Model Enhancing Thai Family Strength
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The main objectives of this study were to study the influence of psychological factors on family strength and to identify a model of family strength. The study subjects were randomly selected from 7 communities at Bangkean district, Bangkok. The total number was 448 persons either husbands or wives from the families. The data were obtained during July to November in 2005. The statistics were percent, mean, standard deviation and path analysis. The latter was performed to identify variables influencing family strength. The results supported that all causal factors could account for 41 percent of the variance of family strength (R2 = 0.41). The explanatory factors were described as follows. 1) Family stress had negative effect both directly and directly upon family strength through family mental health, family relationship and family communication. 2) Family mental health showed adverse effect on family strength via family relationship and family communication. 3) Family relationship was positively and directly associated with family strength. 4) Family communication showed positive effect both directly and directly upon family strength through family relationship. 5) Gender stereotyped was positively associated with family strength but employment roles showed both directly and indirectly effect on family strength via family relationship. 6) Informational support by the family was positively associated with family strength. The results from the model concerning factors influencing family strength showed that family communication was the most influential factor (R2 = 0.48)
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
J. Ross Eshleman. The Family. tenth edition. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. 2003.
Hamilton I. McCubbin and Anne I. Thompson. Family assessment inventories for research practice. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1991.
ทิพย์วัลย์ สุรินยา. ปัจจัยที่ส่งเสริมความเข้มแข็งของครอบครัวไทย. ภาควิชาจิตวิทยา คณะสังคมศาสตร์ มหาวิทยาลัยเกษตรศาสตร์.2549.
Taro Yamane. Statistics: An introductory analysis. Tokyo: Harper International Edition. 1973.
B. Strong, C. DeVault, and B. W. Sayad. The marriage and family experience. Australia: Wadsworth; 2001.
L.A. Baxter. A dialectical perspective on communication strategies in relationship development. In S. W. Duck (ed.), Handbook of personal relationship (pp. 257-273). New York: Wiley. 1988.
Anita L. Vangelisti . Handbook of family communication. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaun Associates, Publishers. 2004.
Kathleen M. Galvin and Bernard J. Brommel. Family Communication: Cohesion and change. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers. 1996.
Kathlan M. Calvin, Carma L. Bylund, and Bernard J. Brommel. Family Communication: Cohesion and Change. 6th. ed. Boston: Pearson Education Inc. 2004.
S. H. Schwartz, and W. Bilsky . Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extension and cross-cultural replications. J of Per and Social Psy. 1990; 58, 878-891.
J.K. DeGenova and G.C. Kitson. Identity relevance and disruption as predictors of psychological distress for widowed and divorce women. J of Mar and the Fam 1996;58, 983-997.
J. Sprey. Family dynamics: An essay on conflict and power. In M.B. Sussman, S.K. Steinmetz, and G.W. Peterson (eds.). Handbook of Marriage and the Family (2 nd. ed., pp. 667-685) New York: Plenum Press. 1999.
B. R. Plotnik. Introduction to psychology. New York: Random House Organization Stress. 1998.
S. Cohen, and T. A. Willis. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 1985; 98, 310-357.
S. Cobb. Social support and moderate of life stress. Psychosomatic Medicine. 1976; 83 :300-314.
A. S. Skolinck, and J. H. Skolinck. Family in transition. 8thed. New York: HarperCollins College Publiskers; 1994.