Confusions and Conclusions: A Response to Doane

The purpose of this paper is to evaluate critically the logic and conclusions of Doane's article ( 14 ), and in so doing, to raise serious questions regarding her evaluation of the family interaction literature. In particular, we suggest that Doane's paper is characterized by (a) a confused and inaccurate presentation of previous reviews; (b) a vague and contradictory set of terms around which she attempts to recast previous findings; (c) an arbitrary and unsystematic selection of findings used to support suggestions regarding reliable group differences; (d) uncritical and erroneous interpretations of findings that ostensibly support suggested differences between groups; and (e) a superficial acceptance of recent family interaction data concerned with the relationship between communication deviance/clarity and psychopathology. We hope our detailed critique will stimulate other observers of family interaction research to contribute more accurate and significant perspectives to the field than those presented in Doane's review.