Social Systems Researchers View the Family as a

Contents - Previous - Adjacent

---

This is the erstwhile United nations University website. Visit the new site at http://unu.edu

---

The family from a child development perspective

Theories of kid development, which approach the family from the child perspective, include concerns with nature versus nurture, the flexibility or plasticity of the child at different ages to being moulded by the family, and the relative permanence of family unit influences (Kreppner and Lerner 1989). The development of the kid is viewed as post-obit a probabilistic epigenetic form - co-ordinate to which, biology remains a prime mover simply the developmental results depend on reciprocal interaction between biology and the social context, and hence on the probability that biological sensitive points in the kid and the social and environmental resource of the family will come together to produce certain outcomes (Lerner 1989).

This approach to the family elaborates theories regarding family factors every bit determinants of kid outcome that have been useful in the pattern of such social interventions equally the Head Start Program, later championed by Lerner. It includes the investigation of psychological resilience, or why some children thrive in adverse circumstances. Exploration of family effects ofttimes is reduced to the examination of dyadic parent-child interactions, commonly focusing on the female parent-child dyed, with footling attending to family dynamics.

The Bronfenbrenner model

Bronfenbrenner (1979) placed child evolution in an ecological perspective. His ground-breaking work combined aspects of folklore and developmental psychology and laid an enduring foundation for hereafter approaches. The relationships between individuals and their environments are viewed as "mutually shaping." Brofenbrenner saw the private'southward feel "every bit a set of nested structures, each within the next, like a set of Russian dolls" (Bronfenbrenner 1979, 22). In studying human development, one has to see within, beyond, and "across" how the several systems collaborate (family, workplace, and economy). The study of the power of families to access and manage resource across these systems would appear to be a logical extension of his investigations. His four interlocking systems that shape individual development are as follows:

1. The micro-organisation. At this level the family enters Bronfenbrenner's framework, just only in terms of its interpersonal interactions with the kid. It is the level within which a kid experiences immediate interactions with other people. At the start, the micro-organisation is the habitation, involving interactions with only 1 or two people in the family unit ("dyadic" or "triadic" interaction). As the kid ages, the microsystem is more complex, involving more people - such as in a child-care eye or preschool. Bronfenbrenner noted that every bit long as increased numbers in a child'southward micro-system mean more enduring reciprocal relationships, increasing the size of the system will heighten child development.

ii. The meso-system. Meso-systems are the interrelationships among settings (i.e. the abode, a day-care centre, and the schools). The stronger and more diverse the links amid settings, the more than powerful an influence the resulting systems will exist on the child'due south development. In these interrelationships, the initiatives of the child, and the parents' involvement in linking the domicile and the school, play roles in determining the quality of the child's meso-system.

3. The exo-organization. The quality of interrelationships among settings is influenced by forces in which the child does not participate, but which take a direct begetting on parents and other adults who collaborate with the child. These may include the parental workplace, school boards, social service agencies, and planning commissions.

4. The macro-arrangement. Macro-systems are "blueprints" for interlocking social forces at the macro-level and their interrelationships in shaping human being evolution. They provide the broad ideological and organizational patterns within which the meso- and exo-systems reverberate the ecology of human development. Macro-systems are not static, but might change through evolution and revolution. For example, economic recession, war, and technological changes may produce such changes.

Bronfenbrenner's conceptual framework proved a useful starting bespeak for multivariate systems inquiry in which family considerations became secondary to the blueprint of institution-based social programmes focusing on children.

The Belsky process model

Belsky (1984) pioneered theories of the processes of competent parental functioning. His model focused on factors affecting parental behaviour and how such factors touch on child-rearing, which in plough influences child development. At the family unit level, Belsky'southward interest, like Bronfenbrenner'south, is primarily on interpersonal interactions betwixt parent and child. Developed to explain the causes of child corruption and neglect,

The model presumes that parenting is directly influenced by forces emanating from within the individual parent (personality), within the individual child (kid characteristics of individuality), and from the broader social context in which the parent-child relationship is embedded. Specifically, marital relations, social networks, and jobs influence individual personality and general psychological well-beingness of parents and, thereby, parental operation and, in plow, child development. (Belsky 1984, 84)

Through an intensive literature search, Belsky drew the following conclusions regarding the determinants of parenting (Belsky 1984, 84)

(1) parenting is multiply determined by characteristics of the parent, of the child, and of contextual subsystems of social back up; (2) these three determinants are not equally influential in supporting or undermining parenting; and (3) developmental history and personality shape parenting indirectly, by first influencing the broader context in which parent-child relations exist (i.due east., marital relations, social networks, occupational experience).

Belsky found that parental personality and psychological wellbeing were the most influential of the determinants in supporting parental functioning. When two of three determinants are in the stressful state of affairs, he stated that parental operation is most protected when parental personality and psychological well-beingness still role to promote sensitive caring. In other words, optimal parenting withal occurs even when the personal psychological resource of parents are the just determinant remaining in positive mode.

The influence of contextual subsystems of social support is greater than the influence of child characteristics on parental performance. On the basis of his review of the literature, Belsky determined that risk characteristics in the child are relatively easy to overcome, given that either one of the other two determinants is non at run a risk.

The Belsky procedure model does non specifically ascertain the child's developmental outcome (Belsky defined it as competent offspring, without whatever farther explanation). No special attending is given to the importance of the family's fabric resource, while the family unit'south social resources are conceptualized impersonally equally the contextual subsystem of support. Belsky'due south piece of work is most useful in exonerating the child of blame for poor outcomes. Arraign, even so, might seem to shift to the parent, as parental personality is viewed as a relatively transcendent or intrinsic and immutable feature.

Table iv.3 Characteristics of developmentally stimulating environments

one. The optimal development of a immature child requires an environment ensuring gratification of all bones physical needs and careful provisions for health and safe.

2. The evolution of a immature child is fostered by the following:

(a) a relatively high frequency of adult contact involving a relatively small number of adults;

(b) a positive emotional climate in which the child learns to trust others and himself;

(c) an optimal level of need gratification;

(d) the provision of varied and patterned sensory input in an intensity range that does not overload the child's chapters to receive, classify, and answer;

(due east) people who answer physically, verbally, and emotionally with sufficient consistency and clarity to provide uses as to appropriate and valued behaviours and to reinforce such behaviours when they occur;

(f) an environment containing a minimum of social restrictions on exploratory and motor behaviour;

(g) careful organization of the physical and temporal surround that permits expectancies of objects and events to be confirmed or revised;

(h) the provision of rich and varied cultural experiences rendered interpretable past consistent persons with whom the experiences are shared;

(i) the availability of play materials that facilitate the coordination of sensorimotor processes and a play environment permitting their utilization;

(j) contact with adults who value achievement and who endeavor to generate in the child secondary motivational systems related to achievement;

(thousand) the cumulative programming of experiences that provide an advisable friction match for the kid'southward current level of cognitive, social, and emotional organization.

Source: Caldwell and Bradley (1984).

The Caldwell Dwelling house inventory

Caldwell and Bradley (1984) take an operational arroyo to defining the list of dwelling house, ecology, parental, and family characteristics needed to foster the development of the child (table 4.3). While consequent with Belsky's concept of the importance of parental personality, this arroyo operationalizes a set of propensities to collaborate behaviourally with the child in ways that are, or are non, conducive to the child's development. Information technology then focuses on assessing and intervening on these behaviours and on the contextual back up subsystem rather than on the personalities that produce them. Studies linking the HOME to cerebral development have been conducted (Caldwell and Bradley 1984). The two HOME assessment checklists for children, aged 0-three years, and 3-6 years, provide the behavioural variables used in our models. These bank check-list items, on the 0-3-yr scale, are combined into subscales, derived from factor analysis of data from the Usa reference population, measuring emotional and verbal responsivity, acceptance of the child's behaviour, organization of the environment, provision of play materials, parental interest with the child, and opportunities for multifariousness.

The Caldwell Dwelling inventory has proven a very useful enquiry tool, only should be viewed every bit a starting signal for more than culturally appropriate measures in each developing land setting. A modification of the Caldwell Abode inventory, forth with other culturally appropriate items adamant by rapid appraisement and preliminary qualitative research, could be used with factor analysis to identify the relevant factors. As an instance, in analysing Caldwell HOME inventory data from Indonesia and Nigeria, we discovered that neither the Indonesian nor the Nigerian Domicile information yielded an "acceptance" factor similar to the American data during factor analysis. Moreover, in these cultures the variables in the acceptance subscale seemed more indicative of parental neglect than of positive parenting (Satoto and Zeitlin 1990; Aina et al. 1992). By contrast, factor analysis on the Indonesian 0-3-yr-quondam check-list identified a "community socialization" factor that was apparently not present in the US sample. These analyses sensitized us to the value placed by American culture on "acceptance" of what was viewed to be the child'due south emerging autonomy, and the fact that our two other cultures did not value autonomy similarly.

Resilience and positive deviance research

Belsky's conclusions regarding the primal importance of parental personality/caregiving behaviours for children are supported by research on psychological resilience and positive deviance. Zeitlin, Ghassemi, and Mansour (1990), reviewing and conducting cantankerous-cultural studies in developing countries on good physical growth and (in fewer studies) good cerebral test performance in the presence of poverty, concluded that children with the most favourable outcomes tend to live in cohesive, supportive, wellspaced, two-parent families, without major pathologies.

These findings dissimilarity with studies from the The states that controlled for socio-economic status (Cashion 1982), showing that children in female-headed households have proficient emotional adjustment, if they are protected from stigma, and expert intellectual development comparable to that of other children in studies. In fact, child outcomes were better in a low-conflict, single-parent household than in a high-conflict, nuclear family (Clingempeel and Reppucci 1982). Parents of children who are positive deviants typically have superior mental wellness, life satisfaction related to the kid, greater upward mobility and initiative, and more efficient use of health, family planning, and educational services. They display favourable behaviours towards their children, such as rewarding achievement; giving clear instructions; frequent appreciating physical contact; and consistent, sensitive, and patiently sustained responsiveness to the children's needs (Zeitlin, Ghassemi, and Mansour 1990).

This research provides further empirical evidence for Belsky'due south determination that the psychological resources of the parents are particularly important in impoverished settings, where the support context and the child's own condition may be fragile or in a negative land.

The family both as an entity in itself and as the producer of developmental and welfare outcomes of its members

Perspectives on the family unit both as an entity and as a producer of developmental outcomes of its members (Kreppner and Lerner 1989) draw it as a social context or "climate" facilitating the individual'southward entry into other social contexts and every bit an environmental cistron containing both genetically shared and not-shared components for the developing individual. Inquiry in this area investigates the interplay betwixt sensitive periods in individual development and family evolution - e.k. the nascency of a child leading to changes in family relationships and structure that in plow affect the kid (Kreppner and Lerner 1989). The family is seen equally a dynamic context in which the kid is both transformer and transformed.

The Schneewind model

Schneewind (1989) provides a psychological model of the family and its furnishings on children that is supported past empirical work, using an extensive field study of 570 West German families with children aged 9-14 years. The model, which Schneewind called "an integrative research model for studying the family system," is the only one we found that deals quantitatively with the family itself as a system every bit well every bit with measurable kid outcomes that depend on the family system, and that clearly specifies causal relationships betwixt factors. Using this model, Schneewind tried to understand how and to what extent the "extrafamilial world" is associated with the "intrafamilial globe" in the processes of socialization inside the family.

A general conceptual framework of the model can be seen in figure 4.6. Socio-economical and demographic variables are used as contextual variables reflecting the spatial and social organization, and social inequality. These variables represent the family's eco-context for further use. This eco-context is a potential source of stimulating agents that can be used past parents in performing their parental functioning. This potential source is transformed into the bodily experience field of both parents and children. The process of transforming the potential into the bodily is called the "inner-family unit socialization action."

The inner-family unit socialization activity is divided into three parts:

one. The family system level, or the family climate that measures the overall quality of interpersonal relationships within the family;

2. The spouse subsystem level, or the marital human relationship;

iii. The parent-child subsystem level, or the educational style in dicated past parental behaviours and attitudes or authoritarianism.

The family organization/climate variables were based on gene analysis of the variables shown in table 4.iv, which loaded on 3 factors referred to every bit positive emotional family climate, stimulating family climate, and normativeauthoritarian family climate. Nosotros present these variables in particular because their measurement illustrates one approach that could be pursued to identify the component parts contributing to the family decision-making/direction capabilities and to the contextual and resources variables contributing to family coping that nosotros ultimately seek to define.

Schneewind'due south applied structural causal modelling used latent variables for hypothesis testing and formulation. His model, which served every bit a guide for our own, and its variables are shown in figure four.seven and table 4.5. This type of modelling, sometimes known by the name LISREL (J�reskog and Southward�rbom 1989), constructs abstract underlying (latent) variables using factor analysis and relates these to measured outcomes. The data supporting the causal model linked extrafamilial (measured past socio-economic status [SES], urban or rural location, and job experience) and intrafamilial variables (measured by family climate, and personal traits of the begetter and the son). The expressive family climate cistron (measured by loftier degree of mutual control, intellectual/cultural orientation, active-recreational orientation, and independence) appeared to exist an of import mediating factor in the child event variable, which was the social adjustment of the son (termed "extraverted temperament"). In another model in the aforementioned paper, he demonstrated that low socio-economic eco-context and rigid unstimulating job conditions of the father were associated with an authoritarian parenting style that produced sons with inferiority feelings and weakly internalized locus of control.

Fig. iv.6 An integrative enquiry model for studying family systems in context (source: Schneewind 1989)

Table 4.4 Subscales of the family environment scale

Type of dimension	Dimension	Description
Relationship	1. Cohesion	The degree of commitment, help, and support family unit members provide for one another
	2. Expressiveness	The extent to which family unit members are encouraged to act openly and to express their feelings straight
	3. Conflict	The amount of openly expressed anger, aggression, and disharmonize among family members
Personal growth	4. Independence	The extent to which family members are assertive, are self-sufficient, and brand their own decisions
	five. Achievement orientation	The extent to which activities (such as school and work) are cast into an achievement-orientated or competitive framework
	6. Intellectual-cultural orientation	The degree of interest in political, social, intellectual, and cultural activities
	7. Active-recreational orientation	The extent of participation in social and recreational activities
	8. Moral-religious emphasis	The degree of accent on ethical and religious problems and values
System maintenance	9. Organisation	The degree of importance of clear organization and structure in planning family activities and responsibilities
	ten. Control	The extent to which fix rules and procedures are used to run family life

Source: Schneewind (1989), after Moos and Moos (1981).

Schneewind found that at the same level of family unit eco-context are critical differences in the inner-family socialization activeness. He concluded that "the psychological makeup of family life ... has an of import influence on how a family's potential eco-context is actually utilized." This is similar to Belsky's conclusion that personality and the psychological well-being of the parents accept the greatest influence on parental functioning.

Fig. 4.vii Antecedents and consequences of the family unit's social network (source: Schneewind 1989)

---

Contents - Previous - Side by side

walshabachis.blogspot.com

Source: https://archive.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/uu13se/uu13se06.htm

Share this post