The paper below was written 13 years ago and there have been a few developments in the meantime.

I am still a professor in the department of psychology at the University of Houston, although I retired several years ago. After 43 years in Houston, Carmen and I decided to move to Taos, New Mexico, where we live in an old adobe house with an acequia and a great view. The University hired me back on a half-time basis, let me keep my office, and asked me to teachfromTaos via Distance Learning. I was willing, even eager, and have not been sorry.

Some things have changed. I have less to do with NAMI and more to do with the World Fellowship for Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders, of which I am president-elect. For one who enjoys travel, it has been good. I have been to Hamburg, Paris, Jerusalem, Washington, Osaka and Tokyo in recent months. I completed a term on the National Advisory Mental Health Council and the American Psychological Association's Task Force on Serious Mental Illness.

Subsequent to writing the paper below, I became involved in a new area within developmental psychology. Working with pediatricians at the University of Texas at the Medical Branch in Galveston I have been investigating the long-term consequences of otitis media with effusion. We began with 698 infants and are now analyzing data at child age seven. This foray into pediatric psychology has been enormously rewarding.

How do I spend my retirement years? I do not play golf or tennis, have never had a talent for fishing and have, wisely, I think, given up rock climbing. I do ski and hike and enjoy the Taos Archeological Society. Mostly, I read student papers, and write. I have published 6 books and have 6 more in process on my computer.

**********

Printed in: Johnson, D. L. (1990). Developing family environments with families. In F. Kaslow (Ed.). Voices in family psychology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

"In order to help a person reach a

certain point, one must know more

than he knows. But first one must

know what he knows. One must find

him where he is and begin from there."

S. Kierkegaard

Developing Family Environments With Families

Dale L. Johnson

Family Influences

I was born in a house my father built, at least partly, in Sanish, North Dakota, across the Missouri river from an Indian reservation, at the end of the Soo Line Railroad, and one of the last of the true frontier towns in America. It now lies under Lake Sakakawea.

The priority of family was impressed on me early as my parents, Kenneth Johnson and Mildred Christensen, sister Pat, and I lived surrounded by grandparents, aunts, uncles and 28 cousins.

As I small boy I spent my days riding my horse in the hills, trapping along the Missouri, skiing, skating, and taking full advantage of the almost limitless freedom granted by my parents. Although Sanish was devastated by the depression with a drought and by grasshoppers and we had little money, with a mother who was a gifted teacher (she retired last year at age 86), a father whose humor and sociability made every day special, and a house full of teachers and relatives who lived with us for various lengths of time, life for a small boy was exciting.

I had a remarkable degree of autonomy. Even as a very young child I was free to come and go as I wished. Only the Missouri river itself was out of bounds. I was rarely punished. Good behavior was expected and minor slips were tolerated. It was a rough place to live and many of the local adolescents were involved in delinguent behavior. If we had stayed on there I might have joined them.

A sense of social responsibility was extended to the larger society through the actions of grandfather, Lars Christensen, an immigrant from Denmark, a homesteader, and one of the founders of the nonpartisan league, the populist movement that was depicted in the movie, Northern Lights. Discussion among the relatives was often political and the theme was of the interplay between social and individual responsibilities. My mother and her family emphasized the former, my father and his family, the latter. In either case, it was clear that if you were unhappy with the state of affairs, you should set out to change it and not expect change to take place because others will rush in to help out. Much later, a year in Norway (1973-1974), reminded me that this ethic was solidly rooted in the Scandinavian world view and had been transplanted with little change to the Dakotas.

My childhood years were as nearly ideal as I can image. In particular, the family environment was secure, loving, intellectually stimulating, and much of the time uproariously funny.

Educational Influences

My early elementary years were spent in the Sanish school with its rich mixture of various Anglo and American Indian children and an exciting meld of cultures. When I was 10 my family moved to another small town in North Dakota, away from my beloved hills, but to a better job for my father, managing and eventually owning a hardware and farm implement store.

The high school experience was a page out of Barker's Big School, Small School (1964). My school, the Benson County Agricultural Training School, had 125 students in 4 grades, and my senior class had only 24 students. There were so few students and so many things to be done that every one had to play many roles. Everyone was responsible, no one was left out, we were all obligated to one another. Academically, it was not a strong school, but there was a tough and creative English teacher who made us write and a teacher of agriculture who introduced us to statistical design and drilled us in practice sessions with Robert's Rules of Order. He said the world runs through meetings and we should be prepared to make these meetings as effective as possible.

Education

From high school I went to the University of North Dakota in 1947. Although UND provided a rich experience, I was an inconsistent scholar. My initial major was premedicine, because, among other reasons, I had been fascinated by the life of the medical researcher in Sinclair Lewis' Arrowsmith (1925), but I had little interest in the premedical curriculum. Journalism was of interest as I was doing well financially as a part-time photographer and the life style seemed exciting. But in my junior year I discovered psychology and anthropology and knew that I had found what I wanted. Although accepted for medical school, I chose psychology, and have had no regrets. UND also provided a rich social experience (it was something of a party school), gave me the chance to gratify another passion, basketball, and advanced my political development from a conservative republican to a liberal democrat. Most important of all, the UND experience brought me to Carmen Acosta, my wife of 36 years [now 50]. There was little accident in that meeting: I discovered her, was fascinated by her even before we had met, asked a cousin to introduce us, and I set out to woo her. The success of that project was the most important in my life.

I chose Kansas for graduate work in 1951 because according to the catalog it appeared to offer the psychoanalytic orientation I thought I wanted. It also offered the opportunity to be trained at the Menninger Institute. On arrival I discovered that Roger Barker had come in as chairman and had swept the place clean of psychoanalytic influence. He had repopulated the faculty with Lewinians and gestalters: Fritz Heider, Martin Scheerer, Erik Wright, Herb Wright, Al Baldwin, Lee Meyerson, Tony Smith, Bert Kaplan, Anni Frankl, and Ed Wike. We were immersed in the work of Wertheimer (1945), Koffka (1935), Kohler (1947), Werner (1948), Lewin (1951), Piaget (1953, 1954) and Goldstein (1939). Having come from a behaviorist school and seeking psychoanalytic insights, I was stunned to hear Scheerer in his first lecture tell us that the major sources of error in American psychology were behaviorism and psychoanalysis.

The faculty were in no sense dogmatic and loved academic argument. They believed that students needed to have an understanding of all major points of view and so brought in as visiting professors Austin DesLauriers (1962), Paul Bergman, Joseph Nuttin (1953), and Sigmund Gundle ( all psychoanalytic), and Jack Michael (behaviorist).

Today there are few gestalters or Lewinians, but on the other hand, much of contemporary psychology is based on ideas that have sprung from those sources. Information processing in cognitive psychology, ecological psychology, the idea of understanding environmental forces, holistic approaches, all began there.

My work with Meyerson (Barker, Meyerson, Wright & Gonick,1953) profoundly affected my understanding of the impact of physical illness upon behavior and he, more than anyone else, taught me how to think like a psychologist.

Then John Chotlos entered the scene and I learned to be skeptical of psychological theories and methods. Chotlos introduced a loyal group of students to the intellectual pleasures of existential/phenomenological philosophy and psychology. He led a seminar entitled "Some problems in clinical psychology" which continued for four years. This seminar emphasized the importance of understanding direct experience. I did my dissertation with Chotlos on the moral judgment of schizophrenics.

I think Scheerer was right about psychoanalysis. Although in contact with psychoanalytic thinking over the years, and briefly in analytic treatment (four sessions for migraine headaches which were treated successfully later with ergotamine tartrate), I now find it to be of no value as a psychotherapy, as a theory of development, or as a guide to understanding the behavior of individuals or groups. I think it has retarded the progress of science and contributed a mythology of human behavior that has been injurious to the seriously mentally ill, to women, and to families. The Golsteinian (1939) organismic alternative offered by Scheerer (1954), along with Chotlos' phenomenology, Barkerian ecology, and the Piagetian view of development have seemed to me much more satisfactory and scientifically sound sources of theoretical reference.

Opportunities and Other Influences

Cross cultural

My boyhood interest in cultural issues was reinforced by marrying Carmen, who had studied in Mexico and had strong interests in the research area. In graduate school Lee Meyerson provided us with an opportunity to spend a summer studying the social situation of the blind among the Mazahua of central Mexico.

We spent four summers working with Bert Kaplan in his study of the use of native categories for classifying mental disorder with the Navajo (Kaplan & Johnson, 1964). Later, Carmen and I did similar research with the Sioux in the Dakotas (Johnson & Johnson, 1965). We also helped the Olympic Mental Center plan their delivery of services for Indians of western Washington. We recommended that the Center take advantage of indigenous resources and develop a flexible out-reach system involving community visiting psychiatric nurses.

There was other field research in Mexico, Guatemala, and Norway (Johnson, Teigen & Davila, 1983) and in all of this we brought the children, and often a grandparent, along. There were the hazards of illness (One child developed malaria in Guatemala. It has not recurred), but we deemed the advantages of sharing interesting experiences to be greater than the possible risks.

The cross-cultural work taught me that Pike's idea of emic (the view of the culture itself) is as important as the etic (the generalist, universalist view) approach to understanding cultures. Although of course impressed with cultural differences, I have also been struck by the great within-culture differences that exist and with the basic similarities of people everywhere. I cannot accept explanations of any human behavior as simply "cultural" and prefer to understand the individuals within the cultural context.

Small Group Research

After graduate school I joined the Veterans Administration Hospital in Houston in 1957 and worked with seriously mentally ill patients on an acute admitting ward. In 1960 I became the director of the new Human Interaction Training Laboratory (HITL) for psychiatric patients. The HITL was designed by Bob Morton and based on training principles developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton for management training (Rothaus, Morton, Johnson, Cleveland & Lyle, 1963). All patient groups were self-directed and time limited. Staff provided social skills training and participants recorded their impressions of their group interactions and made use of the feedback this provided. Relations between staff and participants were highly democratic and much was made of taking responsibility for one's actions. Groups were also held responsible for the actions of their members. Men in the program had a variety of psychiatric problems, chiefly anxiety, depression, and addictive disorders, and they were encouraged to place their difficulties in a "problems in living" context. Ideas of illness or therapy were minimized. Program goals were to reduce symptoms by enhancing social sensitivity, social skills, an internal locus of control, and a experimental attitude toward problem-solving (Carlson, Johnson & Hanson, 1981). The research carried out with 2000 men in 200 groups was typical of much of the group dynamics research on small groups that grew out of a Lewinian orientation (Lewin, 1951). Our evaluation research found the program to be at least as effective as conventional group psychotherapy programs and with considerably less cost (Johnson, Hanson, Rothaus, Morton & Lyle, 1965).

I found the opportunity to join training groups as a participant and as a trainer essential for my own development and much more important than personal psychotherapy.

Current Interests

By interest, training and the shaping of a occupational requirements I am a developmental and clinical psychologist. Through a combination of choice and chance I have been involved for the past two decades in two different, but related, ways of working with families. Each has involved research, intervention, and political advocacy.

As a developmentalist, my interests were initially on the socialization of the child. This concern meant that I was as much interested in the environment in which the child developed as in the child's developmental response to these environmental circumstances. Like many psychologists of the 1960's I was also interested in how the environment promoted or deterred the optimal development of the child, and as a clinical psychologist I felt that one must intervene to improve the chances for optimal development. It has also seemed obvious to me that environmental influences do not have a one time effect, nor that early experience has an unalterable determining influence on the life course of development. Development is transactional: One is influenced by the environment and influences that environment throughout the life-span.

Writing this paper has provoked reflection about my projects. I use the term projects in two of its meanings; as a program of organized effort, and in the Sartrean existential sense as a projecting of oneself into the world and creating a future, a being-in-the-world (Sartre, 1956). I have had to ask to what extent my past experiences have structured or even determined present work, and to what extent this work has been shaped by choices made on the basis of expected or hoped for outcomes. There is also, of course, the role of mere chance.

Poverty Families

From the HITL I went across the bayou in 1964 to the University of Houston to teach developmental and clinical psychology. Soon, however, I was department chairman (1966-1972) and I became occupied with administrative duties. These administrative concerns led me into work with families in a way that I did not expect. Late in 1968, while searching for funds for graduate student support, Paul Dokecki and I applied for and received funds to start a Parent-Child Center (PCC). We were soon (1970) able to convert that project into a Parent-Child Development Center (PCDC), one of three (PCCs) selected by the Office of Economic Opportunity, under Mary Robinson's direction, to become research and development centers. Robinson believed that early childhood education programs for children of poverty had not done well because they began too late in the child's life and did not provide for continuity of effects. Her proposal was to begin within the first three years of the child's life and to work with parents as well as children to provide continuity. One would have to change environments in order to have lasting effects. As the most important environment for nearly all infants and young children is the family, however defined, it would be necessary to influence family behavior. Our charge was to develop such a program with very low-income minority families and to provide them with a wide range of services. The basic goal was to improve the school performance of the children, but we set as a general goal that the program should optimize child competence.

This was a challenge for which my background was well suited. Although I had virtually no earlier experience, as a professional, with families, I thought that my involvement with cultural issues, small groups, and program development and evaluation could be put to good use.

The Parent-Child Development Center (PCDC), a parent-child education program designed specifically for low-income Mexican American families, the result of these concerns, has been almost as effective as we planned it to be, and more effective than I ever expected. At the end of the program, when children were three, the program mothers, compared with control mothers, were more affectionate, used more praise and less criticism, and were more encouraging of their children's verbalizations. Their homes were more stimulating as educational environments (Andrews et al, 1982; Johnson, 1975). At follow-ups in the preschool and elementary years, and in junior high school, the program children were doing better in school and had fewer behavior problems (Johnson & Breckenridge, 1982; Johnson & Walker, 1986; Johnson & Walker, 1987). The program was not only effective in improving the children's school success, it was also virtually unique as a vehicle for the primary prevention of behavior problems and was cited by the American Psychological Association on prevention as "exemplary" (Johnson, 1988).

Two years ago, I became the director of an extensive evaluation of a project similar to the PCDC. Avance, is a two-year parent education program in San Antonio, directed by Gloria Rodriquez, which also works with Mexican American families. As in the PCDC much emphasis is put on parent education, but it differs in that the second year is directed at helping mothers earn their high school equivalency credentials and in improving their vocational skills so they can move into better jobs.

Families of the Seriously Mentally Ill

My second introduction to the area of families was prompted by necessity. The oldest of our three children, a son, developed schizophrenia in 1972 when he was 19 years of age. Although he was a remarkably able child, we had become greatly concerned about his use of marijuana, LSD, and possibly PCP in high school, but he said he had quit drugs. He completed school near the top of his class, was elected vice president of a large student body, and went on to Harvard in 1971. My wife and I discovered that adequate treatment facilities were not available, with or without insurance, and as parents of a person with schizophrenia we were isolated by our son's mental health helpers. None of our son's various helpers ever invited us for an interview, we had to initiate conferences, and one psychiatrist accused us of having caused our son's mental illness.

This experience of living with schizophrenia has thrown me back into work with the seriously mentally ill and their families. Our family's experience with the mental health system, whether the system of private or public psychiatry, was shocking, appalling, and endlessly frustrating. Individual practitioners of all types tended to be caring, if lacking in skills, but the system was not designed for serious mental illness. We feared that our son was one more mentally ill person who would simply "fall through the cracks" and that he would spend his life in an institution, among the homeless, or perhaps at best isolated in a back room of our home. Not inclined to be passive, in 1980 we found other families who felt as we did and organized a group called Citizens for Human Development. We set out to change the system in Houston and Texas. Two years later we discovered that an organization called the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) had been formed in 1979 and we joined. I was elected to the NAMI board and served as vice- president[President in 1991]. Carmen is president of the Texas Alliance for the Mentally Ill. We have liked the fact that NAMI is made up of families, the clients themselves, and friends of the mentally ill. We also have supported NAMI's going beyond mutual support to education and advocacy. As an organization, it is as important to the mentally ill and their families as my grandfather's Nonpartisan League was to his fellow farmers. Both organizations were formed to change social systems that were not responsive to those who were involved in them.

Before long I was co-chair of NAMI's Curriculum and Training committee which is made up largely of mental health professionals who are also educators and who have some kind of family involvement with serious mental illness. The committee's purpose is to influence the way the mentally ill and their families are treated by professionals. Through writing books and journal articles, presenting grand rounds making presentations at conventions, consulting with accrediting groups, and doing workshops, it has had some success. As each state develops its own Curriculum and Training Committee there should be an even greater impact on how professionals work with the mentally ill and their families. My own contribution to this work has been in studying the experience of living with a mentally ill person on family members (Johnson, 1986; 1987; in press). In my own work and in reviewing the literature on the experience of living with mental illness I have found that families are indeed burdened. The experience is associated with such higher levels of anxiety, depression, and psychosocial dysfunction that these families must be considered as a population at risk. In addition, they are burdened economically. Families are bothered by positive symptoms such as hallucination, delusions, and disturbed thinking, but equally troubled by the negative symptoms, anhedonia and lack of motivation. Researchers have focused almost exclusively on parents of the mentally ill and other relatives who are also affected by living with mental illness, siblings, children of the mentally ill, and spouses, have been virtually neglected. Finally, it is clear that as the mentally ill person recovers, the experience of burden lightens.

The Curriculum and Training Committee has had some success in changing the views of professionals toward the mentally ill and their families. There is, however, much work to be done. Families of the mentally ill are still heavily burdened and too often abused. It is a task for researchers to find ways to relieve the burden and prevent abuse. It is also essential that we know more about the consequences of living with mental illness for all family members including such understudied groups as siblings, adult children of the mentally ill, and spouses. There are other questions for research: What is the role of the family in treating mental illness? How can professionals best work with families? Why do families give up and why don't they give up? What are the cultural variations in family experience?

Common Features

These two lines of work with families are less distinct than they may seem. They have in common that each group has been underserved and each presents serious service delivery problems. Furthermore, interventions for each often have been inappropriate and families have been derogated and depreciated. Finally, successful ways of intervening could not be developed until certain problems had been solved.

Families of both types have told professionals that what they want is information, access to resources, instruction on how to help their family member, training in how to cope with stress, and the respect of professionals who help them. They have rejected the idea that they are deficient as family providers (the once popular idea that low income families are culturally deficient is repugnant), or that their lives are pathological (families of the mentally ill do not agree that mental illness is a product of pathological family interactions). These families have not asked for therapy for their family problems. Their goals are to help their children to do well in school and take a solid place in society and to overcome the handicaps of poverty and social discrimination (low income families) or mental illness and stigma (families of the mentally ill).

My involvement with these two lines of interest undoubtedly reflects my own values and beliefs and these are more apparent retrospectively than they were prior to the actions taken. These include being against interpretation and for description, being against controlling families and for offering them opportunities, and being against deciding for families and for working with them to make decisions that are grounded in their own best interests as they perceive them to be.

As an professor I teach a graduate course on working with the families of the mentally ill. After several sessions in reviewing pertinent literature and moving toward an understanding of the community context of providing services for the mentally ill we work together with families at St. Joseph Hospital.

Directions for the Field

Interest in the family seems to be increasing. Schorr (1988) has pointed out that the American family with high rates of marital splits, large numbers of adolescent pregnancies, disruptive effects of drugs and alcohol, and often living in abject poverty is in great trouble, and that the consequences for children are deplorable. Furthermore, she points out in the title of her book that solutions are Within our reach, that is, we already know how to alleviate many of these problems.

Applied psychology has turned away from its preoccupation with the treatment of symptoms arising from early repressed conflicts and turned toward what is called cognitive-behavioral psychology with its here-and-now orientation, concern with thoughts, and emphasis on action. Because so much of this new direction is based soundly on research, and the effectiveness of interventions that have emerged has been demonstrated, it can be expected to continue. The general line of theory and application can also be expected to have an effect on research on family interventions.

Psychologists seem to be increasingly aware of the need to work with environments, not just individuals. This concern has been articulated by such developmental psychologists as Bronfenbrenner (1979) and Garbarino (1982), but clinicians have been slow to grasp the implications of an ecological approach. Of course, there are exceptions as in the work of Lusterman (1988). Briefly, in working with families the first step is to analyze the life circumstances, the situation, or context of individual families, identify the major problems, describe the resources that are available, and find the blocks to attaining individual and family goals. Essential in this process is that the professional pay close attention to what family members want for themselves and for others in their family. It is also essential that attention be given to what the family needs to reach their goals. In this assessment, the professional should place heavy emphasis on research-based knowledge. Then, the family's stated wants and the professional's assessment of needs are examined together for coherence and compatibility. The process of blending these two sources of information is an interactive, or transactive, one, with each being modified and amplified by the other. The process requires a true collaborative interaction between the family members and the professionals in designing services that are mutually satisfactory. In the past this process has been neglected in favor of the authority of the professionals, and families have suffered mistreatment and neglect.

For families of poverty, the PCDC model was developed on the basis of this interaction of family wants and research-based definitions of needs, and the result has been encouraging. Avance is a newer application of this method, and goes an important step further in taking into account the importance of the parent's development not just as a parent, but as persons in their own right.

For families of the mentally ill, the question of needs has been answered, at least in part, by an interesting series of studies on interventions with families. The work of Leff and Vaughn (1981) in England, Falloon, Boyd and McGill (1984) in southern California, and Anderson, Reiss, and Hogarty (1986) in Pittsburgh has demonstrated that the relapse rate for persons with schizophrenia can be reduced from about 40% with medication and supportive care in the nine months following hospitalization to about 10% in the same period of time with family management training, medication, and supportive care. These are highly significant effects. These new family programs stand in contrast to the conventional systemic or strategic family therapy which has been proclaimed the therapy of choice for schizophrenics and their families for years (Haley, 1987), but for which there is still no evidence of effectiveness (Terkelsen, 1983).

The new family psychoeducational or family management programs will probably be extended to other clinical areas. In a sense, this has already happened in working with children with attention deficit disorders and their families (Barkley, 1981). Other likely problem areas are affective disorders, borderline personality disorders, substance abuse, and child abuse. It seems likely that as the new family methods are evaluated, their effectiveness will encourage widespread adoption. In time, they may be regarded as the first choice for interventions with more traditional psychotherapies, including family therapy, being reserved for special problems.

It seems to me that psychologists cannot accept the notion that empirical research on family intervention procedures is not possible. Of course, all problems that can be posed cannot be dealt with through empirical research procedures. Phenomenologists know that. But one can recast problems, remember the original request for help or family goals, and carry out research on how effective procedures are in reaching these goals. This has been done by the Parent-Child Development Center researchers (Andrews et al, 1984) and by the family management program researchers mentioned above. Unvalidated claims such as those made by Haley (1987) are unacceptable.

Plans

Completion of a book on the Houston Parent-Child Development Center is long overdue and has high priority among my plans. Next I want to do a book on psychosocial rehabilitation for families and professionals. Other writing plans are farther down the line.

The opportunity to evaluate the Avance program has made it possible to take advantage of developments in knowledge about family environments since the PCDC evaluation was designed. In particular, I now think it is imperative that the affective characteristics of the child's family environment be considered, and this aspect has been included in our current work. Undoubtedly, my work will continue to play on the environment/person interaction. I will also continue to develop service delivery methods and in doing this work to reframe how one thinks about families that give us professionals difficulty. My inclination is that we shouldn't think of "resistant families," but think of ineffective delivery systems or of not being aware of what families understand that they want and need. The reframing process rests on a foundation of respect for the family.

Summary

The two major family projects with which I have been involved for the past twenty years, work with families of poverty through the Houston Parent-Child Development Center and Avance and families of the seriously mentally ill, appear rather different, but, as shown above, actually have much in common. Most of my research has been with families as makers and managers of environments for the development of family members.

It is clear to me that one must work with families, recognizing their special circumstances, and being guided by what they want at least as much as what we professionals believe they need. The autonomous, self-generative aspects of the family must have priority and should be fostered. As we know from the research of Bandura (1982), Seligman (1975) and others, a sense of self-efficacy is vital for the development of self-esteem and the ability to function without burdening depression. My concern has been that families of poverty and of the seriously mentally ill are already burdened by forces to a great extent beyond their control. As a researcher and practitioner I would like to find ways to lighten these burdens and develop family strengths to cope better with those remaining.

References

Anderson, C. M., Reiss, D. J., & Hogarty, G. E. (1986). Schizophrenia in the family: A practitioner's guide to psychoeducation and management. New York: Guilford.

Andrews, S. R., Blumenthal, J. B., Johnson, D. L., Kahn, A. J., Ferguson, C. J., Lasater, T. M., Malone, P. E., & Wallace, D. B. (1982). The skills of mothering: A study of Parent Child Development Centers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 47,(6, Serial No. 198).

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Barker, R. G., & Gump, P. V. (1964). Big school, small school: High school size and student behavior. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Barker, R. G., Meyerson, L., Wright, B. A., & Gonick, M. R. (1953). Adjustment to physical handicap and illness (2nd ed.). New York: Social Science Research Council Bulletin Series.

Barkley, R. A.(1981). Hyperactive children: A handbook for diagnosis amd treatment. New York: Guilford.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carlson, R. M., Johnson, D. L., & Hanson, P. G. (1981). Social sensitivity and self-awareness in group psychotherapy. Small Group Behavior, 12, 183-194.

Des Lauriers, A. M. (1962). The experience of reality in childhood schizophrenia. New York: International Universities Press.

Falloon, I. R. H., Boyd, J. L., & McGill, C. W. (1984). Family care of schizophrenia: A problem-solving approach to the treatment of mental illness. New York: Guilford.

Garbarino, J. (1982). Children and families in the social environment. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Goldstein, K. (1939). The organism. New York: American Book Company.

Haley, J. (1987). Schizophrenics deserve family therapy, not dangerous drugs and management. Family Therapy News, December.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Johnson, D. L. (1975). The development of a program for parent-child education among Mexican-Americans in Texas. In B. Z. Friedlander, G. M. Sterritt, & G. E. Kirk (Eds.). Exceptional Infant. Vol. 3 (pp. 374-398). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Johnson, D. L. (1984). The needs of the chronically mentally ill: As seen by the consumer. In M. Mirabi (Ed.) The chronically mentally ill: Research and services. New York: SP Medical and Scientific Books.

Johnson, D. L. (1987). Effective primary prevention of behavior problems in Mexican American children. In R. Rodriquez & M.T.Coleman (Eds.) Mental health issues of the Mexican origin population in Texas. Austin: Hogg Foundation.

Johnson, D. L. (1987). Professional family collaboration. In A. Hatfield (Ed.) Families of the mentally ill: Meeting the challenges. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Johnson, D. L. (In press). The family's experience of living with mental illness. In H. Lefley & D.L.Johnson (Eds.) Mental health professionals and families of the mentally ill. Washington: American Psychiatric Association Press.

Johnson, D. L. (1988). Primary prevention of behavior problems in young children: The Houston Parent-Child Development Center.In R. H. Price, E. L Cowen, R. P. Lorion, & J. Ramos-McKay (Eds.) 14 ounces of prevention: A casebook for practitioners. Washington: American Psychological Association Press.

Johnson, D. L., Hanson, P. G., Rothaus, P., Morton, R. B., & Lyle, F. A. (1965). Human relations training for psychiatric patients: A follow-up study. Journal of Social Psychiatry, 11, 188-196.

Johnson, D. L., & Johnson, C. A. (1965). Totally discouraged: Depressive syndrome of the Dakota Sioux. Transcultural Psychiatric Research, 2, 141-143.

Johnson, D. L., & Breckenridge, J. N. (1982). The Houston Parent-Child Development Center and the primary prevention of behavior problems in young children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10, 305-316.

Johnson, D. L., Teigen, K., & Davila, R. (1983). Anxiety and social restriction as experienced by children in Mexico, Norway and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 439-454.

Johnson, D. L., & Walker, T. (1986, April). A follow-up evaluation of the Houston Parent-Child Development Center: School performance. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Johnson, D. L., & Walker, T. (1987). The primary prevention of behavior problems in Mexican-American children. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15, 375-385.

Johnson, D. L., & Walker, T. 1986, April). A follow-up evaluation of the Houston Parent-Child Development Center: School performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.

Kaplan, B., & Johnson, D. L. (1964). The social meaning of Navaho psychopathology and psychotherapy. In A. Kiev (Ed.) Magic, faith and healing (pp. 203-229). New York: Free Press.

Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Kohler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liverwright.

Leff, J. P., & Vaughn, C. E. (1981). The role of maintenance therapy and relatives' expressed emotion in relapse of schizophrenia: A two-year follow-up. British Journal of Psychiatry, 139, 102-104.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social sciences. New York: Harper.

Lewis, S. (1925). Arrowsmith. New York: Harcourt.

Lusterman, D.-D. (1988). Family therapy and schools: An ecosystemic approach. Family therapy today, 3, (7), 1-3.

Nuttin, J. (1953). Psychoanalysis and personality. New York: Sheed & Ward.

Piaget, J. (1953). The moral judgment of the child. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.

Rothaus, P., Morton, R. B., Johnson, D. L., Cleveland, S. E., & Lyle, F. A. (1963). Human relations training for psychiatric patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 8, 572-581.

Sartre, J. P. (1956). Being and nothingness. New York: Philosophical Library.

Scheerer, M. (1954). Cognitive theory. In G. Lindzey (Ed.) Handbook of social psychology (pp. 91-143). New York: Addison-Wesley.

Schorr, L. (1988). Within our reach: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage. New York: Doubleday.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development and death. San Francisco: Freeman.

Terkelsen, K. G. (1983). Schizophrenia and the family: Adverse effects of family therapy. Family Process, 22, 191-201.

Werner, H. (1948). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York: International Universities Press.

Wertheimer, K. (1945). Productive thinking. New York: Harper.