Bowenian Approach

Summary of Empirical Literature Regarding the Theory

 

Types of Family Problems Addressed

     A review of the literature reveals that the Bowen Family Systems theory can be used to address several types of familial issues (Brown, 2015; Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004, Murray, 2006; Nichols, 2014; Priest, 2015).  As previously mentioned, this approach encourages each member to takes ownership of his or her own actions and reactions, or establish a differentiated self (Brown, 2015; Nichols, 2014).  The therapy is used in settings to identify patterns within the family (Brown, 2015; Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004; Nichols, 2014).  For many therapists, the use of Bowen Family Systems theory is to address issues of anxiety or strained relationships (Brown, 2015; Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004; Priest, 2015).  A review of the literature showed positive outcomes in treating individuals with generalized anxiety disorder, as the techniques help coach individuals to control their reactions to situations and separate thoughts from feelings (Brown, 2015; Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004, Priest, 2015). 

     Further, results from the literature also showed to reduce anxiety caused by traumatic events when treating victims of sexual and physical abuse (MacKay, 2012).  However, some researchers do not recommend using this method to treat clients who are victims of abuse because it could contribute to victim-blaming behaviors (Murray, 2006; Knudson-Martin, 1994).  According to MacKay (2012), the differentiation method encourages individuals to take responsibility for one’s own happiness and reactions. The encouragement of equal partnership of responsibility in an abusive situation is criticized in this scenario.  In fact, there are some states that prevent Bowen Family Systems Therapy as a method of therapy for batterer’s intervention programs (Murray, 2006).

Another popular use of the Bowen theory in family therapy is to help with de-triangulating family members (Brown, 2015).  A family problem that could be addressed in this scenario is where a family has patterns of abuse and/or strained relationships that have been passed down to the client.  By creating a genogram of the extended family, the therapist can work with the client to reveal the patterns and begin to develop skills to differentiate, and then hopefully decrease the levels of anxiety or other presenting issue (Brown, 2015; Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004; Nichols, 2014; Priest, 2014).  This is known as the coaching stage (Nichols, 2014; Priest, 2015).

     Further, children are often minimized in therapy in this scenario, where a heavy emphasis is placed on the parental involvement (Brown, 2015).  The emphasis is placed on the parents of the nuclear family as it is believed they play the most influential roles within the family. Therefore, Bowen Family Systems therapy may be less likely to work in a child or school aged environment (Brown, 2015).  The basis of this decision is to remove the child from the triangulating position, and shift the triangulation towards the therapist.  The parents are then forced to differentiate themselves from both the child and each other (Brown, 2015).

     Additionally, the Bowen Family Systems theory is used in marriage counseling sessions and marriage satisfaction (Brown, 2015; Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004). However, the theory can be used in couples, group and individual sessions (Murray, 2006).  Beyond the clinical setting, the Bowen Family System theory has been used to help define family process and its influence on the individual (Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004).  For example, the use of creating genograms and assessing family patterns also helps reveal gender roles within the family.  The client may need help in both identifying but also differentiating from these roles in order to achieve a sense of self-regulation (Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004). Although some literature supports the Bowen Family Systems theory’s definitions of gender roles, there are several feminist theories that are critical of this way of thinking (Knudson-Martin, 1994; Miller, Anderson, & Keala, 2004; Priest, 2015). Criticisms of the technique are discussed in the “Criticisms” section.