Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 31 – 35 PSIWORLD 2013 Family adaptability and cohesiveness evaluation scale III in Romania Cornelia Rada* "Francisc I. Rainer” Anthropology Institute of the Romanian Academy, 8 Avenue Eroii Sanitari, O.P. 35, C.P. 13, Sector 5, 050474, Bucharest, Romania Abstract The objectives of the study are a diagnosis of Romanian family using Family Adaptability and Cohesiveness Evaluation Scale III, and interviews. Mid-range and Balanced type families are the most frequent, the Chaotically Connected model being predominant. Families in the urban environment tend to lack somewhat in cohesion, showing increased flexibility. Out of the Mid-range type families, most of them are located in the urban environment. Circa half of those interviewed described the family with very high cohesion, very low flexibility and average to high communication; these were correlated with the marital (couple) satisfaction expressed in the interviews. © © 2014 2014 The The Authors. Authors.Published Publishedby byElsevier ElsevierLtd. Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection WORLDSociety 2013 and their Guest Editors: DrPsychology. Mihaela Chraif, Dr Cristian Selection and andpeer-review peer-reviewunder underresponsibility responsibilityofofPSI Romanian of Applied Experimental Vasile and Dr Mihai Anitei Keywords: Family, Couple, Adaptability, Cohesion, Communication, Circumplex Model, Gender, 1. Introduction One modality of conceptualizing the family is using the cohesion, flexibility and communication constructs, proposed by Olson as the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale III, (The FACES III), or the Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. The results of this scale should be regarded as a curvilinear * Corresponding author. Tel.: +4-072-882-4852. E-mail address: corneliarada@yahoo.com 1877-0428 © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Romanian Society of Applied Experimental Psychology. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.207 32 Cornelia Rada / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 31 – 35 model and that functional family models have moderate scores in cohesion and flexibility; very high scores, in the extremes, are indicative of dysfunctional families (Olson, 1991). Very high cohesion scores indicate a symbiosis between family members which, contrary to expectations – at least in the long term, is not exactly a good indicator of family functionality. Two trees with conjoined trunks will not develop very well in the contact areas. Very high flexibility indicate chaos. Other extensive studies have indicated a higher correlation between high scores and functional families (Green, Harris, Forte & Robinson, 1991). In the most recent version of family evaluation, FACES IV, flexibility is defined differently and there are three scales for the cohesion parameter: disengaged, balanced and enmeshed, and three scales for the flexibility parameter: rigid, balanced and chaotic (Olson, 2011). FACES III is useful for clinical evaluation, treatment, as well as to evaluate the efficacy of marital and family therapeutic intervention (Olson, 1993; Olson, 1996). The cohesion parameter, from low to high, is expressed via the following four functioning sub-models of the conjugal and family system: disengaged, separated, connected and enmeshed. The flexibility parameter, from low to high, is expressed via the following four functioning sub-models of the conjugal and family system: rigid, structured, flexible and chaotic. 16 conjugal system models result from the combination of these eight sub-models, which can be constrained – from center to periphery – within three types: Balanced, Mid-range and Unbalanced. Communication, being a parameter which facilitates the other two parameters, is not graphically represented. It is not only about clarity, but also about the ability to share with other family members, the capacity to empathically listening, with respect and appreciation, to the emotions generated by their joys and sorrows (Olson, 2003). 2. Purpose of study The objectives of the study are: 1) a diagnosis of the contemporary Romanian family, regarding cohesion, flexibility and communication, by employing FACES III and via interview; 2) determining the influence of the demographic variables, residence environment and age on these three parameters of the family; 3) identifying the evaluating power of FACES III, in correlation to the interview results. 3. Research methodology Designing the sample. The data has been collected between 2011 and 2012, in the following cities: Bucharest, Craiova and Satu Mare, as well as in the rural area, in the communes of Cioroiaúi (Dolj County), Stolnici (Argeú County) and various communes in Satu Mare County. When choosing these locations it has been taken into account that these statistical units have certain socio-demographical and cultural characteristics, such as the age of the settlement, the density of the population, the access to transportation by car, by train and by plane, its rank according to the Plan for national territory arrangement – all of these features offering them a certain specificity. The sample, unrepresentative for the entire country, is comprised of N=1215 subjects, 18–74 years old, 672 from the urban environment, and 543 from the rural environment. Random sampling stratified according to gender and age group was used. Subjects were selected relatively homogenously within these layers. Of the 672 subjects from the urban environment which answered the FACES III questionnaire, 324 subjects were selected to participate in focus group type interviews. Each interview group comprised 9 subjects. Measuring instruments. FACES III is comprised of 30 items, 16 of which evaluate cohesion, and 14 of which evaluate adaptability (Olson 1993; Olson 1991; Ravi & Shirali, 1992; Rodick & Henggeler, 1986). Through the structured interview, the interlocutors were asked to recount about communication, cohesion and flexibility in their families, based on an interview guide with specific questions regarding: boundaries between family members, availability to share space and time with other family members, the emotional bond and the ability to adapt to change; ten questions concerning cohesion, five concerning flexibility and six concerning communication within the family were used, inspired by FACES III (see Rada, 2013). 4. Results 33 Cornelia Rada / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 31 – 35 4.1. Analysis of family types according to FACES III, within the entire sample The registered scores within the cohesion parameter are indicative of a relatively egalitarian distribution of disengaged, separated and connected families, enmeshed families being the least frequent. Concerning the flexibility parameter, the highest share was registered by the chaotic families (see Table 1). Table 1. The distribution of the functional sub-models for families, according to FACES III Cohesion Disengaged Separated Connected Enmeshed Total N 346 360 347 162 1 215 % 28.5 29.6 28.6 13.3 100 Flexibility Chaotic Flexible Structured Rigidly Total N 457 296 330 132 1 215 % 37.6 24.4 27.2 10.9 100 From the diagram of the 16 functional models of the conjugal and family system, it can be observed that within the Balanced functioning level family type, the Flexibly Separated model is are predominant in 149 families. Within the Mid-range functioning level family type, the Chaotically Connected model predominates, in 234 families. Within the Unbalanced family type, the Chaotic-Enmeshed model predominates (147 families) (Fig. 1). Fig. 1. The distribution of the family models according to the Circumplex Model within the entire sample Throughout the sample, most families function according to the Chaotically Connected model. The average to high cohesion score is indicative of a bonded family, which would be characterized by emotional closeness with a certain degree of separation, loyalty being expected. The involvement is strong but personal distance is allowed, affective interactions being preferred. The conjugal relationship is described as close, with a certain degree of separation. The parent-child relationship is close, with clear generational demarcation. The very high Flexibility score is indicative of a chaotic family, which would be characterized by limited leadership, unsuccessful parental control, and laissez-faire leadership, very tolerant, less clear roles. The family type distribution shows a predominance of the Mid-range (43.9%) and Balanced (32.9) functional families. 4.2. Analysis of family type according to FACES III, based on residence environment and age groups Represented on the histogram, the 16 family models are indicative of a higher concentration within the urban environment of the Structurally Disengaged model. Families in the urban environment would describe themselves primarily as displaying a very low cohesion and healthy flexibility (low to average scores). Within the rural environment, the Chaotically Connected family model is predominant. Although these profiles are different, both are part of the Mid-range family profile. Families in the rural environment tend to do better regarding the cohesion, and less so in regard to flexibility. 34 Cornelia Rada / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 31 – 35 With statistically significant differences within the residence environment, out of the Mid-range type families, most are located in the urban environment 61.2% vs. 38.8% (Pearson Chi-Square=13.397, df=2, p=0.001). The statistic is indicative of significant differences, the rigid sub-model family type being characteristic for persons aged 35 or younger 62.1% vs. 37.9% (Pearson Chi-Square=16.504, df=3, p=0.001). 4.3. Cohesion, flexibility and communication within the sub-sample used to conduct the interviews Within the interviews, it can be observed that circa half of the interviewed individuals described a family with very high cohesion, very low flexibility and average to high communication (see Table 2). Table 2. The distribution of cohesion, flexibility and communication scores obtained via the interview Intensity Very low Low, To medium Medium, To high Very high Total Cohesion N 4 34 126 160 324 % 1.2 10.5 38.9 49.4 100.0 Flexibility N 166 102 33 23 324 % 51.2 31.5 10.2 7.1 100 Communication N % 12 3.7 52 16.0 186 57.4 74 22.8 324 100.0 The introduction of the symbiotic attachment concept into the discussion, by the moderator, highlighted the fact that they feel love towards the family and its members, a healthy, secure attachment and belief that they find love within their family, they find the affective environment which they need and that they are not dealing with symbiosis. Expressions such as “I feel right next to them” and “I can’t imagine life without them” were most frequently used. The interviews were indicative of the fact that high marital (couple) satisfaction levels were correlated with extremely cohesive couples, with balanced flexibility. Women expressed more flexibility and tolerance, whereas men exhibited a more pronounced tendency towards imposed decision and authoritarianism. Over half of the participants in the interview described their families as displaying a very low flexibility regarding control, discipline, negotiation and rules. This was expressed throughout the discussions through a remarkable respect towards rules, which once established, must be respected. The children’s position is subordinate to the parents, their role being to execute, the parental control being of authoritative type. 5. Discussions and Conclusions The results of applying FACES III and following the application of the interview guide denotes the fact that, generally the Romanian family has good closeness, adaptability and communication potential and a healthy functioning method. More studies are necessary to generalize the results of this research. The tendency of rural families to be better regarding cohesion indicates a better protection against stress factors. Thus, as in other studies, we found that the rural environment has yet specific interpersonal ties, they are closer in kinship, tradition, friendship and cohesion (Rada, 2013). Some details regarding the 1.64 times higher rigidity among younger persons. Firstly, it is possible that the individuals aged between 18 and 35 have adopted a lifestyle with more authoritative leadership. Statistically, for most people, in this age interval are majority of the instructiveeducational-scholarly challenges; for most people, this interval is concentrated on professional and family adaptation, intensifying professional experience, emergence of the parent status, and only around the age of 35 does certain stability occur. Secondly, it may be that this rigid family sub-model, resulting from a description of low flexibility intensity, is apparent precisely due to the perception of the external pressure in order to record and manage these new identities to the best of one’s ability. Just as there is a biological clock, there is also a social clock, represented by social norms connected to each stage of development to which the individual relates in order to evaluate the degree of similitude of one’s own evolution (Neugarten, 1979; Barrett, 2005). As in an Italian study, in the present study appears that the women, compared to men, are better at cohesion and flexibility (Baiocco, Cacioppo, Laghi, & Tafà, 2012). Gender has an important role in developing trust, intimacy and Cornelia Rada / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 127 (2014) 31 – 35 the perception of family functioning; this should be taken into account in the development of skills regarding inherent challenges in the family life cycle. As in a Spanish study, in the present study appears that rigidity in cohesive families is not perceived as negative. More studies are required to see if it is a cultural aspect or if is necessary to review this dimension (Rivero, Pampliega-Martínez & Olson, 2010). The partial inconsistency obtained between the data collected via interviews, when compared to the data obtained from the FACES III family subtypes, shows the importance which should be given to doubling the application of the evaluation scale with interviews. Patterns of cohesion, adaptability and communication in the family have an impact on the functioning of the whole society. Therefore evaluation by FACES should be taken into account by politicians in designing specific social policies by differentiated groups of countries such as Mediterranean, Central Europe, Scandinavian, etc. or urban/rural environment or gender. Acknowledgements The subjects within the sample belong to research “The identity values of the contemporary Romanian family in the framework of the globalization. An anthropological approach”, from to the project “Turning to account the Cultural Identities in the global processes” Contract POSDRU/89/1.5/S/59758/2011-2013, financially supported by the European Social Fund Sectorial Operational Program for Human Resources Development. References Baiocco, R., Cacioppo, M., Laghi, F. & Tafà M. (2012). Factorial and Construct Validity of FACES IV among Italian adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies. DOI: 10.1007/s10826-012-9658-1. Barrett, A.E. (2005). Gendered experiences in midlife: Implications for age identity. Journal of Aging Studies, 19, 163– 183. Green, R.G., Harris, R.N., Forte J.A., & Robinson, M. (1991). Evaluating FACES III and the Circumplex Model: 2240 families. Family Process, 30, 55í73. Neugarten, B.L. (1979). Time, age, and the life cycle. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 136, 887í894. Olson, D.H. (1991). Commentary: three-dimensional Circumplex Model and revised scoring of FACES III. Family Process, 30, 74 –79. Olson, D.H. (1993). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems: Assessing Family Functioning in Normative Family Processes, 2nd edition, ed. F. Walsh. New York: Guilford. Olson, D.H. (1996). Clinical assessment & treatment interventions using the Circumplex Model. In F.W. Kaslow (Ed.), Handbook of Relational Diagnosis and Dysfunctional Family Patterns. New York: John Wiley and Sons, (Chapter 5, pp. 59–80). Olson, D. H., & Gorall, D. M. (2003). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. In F. Walsh (Ed.). Normal family processes (3rd ed.) (pp. 514-547). New York: Guilford Press. Olson, D.H. (2011). FACES IV and the Circumplex Model: validation study, Journal Marital Famamily, 37 (1), 64í80. Rada, C. (2013). Valori identitare ale familiei româneúti contemporane în contextul globalizării. O abordare antropologică. Bucureúti: Editura Muzeului National al Literaturii Române, Colectia AULA MAGNA. Ravi, B., & Shirali K.A. (1992). Family Types and Communication with Parents: A Comparison of Youth at Different Identity Levels. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 21(6), 687í697. Rivero, N., Pampliega-Martínez, A., Olson D.H. (2010). Spanish Adaptation of FACES IV Questionnaire: Psychometric Characteristics. The Family Journal, 18(3), 288í296. Rodick, D.J., Henggeler, S.W., & Hanson, C.L. (1986). An evaluation of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales and the circumplex model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 14 (1), 77í87. 35