A Multi-Method Investigation of Two Family Constructs

Two family constructs—prominence and interpersonal distance—are examined. Their origins are traced in the experimental and theoretical literature. The validity of each construct is investigated using data obtained from 15 families with a symptom-bearing child. Validity is supported in both cases through the occurrence of significant correlations among different measures of the same construct. It is suggested that the current distress of the families being studied may have increased the clarity of the prominence hierarchies and dyadic distances that emerged.     

COMMENTARY

Salzman's commentary initially examines two theoretical considerations of the genesis of substance abuse. He elaborates on the hypothesis that changes in the family precede abuse and relates it to conceptual similarities with research on schizophrenic families. He points out that the proposed research that focuses on ongoing processes rather than causality also fails to identify factors leading to the selection of symptomatology. The author concludes with comments on his work in the area of psychoactive drugs and group functioning and suggests that the inclusion of the following methodologies in research design might be instructive: (a) the combining of self, group, and experimenter observations; (b) the comparison of family interactional patterns when the drug-abusing member is under chemical influence and when he is not; and (c) informal observations and discussions focused on the family's perception of the research as well as on task performance.     

A System for Tailoring Change Measures to the Individual Family

The focus of this project is the problem of evaluating change in families. Prior work has tended to limit itself to anecdotal or self-report data. By and large, the studies that have evaluated a family intervention by observing family interactions have failed to demonstrate change. A major drawback in such studies has been the assumption that the few interaction variables selected (e.g., amount of silent time) have roughly the same salience and meaning for all the families studied. The measurement system described here was developed to fulfill four methodological requirements: (a) to represent the family as a whole; (b) to be sensitive to change; (c) to contain multiple measures; and (d) to be adaptable to the variation among families. The solution to these requirements, presented here, is a system for tailoring measures to individual families.     

NEWTON AND KANT: QUANTITY OF MATTER IN THE METAPHYSICAL FOUNDATIONS OF NATURAL SCIENCE

Immanuel Kant's Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science (1786) provides metaphysical foundations for the application of mathematics to empirically given nature. The application that Kant primarily has in mind is that achieved in Isaac Newton's Principia (1687). Thus, Kant's first chapter, the Phoronomy, concerns the mathematization of speed or velocity, and his fourth chapter, the Phenomenology, concerns the empirical application of the Newtonian notions of true or absolute space, time, and motion. This paper concentrates on Kant's second and third chapters—the Dynamics and the Mechanics, respectively—and argues that they are best read as providing a transcendental explanation of the conditions for the possibility of applying the (mathematical) concept of quantity of matter to experience. Kant again has in mind the empirical measures of this quantity that Newton fashions in the Principia, and he aims to make clear, in particular, how Newton achieves a universal measure for all bodies whatsoever by projecting the static quantity of terrestrial weight into the heavens by means of the theory of universal gravitation. Kant is not attempting to prove a priori what Newton has established empirically but, rather, to clarify the character of Newton's mathematization by building Newton's empirical measures into the very concept of matter that is articulated in the Metaphysical Foundations.