4.2 Article

Embedding co-sleeping practice within the family systems paradigm: Novel theoretical conceptualization and initial empirical exploration

Journal

SYSTEMS RESEARCH AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 555-571

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/sres.2690

Keywords

co-sleeping; triangulation; Bowen Family Systems Theory; gender development differences; family therapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that the actual effects of co-sleeping are influenced by gender, especially the significant correlation between male children's time-persistent co-sleeping and individual differentiation and chronic anxiety. This result has drawn attention to the intergenerational emotional fusion construct within the family system.
A critical co-sleeping literature review revealed individualistic and dyadic guided approaches taken insofar, ridden by conflicting results. Thereby, we situated our approachbeyond the individual and dyad areawhere we developed anew a systemic co-sleeping paradigm, resulting in theoretical and preliminary empirical findings. Initial cross-gender analyses associated significantly co-sleeping with Bowen Family Systems Theory's cornerstone constructs. However, once the moderating effect of gender was examined, significancedisappeared across the board for females yet persisted for males.Specifically, male-children time-persistent co-sleeping was associated negatively withdifferentiationand positively withchronic anxietyand other hypothesized maladjustment effects (guilty feelings and abandonment feelings if moved away from parents). Effects drew attention to Bowen's systemic construct ofintergenerational emotional fusion.Guided by the empirical associations, we focused on gender development differences literature. We suggest thattriangulationprocesses dynamically embed co-sleeping within the family systems paradigm, with the embedment appearing to be significantly gendered.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available