Family communication patterns theory (FCPT) describes how families vary in the ways members interact and engage with one another, and it highlights the implications of such relatively stable communication styles for family functioning and child development. FCPT in its current formulation was proposed by Mary Ann Fitzpatrick and her colleagues in the 1990s, but the theory has its roots in media effects research from the 1970s, when researchers sought to understand how families process and make sense of external information, primarily television programming and other media messages. It was believed that for families to effectively coordinate their behaviors and function as a group, a sense of shared social reality is needed; that is, members need to possess adequate knowledge about one another’s attitudes and beliefs and share those beliefs to some degree. To achieve a shared social reality, researchers proposed that families can adopt two strategies: one is through members jointly discussing the object, while the other relies on having one family member defining that object for the rest. These two strategies were later reconceptualized as conversation orientation and conformity orientation in the FCPT, respectively. Furthermore, the FCPT proposes that conversation and conformity orientations interact with each other such that the impact of one orientation is dependent on the degree of the other orientation of the family. Thus, the two dimensions and their interaction result in four family types: consensual, pluralistic, protective, and laissez-faire. Research employing the FCPT has accumulated ample evidence of its ability to predict and explain a wide array of child-related outcomes, including adolescent sexual decision making (Hurst et al., 2022), political participation (Graham et al., 2020), and relationship maintenance behavior in friendship (Ledbetter, 2009). Research has also investigated specific family processes and interpersonal behaviors that mediate the effects of conversation and conformity orientations on family member outcomes, such as parental confirmation (Schrodt et al., 2007) and parent-adolescent understanding (Sillars et al., 2005).  

References and other suggested readings:  

Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2004). Family communication patterns theory: Observations on its development and application. Journal of Family communication, 4(3–4), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2004.9670129  

Graham, E. E., Tang, T., & Mahoney, L. M. (2020). Family matters: A functional model of family communication patterns and political participation. Communication Studies, 71(2), 262–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2020.1726426  

Hesse, C., Rauscher, E. A., Goodman, R. B., & Couvrette, M. A. (2017). Reconceptualizing the role of conformity behaviors in family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Communication, 17(4), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267431.2017.1347568 

Hurst, J. L., Widman, L., Maheux, A. J., Evans-Paulson, R., Brasileiro, J., & Lipsey, N. (2022). Parent-child communication and adolescent sexual decision making: An application of family communication patterns theory. Journal of Family Psychology, 36(3), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000916 

Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior: Direct and mediated associations with friendship closeness. Human Communication Research, 35(1), 130–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.01341.x  

Schrodt, P., Ledbetter, A. M., & Ohrt, J. K. (2007). Parental confirmation and affection as mediators of family communication patterns and children’s mental well-being. Journal of Family Communication, 7, 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/15267430709336667   Sillars, A., Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2005). Communication and understanding in parent-adolescent relationships. Human Communication Research, 31, 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2005.tb00866.x

Communication privacy management theory explains how people control and manage the risks associated with self-disclosure about private information. The theory focuses on three main elements that illustrate how people set up boundaries surrounding personal and sensitive information: privacy ownership, privacy control, and privacy turbulence. First, we think that our private information is our own, and we get to decide with whom that information is shared. When we grant other people access to our private information, they become authorized co-owners of that information. Second, the theory suggests that we want to have control over our private information. By creating privacy rules, such as who is allowed to co-own our private information, what aspects of the information that co-owners are allowed to share with others, and how the information is framed, people are better able to control their private information. Third, the theory argues that privacy turbulence occurs when there is a privacy breakdown (e.g., a secret got out) that forces co-owners of information to re-negotiate boundary management. Bute and Brann (2015) used the framework of communication privacy management theory to examine how married couples jointly manage miscarriage information, and how they negotiate privacy rules about disclosing their loss to their social network members. Pederson and McLaren (2016) explored the process by which people who had experienced a hurtful event managed that information with personal network members. By establishing rules for sharing information, managing privacy boundaries, and navigating privacy turbulence, the theory illustrates the ways in which people protect and manage private information.  

References and other suggested readings:  

Bute, J. J., & Brann, M. (2015). Co-ownership of private information in the miscarriage context. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 43(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2014.982686 

Kennedy-Lightsey, C. D., Martin, M. M., Thompson, M., Himes, K. L., & Clingerman, B. Z. (2012). Communication privacy management theory: Exploring coordination and ownership between friends. Communication Quarterly, 60(5), 665–680. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2012.725004                                                         

Pederson, J. R., & McLaren, R. M. (2016). Managing information following hurtful experiences: How personal network members negotiate private information. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33(7), 961–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407515612242 

Petronio, S. (1991). Communication boundary management: A theoretical model of managing disclosure of private information between marital couples. Communication Theory, 1(4), 311–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468–2885.1991.tb00023.x                   

Petronio, S. (2010). Communication privacy management theory: What do we know about family privacy regulation?. Journal of family theory & review, 2(3), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-2589.2010.00052.x  

Petronio, S., & Child, J. T. (2020). Conceptualization and operationalization: Utility of communication privacy management theory. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.08.009 

Petronio, S., Child, J. T., & Hall, R. D. (2021). Communication privacy management theory: Significance for interpersonal communication. In Engaging theories in interpersonal communication (pp. 314–327). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003195511-28   Smith, S. A., & Brunner, S. R. (2017). To reveal or conceal: Using communication privacy management theory to understand disclosures in the workplace. Management Communication Quarterly, 31(3), 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318917692896