the mother is mentally ill and that they needed to placate her to keep her from
emotionally breaking down and losing control. This schema was conveyed nonverbally by the father, as he
blocked the children from expressing their negative emotions to their mother, because he felt a need to
protect his wife, whom he believed to be very frail and liable to fall apart if the family confronted her and
protested her behavior. Father was also acting-out against his own mother by forming a coalition with his
children against his wife, just as his father did with him and his siblings during his youth. This was an
unstated family schema that everyone in the family shared, including the mother, who was raised to believe
that she was very frail.
Unfortunately, the rule in this family, “Don’t rock the boat, and do what Mother says,” extended to other
areas of family life, which created a great deal of covert resentment on the children’s part. For example, if

January 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 21

one of the teenage girls was upset over a fight with her boyfriend, she would go into her closet and cry in
an attempt to prevent her mother from seeing or hearing her. She would then take a shower and use makeup
to cover her reddened eyes so that mother would not detect that she was distraught. Therefore, the shared
belief that it was easier to simply hide feelings or go along with mother’s wishes because of her frailty
contributed to joint avoidance and confrontation among family members.
It was also noted earlier that the family members began to generalize the family schema of avoidance
of self-expression in their other relationships outside of the home. This was particularly true for some of the
children who feared negative reprisal from their peers for expression of negative feelings. This caused
difficulties in their interpersonal relationships. It also caused a bias in their beliefs about how one should
deal with other people who were struggling with negative emotions.
In this case, the mother’s individual schema was that she must protect her family from breaking down
and becoming overwhelmed in life. Mother viewed her role in the family as being the one who needed to
keep the rest strong at all costs. In contrast, the father’s individual schema involved the belief, “I need to
protect my wife after what she went through during her childhood, and it’s important for the kids and me to
remain sensitive to and respectful of her. At the same time, I need to serve as the go between with my wife
and children, since my children will sometimes be angry and resentful, and they need to understand how
their mother functions.” The children shared the individual schema, “I can’t be myself in front of my mother
because it causes a negative chain reaction. Dad always supports her and won’t stand up to her, even if it
results in my suffering. It’s so uncomfortable living this way. I hate living in this house!” Each individual
family member’s schema maintains the entire family’s shared schema that not rocking the boat is the best
option. The family members’ individual schemas are usually either similar or complementary, which allows
them all to be consistent with the shared schema. In the event that family members’ schemas do not mesh
well, there is either conflict or one or more of the family members’ schemas have to be adjusted to fit the
overall family schema. An example in this family involves one adolescent, who refuses to give into her
mother’s demands and overdramatizes her emotions to aggravate her mother and obtain praise from her
father in an attempt to maintain homeostasis in the family. Continued pressure from the other family
members and the threat that they will ostracize her if she doesn’t comply may eventually cause her to
abandon her provocative behavior. Over time, she may conclude, “If I don’t ‘play ball,’ I’ll lose my family.
Therefore, I’ll give in to make everybody happy,” even though she may still resent what she perceives to be
her mother’s controlling behavior.

Attributions
Schemas shape other commonly occurring types of cognition in family interactions, including
attributions, which are inferences made about causes of events in the relationship. The schema involves
ideas about causal links, so when one observes an event, one has preexisting ideas about what factors likely
caused it.
Attributions are essentially explanations for relationship events or behaviors that have already occurred.
They are viewed as an important aspect of an individual’s subjective experience of his or her relationship
with others (Epstein & Baucom, 2002). As applied to families, members make attributions about both
positive and negative characteristics in each other. For example, family members’ tendency to blame one
another for certain problems and attribute one another’s negative actions to broad and unchangeable traits
is one of the more common forms of negative attribution (i.e., my father doesn’t listen to what I have to say
because he’s selfish and he puts little stock in my word). In contrast, positive attributions also exist (i.e., my
parents usually ask me my opinion because they value what I have to say). Negative attributions, especially
those involving traits, can easily foster a sense of hopelessness in family members, much like that which has
been evidenced in individuals diagnosed with depression and with members of distressed couples (Beck et
al., 1979; Doherty, 1981; Epstein, 1985). Such attributions can also undermine the use of constructive
communication and problem-solving skills. Attributions affect how family members feel about one another,
their family relationship, and their interactions in general. They stem from the underlying beliefs or schemas
that family members hold about themselves or about others.

22 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2005

Expectancies
Attributions are important, but the predictions that family members make about each other’s future
behavior are equally important. These predictions are known as expectancies, and they commonly are based
on family members’ individual schemas about family relationships. Expectancies can have a profound effect
on the emotional and behavior disposition of the individual and the other family members. A classic example
is the teenager who has a schema that parents do not understand and respect their children. The teenager
then predicts that his or her parents will fail to keep an open mind to his or her requests. “They just ‘dis’
[disrespect] every request I make. It’s useless to even ask them for anything.” In turn, the teenager’s
motivation to communicate with the parents is low and when he or she makes decisions without consulting
them they respond punitively, which is consistent with the teenager’s negative schema about them. The
teen’s basic negative schema about parent–child relationships is strengthened and that develops into a shared
family schema of “parents and kids can’t communicate or see eye to eye,” as the parents also perceive their
efforts to influence the teenager as fruitless. Thus, schemas shape expectancies, and expectancies lead family
members to behave in ways that create self-fulfilling prophecies that reinforce family schemas.
Negative expectancies can, no doubt, influence the direction of conflict in family dynamics. Although
the bulk of the research on expectancies has been dedicated to couples in distress (Fincham & Bradbury,
1992; Vanzetti, Notarius, & Nee Smith, 1992), the results are likely to be applicable to family dynamics.
One of the main foci of treatment is to reduce family members’ sense of hopelessness about improving
negative aspects of their relationships.
It is not surprising that expectancies and attributions are related to each other. Epstein and Baucom
(2002) discuss how couples make stable attributions when they view their partner’s behavior as being
unlikely to change. When this occurs, it usually leads to negativistic expectancies for the future of the
relationship. In most cases, these negative cognitions are associated with negative emotions such as anger,
depression, and so on. The same process holds true with families. For example, the adolescent who feels
that her parents “dis” her may develop feelings of depression.

Assumptions
Assumptions are beliefs that are a form of schema that each family member holds about the character-
istics of other family members and of the relationship. Their basic beliefs about each other’s characteristics
serve as the basis for making attributions about causes of the others’ specific behaviors. As a result, the basic
belief that each member develops about the others and the relationship can influence the specific behaviors
or events that are experienced (Baucom & Epstein, 1990; Baucom et al., 1989).
It is usually when one family member’s assumptions about the others are violated or disrupted that
conflict or tension ensues. Consider, for example, parents who, having taught their children the importance
of honesty, assume that the children will always be trustworthy. Then imagine the first time a child succumbs
to the influence of peers and deceives the parents. The parents’ core assumption about trustworthiness is
violated by the child’s breach. If the parents also maintain a standard that the children should behave in a
trustworthy way, the violation of this standard is likely to upset them severely, and they may respond by
imposing strict control over the child’s social life. This response disrupts the child’s assumption that his or
her parents are flexible and understanding. The more rigid the parents are, a factor largely dependent on their
personality characteristics, the more tension it is likely to produce in the relationship. Consequently, the
child may develop the assumption, “I am not lovable unless I meet all of my parents’ expectations.” The
parents might react to the child’s deception by revising their assumption about their parental influence: “We
need to remain steadfast in our rules, allowing no exceptions, to raise our children correctly.”

Standards
Standards are a form of schemas involving individuals’ beliefs about the characteristics that individuals
and their relationships “should” have. Members of relationships use standards as templates for evaluating
whether or not each other’s behavior and role enactment are appropriate and acceptable. Certain standards
might have been passed down from the parents’ families of origin; for example, what constitutes respectful
behavior toward a parent, the manner in which forgiveness is granted, or how close parents should be to their

January 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 23

children and with each other.
Schwebel and Fine (1992) have described standards in their work on the “family constitution,” an
evolving set of rules and standards that govern family life. Most of these rules are based on the parents’
individual or joint schemas that constitute “salubrious family life.” They are usually instilled in the couple’s
offspring at an early age, although this may vary depending on how each family member responds to them,
as some children and adolescents challenge or even reject their parents’ standards. The standards involved
in a family constitution include: Standards for interrelationships among family members.
1. Standards for interrelationships among family members
2. Standards for the division of labor
3. Standards for dealing with conflict
4. Standards for boundaries and privacy
5. Standards for individuals outside of the family unit (see Schwebel & Fine, 1992)

Intervening in Family Schemas

In addressing family schemas from a cognitive–behavior perspective, it is important to follow a series
of steps that can facilitate the process of schema analysis and lay the foundation for restructuring. The case
of the mother who feared weakness can continue to serve as an example.
Step 1: Uncover and identify shared family schemas and highlight those areas of conflict and
dysfunction that are fueled by the schemas (e.g., “We have to walk on eggshells with Mom. If we show any
signs of weakness, she flips out”). Schemas can be uncovered by probing automatic thoughts and using
techniques, such as Downward Arrow, as was done with the mother in this case (Dattilio, 1998a; Dattilio &
Padesky, 1990). Once schemas are identified, verification should be made by obtaining some measure of
agreement from family members.
Step 2: Trace the origin of family schemas and how they have evolved to become an ingrained
mechanism in the family process. This is done by probing into the parents’ backgrounds and the parenting
styles that their parents used during their upbringing. Similarities and differences should be delineated
between parents’ backgrounds and their individual schemas in order to clarify how they have contributed to
their immediate family schemas (see Figure 2).
Step 3: Point out the need for change, indicating how the restructuring of a schema may facilitate more
adaptive functioning and harmonious family interaction. At this stage, it is essential to point out to the
family that modification of schemas may ease the tension and lower the level of conflict in the family. For
example, one of the areas to address with the mother who feared weakness was the burden involved in her
belief that she has to be emotionally responsible for anyone else’s ability to withstand stress. It was
important to emphasize how much her perceptions had been distorted and negatively affected by the
situation with her mother and how she has unintentionally placed a similar burden on her current family. In
some cases, family-of-origin meetings may be used to help an individual process distorted beliefs. For
example, because this mother’s own mother was still living, I invited her to have a private meeting with me
and her daughter in order to explore her daughter’s ingrained beliefs, in an attempt to restructure her
daughter’s thinking. Sometimes, this can be tremendously helpful in the restructuring of ingrained schemas.
Step 4: Elicit acknowledgment and encourage cooperation from the family as a whole for a need to
change or modify existing dysfunctional schemas. This is imperative for change to actually occur, and it
paves the way for a collaborative effort between the therapist and the family members. For family members
who have different or incompatible goals for treatment, finding a common ground between family members
becomes a major objective for the therapist. Using newly gathered information may aid in the modification
of goals.
Step 5: Assess the family’s ability to make changes and plan strategies for facilitating them. It is
important to determine how capable a family is of making significant changes in their basic beliefs.
Potential limiting factors include limited ability levels and resistance to acquiring effective coping skills. For
example, if a family is functioning on a lower intellectual level, their coping skills may be less sophisticated
and the intervention may need to be more concrete, and the process may be slower. Also, it is essential to
assess the amount of resistance that exists within the family that can maintain a level of homeostasis. For

24 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2005

 Beliefs and schemas Beliefs and schemas
developed from family-of- developed from family-of-
origin origin

Mother Children’s Reaction Father

(Behavior) (Behavior) (Behavior)

Is vigilant and intolerant Children act-out the Placates mother because

of any expressions of dissension between he understands her
weakness in self or other parents, demonize upbringing, but subtly
family members mother. Idolize father. undermines her.
Polarization occurs.

(Automatic Thought) (Automatic Thought)

(Automatic Thought)
“There is no room for “My wife is unreasonable.
weakness in life. I must “I have to choose sides, I don’t blame the kids -
be firm. My husband is either my father or my she’s being too rigid.”
soft.” mother.”

(Schema) (Schema)
(Schema)
As a loving wife and It’s okay to show some
mother, I must ensure You have to be careful vulnerability in life. I’ll
that the family avoids what you say and do with just play it safe, but pull
falling prey to weakness. some people - you’ll the children aside and tell
always be put in the them to ignore mother’s
middle. tirades.

(Action) (Action)
(Action)
Mother is intolerant of Father plays both sides in
any signs of weakness Avoid conflict at all costs. order to avoid conflict.
and/or passivity and Try to keep everyone
scolds father for siding happy.
with others against her.

Additional Conflict

[Action]
Mother is alienated.

Figure 2. Family schema

example, once several family-of-origin sessions took place between the mother and her own mother, the
other family members could witness how the mother began to restructure her own beliefs and to see how
her behavior was negatively affecting her immediate family. Then, the process of collaboratively accepting
alternative possibilities can begin with each family member. A similar example would be addressed with
father in confronting his own parents about their dynamics, thus allowing him to redirect some of his
resentment away from his wife and more appropriately toward his own family of origin (See Figure 3).
Step 6: Implement change. The family’s therapist functions as an instrument to facilitate change,
encouraging family members to consider modified versions of their basic beliefs. This is done through the
use of collaborative experiences (such as is referred to in Step 5), brainstorming ideas for modifying beliefs,
and weighing the effects that modifications to existing beliefs are likely to have on family interactions. The
key in the change process is identifying how family members actually will behave differently toward each
other if they are living according to the modified schema. For example, if the family described in the case
example is attempting to adopt a new belief, (i.e., “It is important to be tactful in expressing negative feelings
to other family members, but family members should have the freedom to share such feelings with each
other”), the therapist helps them to identify how they will carry out this belief at the behavior level.
Step 7: Enacting new behaviors. This involves trying out the changes and feeling the fit. The use of
family exercises and homework assignments is imperative in enacting permanent change (Dattilio, 2002).
For example, I may suggest that each family member select an alternative behavior consistent with the
modified schema, enact it, and then record the impact that they perceive it having on the family. This process
is key to attempting to solidify new styles of thinking.
Step 8: Solidifying the changes. This stage involves establishing the changed schema and associated
family behaviors as a permanent pattern in the family through repeated practice, while family members also
remain flexible with regard to future modifications.
In keeping with our illustrative case, Figure 3 portrays how the family schema is restructured by
reworking distorted thoughts.
It is important to work with the entire family together, but at times it is necessary to focus initially on
areas of individual members’ schemas that seem to be causing the greatest amount of conflict. In this
particular situation, the mother is seen as an identified patient in the sense that it is her strong belief that the
family is attributing as the cause of the dysfunction in their relationship. Although this may be true to a
certain degree, a variety of other issues also contributed to the problematic family pattern. However, because
it is likely that this family will continue to create conflict over the mother’s behavior, this will certainly be
an initial area of focus in treatment and then, it is hoped, we will be able to work outward into other areas
and move away from this chief complaint about mother’s rigid views.
However, determining the manner in which these issues will be dealt with will involve addressing
openly each individual’s perceptions and beliefs about the family conflict and its sources. For example, in
dealing with the children, the ones most likely to voice resentment about their mother’s rigid behavior, I
would attempt to focus on the intentions and emotions behind her behavior. This exploration would not be
limited to the traumatic fear to which she was exposed to growing up; it also would include consideration
of her behavior as her way of expressing love for her family; that is, an attempt to prevent them from having
to go through what she had as a child. The process of having the rest of the family appreciate this issue helps
to temper and restructure the schema in a manner that conveys that this is not just their mother making
everybody suffer, it is her way of loving and protecting the family. This is very similar to the process of
reframing, common in other approaches to family therapy. The difference is that more emphasis is placed
on a deliberate effort to gather additional data and weigh the evidence in favor of changing one’s thinking.
Cognitive–behavior therapists use a variety of Socratic and guided discovery techniques to introduce new
information, so that family members draw new conclusions. It should be noted, however, that such
techniques are never forced on clients, but rather they are suggested in a collaborative fashion.
With the aforementioned case, it would also be important to allow the family members to share some
of their feelings and perceptions about the situation with the mother in an attempt to begin to change some
of her thinking with regard to the issue. Depolarizing the mother’s and father’s positions and helping the
father to support his wife by recognizing her behavior as an expression of her love, rather than an attempt
to control the family will also serve as a very important segue to the thought-restructuring process. I would

26 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2005

 MOTHER FATHER CHILD

Challenged Belief Challenged Belief Challenged Belief

What evidence supports the If I encourage my wife to Why can’t I just express to
idea that all signs of weak- express some negative my parents that I don’t want
ness lead to a threat to one’s emotion, would that be so to be placed in the middle of
welfare? Might this be a terrible? What’s the their arguments? Will they
distortion due to my evidence that supports the hate me if I do?
childhood exposure? notion that she would “fall
apart”?

Experiment Experiment Experiment

Take the risk with myself to Try saying nothing if she Try to express my desire to
see if a display of negative experiences negative remain neutral and that I
emotion is necessarily emotions, especially to the love them both and don’t
“deadly.” Allow myself to children, and keep in mind want to have to choose.
cry on one occasion in front that it doesn’t mean that I’m
of my family. a “bad husband.”

Action Action Action

Cries briefly during an Avoids interfering to protect Remains neutral.

argument with husband. mother.

Result Result Result

Family members appear Wife cries, children support No serious rejection. Parents
relieved. I didn’t fall apart. mother in expressing her don’t hate me.
emotion.

Restructured Belief Restructured Belief Restructured Belief

Maybe it’s not so terrible to Nothing terrible happened. I can be myself without
show some negative emotion always worrying about
at times. In fact, it felt kind negative repercussions.
of good.

Figure 3. Challenging and restructuring maladaptive schemas

also address the issue of the father’s behavior undermining the mother’s power and control in the family
environment. Restructuring his concept and perception of the circumstance will be the most effective means
of facilitating change. The same may also hold true for the mother’s beliefs about the father and the rest of
the family. In fact, to effect change in family schemas, it is important to modify each member’s beliefs about
the other members.
In this respect, treatment may involve having each family member challenge his or her own automatic
thoughts about the family conflict and acknowledge and address the core belief(s) that may be at the root of
the conflict, rather than focusing only on an identified patient, such as the mother, as the cause of family

January 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 27

problems. Challenging automatic thoughts by weighing alternative explanations may reinforce change (see
Figure 3). For her part, the mother may need to consider changing or replacing some of her beliefs and learn
to reassure herself that she will not lose control or place her family in jeopardy if she does not hold fast to
her rigid definition of weakness. Being able to accept vulnerability as being part of the human condition is
an important concept to emphasize in treatment.

Conclusion
The process of reworking family schemas requires a great deal of effort, particularly because the
therapist is contending with more than one set of individual beliefs and may face some very ingrained and
rigid schemas. Families are particularly reluctant to making changes, especially when it threatens to disrupt
the general homeostasis. It is suggested that therapists maintain patience in reworking family schemas and
remain cognizant of the previous points, given that it is often easier to modify selective perceptions,
attributions, and expectancies than to modify schemas, such as assumptions. Focusing on these specific
components initially may be one way to ease family members into the process of cognitive restructuring, at
which time the more ingrained schemas may be addressed.
In addition, the intervention of restructuring family members’ schemas is likely to have an important
impact on the welfare of the family and may be integrated into other theoretical models of treatment. In the
past, the flexibility and integrative potential of CBFT with families has not been consistently recognized in
the field based on inaccurate stereotypes that describe the model as focusing mostly on cognition and linear
causal processes. A more realistic portrayal is that “[Cognitive–behavior therapy] with family embraces
more fully the circular processes that involve cognitive, affective, and behavior factors, as well as influences
of broader contextual theories,” as in the case of the family’s interpersonal and physical environment
(Dattilio & Epstein, 2003, p. 169). For example, many of the cognitive restructuring techniques can be used
with Bowen’s (1978) model of family therapy, especially the aspect of differentiation of self. Given that a
balance of feelings and cognitions is the goal of self-differentiation, helping family members who are
struggling with certain cognitive distortions may be aided by using such techniques as “Downward Arrow”
or “reframing.” For example, in the earlier case example involving the mother who viewed emotional
expressions as a sign of weakness, such cognitive techniques would only serve to enhance a Bowenian
approach with this family, especially the children, who felt compelled to uphold their mother’s beliefs
regarding the danger of emotions and remain in a coalition with the father in order to empower him. Such
techniques as described above may also lend themselves well to other approaches that focus on core beliefs,
as well as the therapeutic task of having family members consider rejunctive alternatives, such as with the
contextual approaches.
Consequently, the ground for cross-fertilization is rich, particularly since CBFT has integrated concepts
and methods from so many other approaches (Dattilio, 1998c). Each approach to therapy has distinct
characteristics of its own, however, cognitive–behavior strategies may be worth considering as a effective
adjunct to treatment.

REFERENCES

Baldwin, M. W. (1992). Relational schemas and the processing of social information. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 461–484.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning therapy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baucom, D. H., & Epstein, N. (1990). Cognitive-behavior marital therapy, New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Baucom, D. H., Epstein, N., Sayers, S., & Sher, T. (1989). The role of cognition in marital relationships: Definitional, method-
ological, and conceptual issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 31–38.
Beck, A. T. (1967). Depression: Clinical, experimental and theoretical aspects. New York: Hoeber.
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: International Universities Press.
Beck, A. T., Rush, J. A., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G. (1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: Guilford Press.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books.
Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. New York: Aronson.
Dattilio, F. M. (1990). Cognitive marital therapy: A case study. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 1, 15–31.
Dattilio, F. M. (1993). Cognitive techniques with couples and families. The Family Journal, 1, 51–65.

28 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2005

Dattilio, F. M. (1998a) (Ed.). Case studies in couple and family therapy: Systemic and cognitive perspectives. New York:
Guilford Press.
Dattilio, F. M. (1998b). Cognitive-behavior family therapy. In F. M. Dattilio (Ed.), Case studies in couple and family therapy:
Systemic and cognitive perspectives (pp. 62–84). New York: Guilford Press.
Dattilio, F. M. (1998c). Finding the fit between cognitive-behavior and family therapy. The Family Therapy Networker, 22,
July/August, 63–73.
Dattilio, F. M. (2000). Families in crisis. In F. M. Dattilio & A. Freeman (Eds.), Cognitive-behavior strategies in crisis
intervention (2nd ed., pp. 316–338). New York: Guilford Press.
Dattilio, F. M. (2001a). Cognitive-behavior family therapy: Contemporary myths and misconceptions. Contemporary Family
Therapy, 23, 3–18.
Dattilio, F. M. (2001b). Letter to the Editor: The ripple effects of depressive schemas on psychiatric patients. Archives in
Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 3, 90–91.
Dattilio, F. M. (2002). Homework assignments in couple and family therapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 535–547.
Dattilio, F. M. (2004). Cognitive-behavior family therapy: A coming-of-age story. In R. L. Leahy (Ed.), Contemporary cognitive
therapy (pp. 389–405). New York: Guilford Press.
Dattilio, F. M., & Epstein, N. B. (2003). Cognitive-behavior couple and family therapy. In T. L. Sexton, G. R. Weeks, & M. S.
Robbins (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy (147–173). New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Dattilio, F. M., Epstein, N. B., & Baucom, D. H. (1998). Introduction to cognitive-behavior therapy with couples and family. In
F. M. Dattilio (Ed.), Case studies in couple and family therapy: Systemic and cognitive perspectives (pp. 1–36). New York:
Guilford Press.
Dattilio, F. M., & Padesky, C.A. (1990). Cognitive therapy with couples. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Exchange.
DeRubeis, R. J., & Beck, A. T. (1988). Cognitive therapy. In K. S. Dobson (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive-behavior therapies,
(pp. 273–306). New York: Guilford Press.
Doherty, W. J. (1981). Cognitive processes in intimate conflict: 1. Extending attribution theory. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 9, 5–13.
Epstein, N. B. (1985). Depression and marital dysfunction: Cognitive and behavior linkages. International Journal of Mental
Health, 13, 86–104.
Epstein, N. B., & Baucom, D. H. (2002). Enhanced cognitive-behavior therapy for couples: A contextual approach. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Associated Press.
Epstein, N., Baucom, D. H., & Rankin, L. A. (1993). Treatment of marital conflict: A cognitive-behavior approach. Clinical
Psychology Review, 13, 45–57.
Epstein, N., & Schlesinger, S. E. (1996). Treatment of family problems. In M. Reinecke, F. M. Dattilio, & A. Freeman (Eds.),
Cognitive therapy with children and adolescents: A casebook for clinical practice (pp. 299–326). New York: Guilford
Press.
Epstein, N., Schlesinger, S., & Dryden, W. (1988). Concepts and methods of cognitive-behavior family treatment. In N. Epstein,
S. Schlesinger, & W. Dryden (Eds.), Cognitive-behavior therapy with families (pp. 5–48). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Fincham, F. D., Bradbury, T. N., & Beach, S. R. H. (1992). Assessing attributions in marriage: The relationship attribution
measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 457–468.
Forgatch, M. S., & Patterson, G. R. (1998). Behavior family therapy. In F. M. Dattilio (Ed.), Case studies in couples and family
therapy: Systemic and cognitive perspectives (pp. 85–107). New York: Guilford Press.
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs (Vols. 1 & 2). New York: Norton.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotions and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leslie, L. A. (1988). Cognitive-behavior and systems models of family therapy: How compatible are they? In N. Epstein, S. E.
Schlesinger, & W. Dryden (Eds.), Cognitive-behavior therapy with families (pp. 49–83). New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Nichols, M., & Schwartz, R. (1998). Family therapy: Concepts and methods (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Patterson, G. R. (1985). Beyond technology: The next stage in developing an empirical base for parent training. In L. L’Abate
(Ed.), Handbook of family psychology and therapy, Vol. 2 (pp. 277–295). Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Patterson, G. R., & Hops, H. (1972). Coercion, a game for two: Intervention techniques for marital conflict. In R.E. Urich & P.
Mounjoy (Eds.), The experimental analysis of social behavior (pp. 424–440). New York: Appleton.
Piaget, J. (1950). Psychology of intelligence. New York: Harcourt, Brace. (originally published, 1947).
Satir, V. (1967). Conjoint family therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and Behavior Books.
Schwebel, A. I., & Fine, M. A. (1992). Cognitive-behavior family therapy. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 3, 73–91.
Schwebel, A. I., & Fine, M.A. (1994). Understanding and helping families: A cognitive-behavior approach. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelly, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.
Vanzetti, N. A., Notarius, C. I., & Nee Smith, D. (1992). Specific and generalized expectancies in marital interaction. Journal

January 2005 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY 29

 of Family Psychology, 6, 171–183.
Wright, J. H., & Beck, A. T. (1993). Family cognitive therapy with inpatients: Part II. In J. H. Wright, M. E. Thase, A. T. Beck,
& J. W. Ludgate (Eds.), Cognitive therapy with inpatients: Developing a cognitive milieu (pp. 176–190). New York:
Guilford Press.

30 JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY January 2005