According to systems theory, in the Laura and Mike scenario, which statement is true?

• A. This pattern would exist regardless of topic and should be broken
• B. The pattern is topic-specific
• C. The pattern is caused by finances
• D. The pattern will resolve itself without intervention

Answer: (A)

In systems theory, patterns of interaction are seen as features of the whole family system that show up across different topics, not just one issue. So, if Laura and Mike have a recurring way of relating—like escalating arguments, withdrawal, or blaming—that pattern tends to appear regardless of what they’re discussing. The goal is to disrupt or “break” that pattern and reconfigure how they interact, which can improve functioning across various topics.

That’s why this statement fits best: the pattern would exist regardless of topic and should be broken. The other options don’t align with systems thinking. If the pattern were topic-specific, it wouldn’t reflect the systemic nature of their interactions. If finances were the sole cause, it would point to a single external factor rather than a recurring interaction pattern. And expecting the pattern to resolve itself without intervention ignores the need to actively alter communication and boundary dynamics within the family system.