MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1481996687

Families Across Cultures; A 30-Nation Psychological Study.

2008· article· en· W1481996687 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Klaus Minde

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed Central · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueEarly Childhood Education and Development
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGeopoliticsContext (archaeology)ChinaPremisePoliticsGlobalizationInstitutionGeographyEast AsiaPolitical scienceEconomic growthSociologySocial scienceLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The five authors of this extraordinary book are all professors of psychology with a special interest in cross-cultural psychology and work at universities in Greece, Canada, the Netherlands, Turkey and Belgium. They came together in their quest to learn more about the relationship between the changes of the eco-cultural realities such as economic organization, political institutions, legal and educational systems and religion in 30 nations and the family, as expressed by family structure, demographies, family rules, functions, values and observed changes. Their hope was to clarify to what extent globalization or an increase in educational opportunities modifies family traditions, such as relationships between family members, parental divorce rates, the role of fathers and mothers etc. This is based on the authors premise that the family is an institution which is adapted to its ecological, cultural and sociopolitical situation and provides the main context for the ontogenetic development from infancy to adulthood. To obtain reliable and valid data, they interviewed and evaluated the opinions of some 5,500 students at colleges and universities in 30 countries, chosen to reflect specific geopolitical zones. There was a northern, central and southern zone of North America, including the US, Canada, Mexico, Chile and Brazil; a northern and southern zone in Europe, including the UK, Germany, Holland, Greece, Bulgaria, Cyprus etc; a North (Algeria)), East (Saudi Arabia), Central (Ghana) and South African zone, and a western (Iran, Ukraine), southern (Pakistan, India), eastern (China, Japan, South Korea) and Oceana (Indonesia) zone in Asia. The chosen countries also reflected the major religious groups in the world. The book is divided into 2 parts. In part 1, the reader is introduced to the theoretical aspect of the study in 8 distinctive chapters. Beginning with a historical review of families and family change, one learns about methodologies used in assessing family functioning over time and the results of past studies. Other chapters describe the methodology of the present study, explain its hypotheses and provide the statistical data forming the results. In part 2, the 30 nations are examined individually, using very similar overall criteria. These include: a historical outline of the country described; important ecological features (e.g. location, size, weather, special challenges such as annual dry winds, etc.); economic organization; political and legal institutions; the major educational systems and main religions. The family is discussed by detailing marital traditions (e.g., restrictions of marrying direct relatives, choosing a wife, etc.); family structure (patriarchal, nuclear, patrilocal, e.g., determining how close sons have to live to their father after marriage, etc.) or kinship ties; family roles and functions (role and powers of mother, father, grandparents, etc.); and recent changes observed in the family. There are also appendices providing copies of the various questionnaires, scales and other assessment instruments used in the study. While the authors provide many interesting data, there are some overarching findings. Despite the popular impression that there are more three generation families in the “Majority World” (denoting the world outside North America and Europe), this is incorrect as keeping three generations and/or large families in one house requires money which is not plentiful in the majority world. Cultural differences overall, based on emotional and material interdependence vs. independence, are more pronounced between rural and agricultural populations in the western and majority world. This means that in addition to the emotional value, children retain financial value only in agricultural and rural populations of the majority world while middle class city people all over the world and those living in western rural areas value their children’s material independence but support their emotional interdependence. This dialectic synthesis suggests that even in westernized societies we find an increasing interdependent emotional aspect of the family which reminds us of our past cultural heritage. This is also shown in the high value kinship relationships have all over the world, expressed by the number of telephone calls made to relatives in the west and visits to relatives in the majority world. Another example of these cultural universals that have not been modified despite our more global existence is the fact that fathers universally still do not do much housework while mothers everywhere are more engaged in child care. Nevertheless, the authoritarian hierarchy based role of fathers has declined in all cultural groups, regardless of religion and income although there remain significant differences among the 30 nations. The book’s main shortcoming is the relatively small number of subjects, varying from 65 to 450 per nation that the authors could enroll and, as university students, their potentially biased view of their own culture. While this may bias the collected data, the authors’ effort to use standardized instruments and questionnaires and their most thoughtful interpretation of their data provide the reader with a fascinating look into both cultural universals and differences in family characteristics across cultures.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,273
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,611

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,349
Écart entre enseignants0,292 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMed CentralMême sujetEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentTravaux en français237 207