Cognitive Content Of The “Family” Concept In Youth

Abstract

The main goal of the research was to study the semantic and cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept and the determination of its differential, classificatory, and category-bases cognitive signs through the content analysis of theoretic and empiric material. The research methodology was based on the content analysis and statistics. 105 publications by 184 authors were analysed. 999 persons (whose average age was 27 years) participated in the empiric study. The frequency analysis of the occurrence of signs/indices (213 in total with the total frequency of occurrence of 6798) allowed characterizing the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept. At the stage of categorization, the theoretical analysis units were formed into different categories, which were verified empirically and became the conceptual framework of research. The study of the particularities of the manifestation of signs/indices (stability/instability, distinct manifestation, and intensity) and interrelation between the categories conditioned system-based representation of the concept content. The frequency-and-hierarchy-based manifestation of the categories in their interrelation and the statistical analysis of the results (distribution, ranking, and Fischer angular transformation) allowed determining the level blocks of the categories of the ‘family’ concept. The main level block includes indices, which characterize the interaction between the members of the family and their interaction with their relatives, uniting bases (systemic factors) and the welfare of the family. It has been found that the most pronounced characteristics in the description of the family are the characteristics of positive and empathic feelings in the family.

Keywords: Concept “Family”young peoplecontent analysis

Introduction

In modern society, the family undergoes substantial modifications, both structural, and functional ones. First, the modern family is very often the implementation of different variations of marital relations, one of which (prevailing one) is cohabitation (common-law marriage) as a form of non-registered relations. Modern young people regard such relations as trial and less demanding ones, which is coherent with the opinion of age-specialized psychologists regarding the tendency of modern young people to infantilization. Secondly, at the present day young people more often are not ready for marriage and for the performance of the roles of man and woman, as well as the role of parents. Thirdly, the active transformation of the social roles of men and women is taking place: women are striving to manifest themselves more actively, and men, on the contrary, have begun choosing more often a more passive role in their family life.

Problem Statement

The mentioned transformations lead to serious consequences: families more often have different problems and family disadvantages affecting not only all members of the family, but also the society and the state in large (Golubeva, Istratova, Kibal’chenko, & Eksakusto, 2015; Bedford & Avioli, 2012; Carr & Springer, 2010). Problems of the reproductive, educational, household, and economic spheres of the family, as well as the sphere of emotional relations and relations with friends and relatives arise. Besides, different family functions, such as social functions (socialization of the younger generation, accountability and obligations to a spouse, children and parents, social and sexual control, etc.), and individual functions (satisfaction of parental needs, needs for ensuring psychological defence and emotional support, satisfaction of the need of individual happiness, love, etc.) are deformed. Such a situation is indicative of the change of cognitive constructs related to the family and family relations, which emphasizes the importance of the study of the semantic and cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept in young people.

In the course of the theoretical analysis, several key definitions of the ‘family’ concept were found (Drujinin, 2011; Umberson, Thomeer, & Williams, 2013). The family was defined as a social community, as a small group, as a group of close relatives, and as a social-and-pedagogic group of people formed for the optimal satisfaction of the need of self-preservation and self-fulfilment. It is important to notice that in most cases the family concept is considered from the perspective of two approaches consisting in considering the family as a small group and as an institute of socialization.

In case of considering the family as a specific small group, its distinctive feature is the system of interpersonal relations, which is governed by moral rules, moral standards, traditions, and values. The family as an institute of socialization is considered in the context of a stable form of the arrangement of joint activity of people performing certain functions in the society, the most important one of which is the satisfaction of social needs. In other words, the family is a specific social institute, which is characterized by three main types of family relations, which are marital cohabitation, parenthood, and kinship, and which governs interpersonal relations between spouses, parents, children, and other relatives (Malkina-Pyh, 2008).

The theoretical analysis has also shown the existence of different indices determining the family as a social unit. The mentioned indices are marital or blood kin relations between its members; mental, spiritual and emotional kinship of its members; space and time limitation; closeness and interpersonal intimacy; duration of relations, responsibility for each other, obligation to each other, etc. (Istratova, 2015; Lee & Szinovacz, 2016).

It is necessary to point out that with increase of the number of aspects of the family study the number of its signs also increases, which, on the one hand, allows determining their specific features more precisely, and on the other hand, makes it necessary to review the existing classifications of families and their characteristics. Besides, poor structuredness of the characteristics and predictors of the modern family is observed, which is conditioned by the introduction of new norms, values, and senses into the family and family relations in the modern period.

Research Questions

The multidimensionality of the family concept, the multiplicity of approaches to comprehending and defining the concept, as well as to the existing transformations of its content, structure, links, relations, and functions raise the following questions: Which of the peculiarities (specific features) form the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept in the current generation? Which elements of the content provide strengthening and preserving real family relations (or destroy such relations) and assure the continuity of generations? These issues conditioned carrying out the semantic-and-cognitive content-analysis of the ‘family’ concept based on scientific publications and empiric data.

Purpose of the Study

Please replace this text with context of your paper. The research hypothesis was as follows: in the process of the content-analysis of publications concerning the family and in the semantic-and-cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept (in young people) new tendencies and specific features are to be detected. The main goals determined the research course were as follows:

• carrying out the content-analysis of the semantic and cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept on the basis of complete texts and fragments of publications concerning the family;

• determining signs/indices of the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept empirically;

• verification of assumptions made through statistical data analysis.

Research Methods

The main method of the research was the method of content-analytical study. It was used for the purpose of studying the semantic and cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept and determining its differential, classificatory, and category-based cognitive signs. The deductive analysis was selected from two main types of the content qualitative-quantitative analysis of the content for the purposes of testing the hypotheses made (Kibal’chenko, 2009). The research comprised of two stages.

Findings

Conclusion

Carrying out the semantic and cognitive content analysis of the ‘family’ concept has allowed determining indices reflecting functions, problems, and development predictors as the signs of the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept and hierarchically significant categories representing the system of cognitive content of that concept. The system is an invariant of the structure as relatively stable unity of the components and their interrelations.

The content analysis of the theoretical constructs of the ‘family’ concept has demonstrated the predominance of definitions showing at the group organization of the family, people’s community, or a group of relatives performing certain biological, social and psychological functions. The main groups of problems related to family functioning have been determined. The mentioned problems are pedagogical, psychological, economical, and social problems. Eleven categories of the family cognitive signs have been determined (general information, the family concept definition, its dynamics, structure, functions, problems, coherence, interaction and cooperation between the members of the family, etc.), which have served the basis for further empirical analysis.

The empirical analysis of the ‘family’ concept has shown that all the categories of signs are distributed according to the levels (depending on the indices manifestation frequency). The content of the first level (high frequency of the categories manifestation (occurrence) includes the cooperation of the members of the family and their interaction or cooperation with relatives, the integrity of such cooperation, systemically important factors, and family welfare, which is substantiated by the ‘development formula’ based on the experience of the family and its reflection, choice of values, way of interaction, ability of deriving sense from the experience of interpersonal relations.

The most frequently occurring (manifested) family indices are positive and empathic feelings uniting the family, favourable interpersonal relations manifested against the background of material welfare and economic stability. They represent a significant block of young people’s information base becoming actual in the process of work with the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept. Manifested signs reflecting the value-based contribution of the family to the development of a per-son and to peaceful and conflict-free coexistence against the background of high significance of the intellectual resource of the family are significant for the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept.

A range of signs intercrossing the key characteristics of the family, such as social community, group, or collective has been found to be unstably manifested and rarely occurring, which is indicative of the predominance of the ideology of individualism in young people’s comprehension of the family and family values.

It can be concluded that striking signs and manifested signs, as well as unstably manifested signs reflect new tendencies in the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept. The obtained results reflect the topicality of further study of the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept using factorization of the obtained results for detailing its component composition.

Discussions

During the study of the semantic and cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept, signs/indices having high total occurrence frequency have been detected. To our opinion, this is due to the fact that new norms, values, and senses are introduced into the content of the ‘family’ concept. These data conform to the results of certain researches (Barsukova & Chulanov, 2014; Istratova, 2015; Rean, 2015; Tihomirov, 2014; Schieman & Glavin, 2011) regarding the change of function-and-role-based, value-based, and standard-based traditions of the modern family. The multiplicity and high total frequency of the obtained indices also attest to the fact that the cognitive content of the ‘family’ concept can be the determinant of its category-based arrangement (organization) and vise versa.

It is important to notice that the detected category of non-classifiable indices in the description of the ‘family’ concept fall in the category with destructive specific features disrupting the concept integrity. Such a result makes it possible to state the fact of intellectual immaturity, cognitive simplicity, and impulsivity in information processing typical for quite a large part of young people taking part in the research. Indeed, as it is confirmed by a range of researches, certain infantilism, as well as personal and cognitive immaturity are typical for modern young people (Drujinin, 2011; Kholodnaya, 2019), which makes it difficult to create cognitive constructs and impoverishes the life meaningfulness.

The most interesting results regard the distribution of the occurrence frequency of indices. Tendency being indicative of the hierarchy of the most significant family values (in case of the pre-dominance of the ideology of individualism) has been detected. It can be expressed through the following sequence: interpersonal attraction, empathy, material welfare, stability, trust-based and conflict-free relations, and intellectual potential. It can be assumed that in the first instance modern young people want to see emotional support and close relationship in the family, which emphasizes their need of such contacts. Modern young people, who are very often fascinated by virtual contacts, social networks, and ‘remote’ relations (based on using modern gadgets) above measure, probably, feel emotional hunger for real, intimate, and trust-based relations. This assumption is proved by the results of different researches (Vagapova, 2014; Istratova, 2015; Medkova, 2003) and opens a prospect of further study of the content, structure, and peculiarities of the modern family.

Acknowledgments

The study was granted by the Russian Science Foundation (Project No 18-18-00386), The Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

References

1. Andreeva, T. V. (2014). Family Psychology. Saint-Petersburg: Piter, No. 3, 244 p.
2. Barsukova, S. V., & Chulanov, V. A. (2014). Transformation of gender family roles in the minds of modern students. Publ: Vestnik (Annals) of South-Russian State Polytechnic University, 4, 75-81.
3. Bedford, V. H., & Avioli, P. S. (2012). Siblings in Middle and Late Adulthood. In Handbook of Families and Aging (pp. 125–53), In R. Blieszner & V. H. Bedford (Eds.). Santa Barbara: Publ: Praegar.
4. Carr, D., & Springer, K. W. (2010). Advances in Families and Health Research in the 21st Century. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 743–61.
5. Cherdyntseva, E. V. (2013). Technologies of elementary school children parents’ psychological and pedagogical competence forming. Elementary school before and after, 4, 24-27.
6. Dekovic, M., Wissink, I. B., & Meijer, A. M. (2004). The role of family and peer relations in adolescent antisocial behaviour: comparison of four ethnic groups. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 497–514.
7. Drujinin, V. N. (2011). Family Psychology. Saint-Petersburg: Piter.
8. Eksakusto, T. V., & Cherednichenko, M. O. (2014). Peculiarities of value and career orientations of women with different gender identity. Humanitarian Scientific Research, No. 11.
9. Gilligan, M., Suitor, J. J., Nam, S., Routh, B., Rurka, M., & Con, G. (2017). Family Net-works and Psychological Well-Being in Midlife. Soc. Sci., 6(3), 94.
10. Golubeva, E. V., & Golubeva, I. V. (2015). Deformations in economic consciousness of children raised in orphanages. SAGE Open, 5(3).
11. Golubeva, E. V., Istratova, O. N., Kibal’chenko, I. A., & Eksakusto, T. V. (2015). Modern teen-agers development in case of family deprivation: Monograph. In O. N. Istratova (Ed.). Taganrog: Southern Federal University Publ.
12. Haritonov, A. N., & Timchenko, G. G. (2012). Families psychological support. Moscow: Military University.
13. Hellinger, B. (2013). The rules of love: how life and love leave together. Moscow: Genesis.
14. Kholodnaya, M. A. (2019). Intelligence Psychology. Research paradox: teaching guide for Bachelor and Magister’s degree students. 3rd edition (updated and revised). Moscow: Uright Publ.
15. Istratova, O. N. (2015). New tendencies in children and teenagers development in conditions of modern family crisis. Education. Science. Innovations: Southern dimension. Rostov-on-Don: Pedagogical Institute of Southern Federal University Publ., pp. 75-80.
16. Kibal’chenko, I. A. (2009). The results of scientific papers deductive and inductive content analyses for developing a notion of students’ learning and cognitive experience. Bulletin of Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Gertsen., No. 12(91), Psychological and Pedagogical Sciences (Psychology, Pedagogics, Theory and Methods of Teaching): Scientific Journal. Saint-Petersburg, pp. 78-85.
17. Lee, H. J., & Szinovacz, M. E. (2016). Positive, Negative, and Ambivalent In-teractions with Family and Friends: Associations with Well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78, 660–79.
18. Lopez, E. E., Perez, S. M., Ochoa, G. M., & Ruiz, D. M. (2008). Adolescent aggression: Effects of gender and family and school environments. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 433–450.
19. Malkina-Pyh, I. G. (2008). Family therapy. Moscow: Eksmo Publ.
20. Medkova, D. V. (2003). Family values as the objects of psychological analysis. Lomonosov Scientific Conference.
21. Migunova, K. A. (2015). Problems and prospects of Sociology development: problem families phenomenon in Russian Federation. Scientific almanac, 7(9), 1266-1268.
22. Minina, A. V. (2014). Modern parents being competent in bringing up self-consistency of preschool children. Pedagogics and Psychology, 1, 42.
23. Rean, A. A. (2015). Family, social attitudes, children, and teenagers’ dissocial behaviour. Russian Psychological Journal, 12(1), 29-40.
24. Firestone, R. W. (2018). Human Rights Violations in Personal Relationships Restrictions, manipulations, and power plays cause considerable harm. Posted May 04, 2018 https://www.psychalive.org/human-rights-violations-personal-relationships/
25. Rogers, C. (2012). Psychology of marital relations. Possible alternatives (Orig.: Becoming partners: Marriage and its Alternatives). Translated from English into Russian. Moscow: Progress Publ.
26. Schieman, S., & Glavin, P. (2011). Education and Work-Family Conflict: Explanations, Con-tingencies, and Mental Health Consequences. Social Forces, 89, 1341–62.
27. Suitor, J. J., Gilligan, M., & Pillemer, K. (2013). Continuity and Change in Mothers’ Favoritism toward Offspring in Adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75, 1229–47.
28. Tihomirov, D. A. (2014). The problem of abandonment in Russia: conditions and dynamics. Knowledge. Understanding. Skill. No. 1. №1. http://www.zpu-journal.ru/e-zpu/2014/1/Tikhomirov_SocialOrphanhood.
29. Tseluyko, V. M. (2006). Psychology of modern family: book for teachers and parents. Moscow: Humanitarian Publishing Centre VLADOS.
30. Umberson, D., Thomeer, M. B., & Williams, K. (2013). Family Status and Mental Health: Recent Advances and Future Directions. In Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health, 2nd ed. Edited by Carol S. Aneshensel, Jo C. Phelan and Alex Bierman. New York: Springer Publishing, pp. 405–431.
31. Vagapova, A. R. (2014). Social and psychological characteristics of married people interaction. Bulletin of Saratov University. New Series. Acmeology of Education. Psychology of Development. 3(1), 5-97.