Family Representations In Older Preschoolers

Manuscript

Tatyana Yu. Zagvozdkina

FAMILY REPRESENTATIONS IN OLDER PRESCHOOLERS, GROWING UP IN FAMILIES WITH DIFFERENT SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

19.00.13 – Developmental psychology, acmeology (psychological sciences)

SUMMARY OF Ph.D THESIS

Moscow - 2016 The work performed at the developmental psychology chair of Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

2

Scientific advisor

Anna A. Shvedovskaya, Ph.D

Official opponents

Vitaly K. Shabelnikov, doctor in Psychology, professor, head of the Educational psychology chair at Vygotsky Psychological Institute, Russian State University for Humanities Vladimir A. Mokhov, Ph.D in Psychology, assistant professor at the General psychology chair at Evdokimov Moscow State University for Medicine and Dentistry

Organization

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Defense of the thesis is scheduled on January 28th 2016 at 12.00 at the meeting of the dissertation council Д-850.013.01, organized at the basis of Moscow State University of Psychology and Education, address: 127051, Moscow, Sretenka st., 29, room 414.

The thesis may be accessed at the scientific library of Moscow State University of Psychology and Education and on the University official web-site http://мгппу.рф/.

Thesis summary is sent on «____» ____________ 2015.

Scientific secretary of the dissertation council

I.Yu. Kulagina

3

GENERAL OUTLINE OF THE THESIS Research problem and the significance of the research According to the contemporary views on the role and significance of the family as a child socialization institute, the family fulfills the child’s needs for acceptance, recognition, protection, emotional support, and respect (E. Erikson, A. Freud, M. Klein, D. Winnicott, U. Bronfenbrenner, J. Bowlby, M. Einsworth, P. Crittenden, A. Bandura, L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontyev, L.I. Bozhovich, M.I. Lisina). Family provides a child with the first experience of social and emotional interactions with social environment.

The peculiarity of child-parent relationships is that the child cognizes and assesses him/herself through the lens of cognition and assessment of adult relatives (E. Fromm, E. Erikson, R. Berns, L.I. Bozhovich, M.I. Lisina, A.M. Prikhozhan). Representations of oneself and the other as well as representations of relationships, which develop in the course of child-adult interactions, are the products of these from interactions (L.I. Bozhovich, M.I. Lisina, A.M. Prikhozhan, O.A. Karabanova). Family representation, as understood in this context, is the result of reflection of actual experience of family interactions in an individual consciousness. Family representations in a child have regulating, orienting, controlling functions and determine a child’s tactic of interactions with parents and the other family members. Family representations are subjective, active and holistic by nature; they reflect a child’s emotional experience of particular qualities of intra-family relationships. The wider context of family life – social, economic, cultural, political, ethnic – should also be considered (N.M. Zyryanova, S.A. Koroleva, G.S. Korytova, B.Isaacs; J.Kahl; P.Liberatos). International research demonstrate that different aspects of social inequality, existing in the contemporary society – gender, educational, ethnic, material and financial, regional, etc. – have serious impact on performance of family functions (P.Amato, J.Zuo; M.Baldwin; A.Bailey; M.Bornstein и др.). Family socioeconomic status is interrelated with peculiarities of family relationships and reflected in a child’s family representations. Family socioeconomic status is defined as the general position of a family in the social stratification system, determined by the level and structure of average income and expense per family member as well as family members’ attitudes toward their financial situation (subjective experience of economic well-being).

The problem of investigation of family representations in contemporary children is highly relevant because of a range of reasons. Considering the current social trends to change in traditional family values, child-parent, gender and spousal roles, one should assume the demand for special analysis of family representations in children (V. Green).

The available research show that contemporary family is prone to crisis phenomena, such as decrease of the rate of couples, who register official marriage; increase is the number of divorces, single-parent and “alternative” families; low birth rates; disharmony in spousal (low marriage satisfaction, high level of conflicts, role inconsistency, infidelity etc.) and child-parent relationships (poor emotional well-being in family relationships, deprivation of the needs for cooperation and affiliation, feeling of weakness in family interactions, lack of family cohesion) (T.Yu. Bogomolova, B.S. Tapilina, T.V. Andreeva, V. Green, T.A. Gurko, N.I. Demidova, A.A. Shvedovskaya, Yu.E. Alyoshina, L.Ya.

4

Gozman, V.V. Stolin, T.L. Romanova, G.P. Butenko). Currently the issues of development of family representations in a child and interrelations between peculiarities of family representations and socioeconomic conditions of family life are not sufficiently investigated.

This research deals with interrelations between family representations in older preschoolers and socioeconomic status of their families. A family representation is a holistic integrative formation, which develops both in the course of ontogenesis and in connection with the actual changes of social situations. A family representation includes two components: cognitive-activity and emotional. The emotional component is related to personal qualities, attitudes toward and assessment of the self and the family. The cognitive-activity component is related to mindsets and images of the self as the family member, of the other family members and of the family on the whole.

The existence of links between financial well-being and family relationships is based on the fact that different income levels determine difference in family life standards – quality and quantity of consumed goods and services, comfort and convenience of home environment, possibilities for child-parent shared leisure, accessible education etc. The body of research shows that low socioeconomic status provokes subjective experience of “unequal” position in society and the related assessments, attitudes and concerns in people. Low socioeconomic status fosters development of fears, uncertainty, low self-assessment, social isolation, difficulties in decision-making and lack of control over one’s life. Inequality in life standards conditions inequality of possibilities for use of efficient means and ways of dealing with emerging problems (D.A. Aleksandrov, T.V. Akhutina, E.A. Burgimenko, V.A. Ivanyushina, V.McLoyd, R.Mistry, A.Benner, C.Tan, S.Kim; L.Otto; E.Romano, D.Kohen).

Most frequently family research in Russia are built upon the investigation of role characteristics; emotional, motivational, and cognitive components of interactions; subjective experiences of each of family members. The concepts of “family representations” and “subjective socioeconomic family well-being” are regarded as insufficiently operationalized in Russian research. Separate characteristics of family representations, their structure and functions as well as age-related peculiarities in older preschoolers are not investigated in sufficient detail. Thus the research of these concepts as well as their interrelations in the context of contemporary childhood is of special interest.

This research is topical, since it is aimed at investigation of peculiarities of family representations that develop in an older preschooler in their relationships with socioeconomic status of his/her family.

Object of research: family representations in older preschoolers.

Research problem: links between family representations in older preschoolers and socioeconomic status of their families.

Research aim is to reveal psychological peculiarities of family representations in older preschoolers, who grow up in families with different socioeconomic status.

5

Research hypothesis: Family representations in older preschoolers are linked with the character of their subjective experiences of socioeconomic well-being of their families.

Particular hypothesis: Typological peculiarities of family representations in older preschoolers exist, which are preconditioned with the experience of family interactions.

Research tasks: 1.

To perform theoretical analysis of psychological contents of family representations in older preschoolers, growing up in families with different socioeconomic status; to outline components and parameters for assessment of family representations in a child.

2.

To investigate peculiarities of objective and subjective components of socioeconomic status in families with older preschoolers.

3.

To investigate peculiarities of family representations in older preschoolers from families with different socioeconomic status.

4.

To develop empirical typology of family representations in older preschoolers, growing up in families with different socioeconomic status.

5.

To test the links between peculiarities of family representations and indicators of subjective economic well-being in older preschoolers from families with different socioeconomic status.

Methodological basis of the research  The concept of “image (representations) of the world” and its components, elaborated by A.N. Leontyev, the role and functions of the “image” in psychological regulation of activity; statement that family representation as a part of the “image of the world” embodies the unity of the reflected objective world and systemic activity of formation of representations.  The concept of periodization of psychological development by D.B. Elkonin; of role and functions of the leading type of activity in a child’s psychological development; statement that role-play, as the leading activity in preschool age, can serve as a means for investigation of meanings in human relationships.  The views of S.D. Smironov on activity-based and social nature of family representations. The multilevel structure of “image of the world” and its components, purposed by V.V. Petukhov and S.D. Smirnov.  The theory of child development in the ontogenesis by M.I. Lisina that argues the determining role of child-adult interactions in a child’s psychological development. According to M.I. Lisina, self-representation, as a holistic affectivecognitive complex, develops in the course of communicative activity and performs activity-regulative functions. The character of a child's attitudes towards an adult is conditioned with the contents of their communication. Non-situational personal type of communication develops in the ontogeny at preschool age.  Research in the field of child-parent relationships (E.G. Eidemiller, V. Yustitskis, A.S. Spivakovskaya, A.Ya. Varga, O.A. Karabanova etc.).

6

 Family psychotherapy approaches that outline relevant diagnostic tools for investigation of family systems (M. Bowen, S. Minuchin, B. Hellinger, K. Witaker, V. Satir, P. Vaclavic, J. Heily, K. Madanes, M.S. Palaccoli, J. Nardone).  Research in the field of economic well-being in Russian (E.B. Matsenova, N.V. Nedozhogina, L.N. Ovcharova, O.D. Popova etc.) and international (A. Bailey, М.

Bornstein, A. Davis, R. Havighurst etc.) psychology.

Research methods:   

Strategy of observation (included observation, interview).

Screening strategy (questionnaires, projective methods).

Methods of statistical analysis using SPSS for Windows statistical software.

Research tools: The following tools were applied in the research: “Family Board” (K. Ludewig); “A child’s interpersonal relationships” (R. Gilles); “Family Drawing” and “Family Role-play” (A.A. Shvedovskaya), the author’s modification of subjective economic well-being questionnaire for children (V.A. Khaschenko), subjective economic well-being questionnaire (V.A. Khaschenko), questionnaire for assessment of family socioeconomic status.

Research sample and sites: The sample included 90 older preschoolers (5-7 years old) and 90 parents. The children attend four preschool facilities in Moscow and Moscow region: preschool facility №1 “Beryozka” (address: Moscow region, Krasnoarmeisk, Morozova st., 15; preschool facility “Lesovichok” №2400 (Moscow, Baryschikha st., 21, bld. 2); preschool facility №32 (Moscow region, Naro-Fominsk area, Ptichnoe village, Lesnaya st., 5; private preschool facility “Doveriye” (Moscow region, Naro-Fominsk area, Gorchakovo village).

Validity and reliability of results is achieved via thorough methodological considerations in selection of theoretical basis; holistic approach to fulfilment of the research aims and tasks; using the set of methods, relevant to the research problem, aims and hypothesis; cohesion and adequacy of the general-scientific and particular research methods as well as the methods of statistical processing (using SPSS statistical software version 17.0).

Innovativeness of the research is as follows: family representations in children were analyzed in relation to socioeconomic status of their families for the first time in Russian psychological science. Characteristics, structural and content-related criteria for analysis of family representations are outlined; their typology is developed. Peculiarities of family representations in older preschoolers from families with different socioeconomic status are revealed and compared; an empirical typology of family representations in older preschoolers from families with different socioeconomic status is developed.

The main points of the thesis: 1. Basing on the characteristics of contents of cognitive-activity and emotional components of family representations, it is possible to outline five types of family representations in older preschoolers were outlined empirically: favorable (“Favorable family”), with elements of disharmony (“Unstable family”), distant (“Distant family”), conflict (“Conflict family”) and will poor level of emotional well-being (“Adverse family”).

7

2. The “Favorable family” representation type is characterized with the least amount of indicators of problems, presence of the feeling of family cohesion, orientation toward support and aid from the family environment, positive emotions in interpersonal interactions, absence of anxiety and fear in family communication, orientation to constructive resolving conflicts in family interactions. The “Unstable family” representation type is characterized with children’s need for more stable family system, more emotional well-being in close relationships, occasional experience of discomfort and stress in situations of family communication, when one of the adults (often a father) demonstrate pressure or rejection. The “Distant family” representation type is characterized with a child’s perceived deficiency of emotional support, acceptance and close relationships with parents, alongside with possible rejection by parents and his/her insignificance in situations of family communication, so a child feels his/her insignificance in situations of family communication and tries to overcome it through inclusion of people from outside the family circle into his/her family representations. The “Conflict family” representation type is characterized with repetitive negative emotional experiences of family interactions, with stress and anxiety, with close social distance between a child and his/her family members alongside with the need to make these relationships more distant. The “Adverse family” type is characterized with the maximal amount of signs of a child’s poor well-being, with the feelings of unacceptance and rejection by family members, avoidance of communication, autoaggressive and aggressive manifestations, experiences of anxiety, stress and fear of the relatives, lack of adults’ authority and reflections on a child’s insignificance in family interactions.

3. The significant link is revealed between the objective (based on the level of a family monthly income) and the subjective (subjective economic well-being) components of family socioeconomic status and family representations in older preschoolers: the lower is a family socioeconomic status, the more pronounced is poor well-being in a child’s family representations.

Theoretical contribution of the research: It has amplified the knowledge about peculiarities of the links between family socioeconomic status and children’s family representations in the field of developmental psychology; demonstrated their contents and revealed their typical variations in older preschoolers. It has suggested a typology of children’s family representations, according to the general level of problems and leading trends in children’s interactions with the members of their families. The work also describes peculiar features of family representations in children from families with different socioeconomic status.

Applied contribution of the research: The research results may be used in professional training of specialists in psychology and education. The knowledge about the specific links between a family socioeconomic status and a child’s family representations may increase the efficiency of counseling on the topics of psychological well-being and family relationships. The suggested typology of family representations in older preschoolers as well as diagnostic tools for investigation of a child’s family

8

representations in its links with a family socioeconomic status, which were tested and amplified in the course of research, may be used for diagnostic and research purposes.

Approbation of the research results. The research results were presented at the meeting of Developmental psychology chair, Educational psychology faculty of the Moscow State University of Psychology and Education (MSUPE) on September, 15th 2014 and June, 22nd 2015. The research results were discussed at the III international scientific conference “Psychology and education through the lens of humanities” (Scientific-research center The Institute for strategic research, 2012); ХI inter-university scientific-applied conference with international participation “Young scientists – to our new school” (MSUPE, 2012); XII city scientific-applied conference “Young scientists – to Moscow education” (MSUPE, 2013); IV Russian scientific-applied conference “The sources of development” (MSUPE, 2013); VI international scientific conference “Psychological issues of contemporary family” (Lomonosov Moscow State University, 2015). The research results are presented in 8 published articles, including ones in peerreviewed journals “Psychological Science and Education”, “Primary School Plus”, “Issues in Psychology”, which are included into the list of leading peer-reviewed journals and periodicals, recommended by the Higher Attestation Committee for publication of the main doctoral research results.

Implementation of the results. The research results are used in psychological practice with children in the State Center for Psychological, Medical and Social Support of Moscow Central Area, preschool facilities №32 and №5 in Krasnoarmeisk (Moscow region).

Structure of the thesis. The thesis consists of the introduction, three chapters (two theoretical and one presenting empirical results), conclusions, summary, list of references (including 242 items, 95 of them in English) and 3 appendixes. The main contents are outlined on 234 pages (including 22 figures and 32 tables).

THE CORE CONTENTS OF THE THESIS In the Introduction section the topicality of the work is substantiated; the currents developments on the topic are described; the research object and problem are defined; the aim, tasks and hypothesis are outlined; the innovative contribution, theoretical and applied significance of the work are substantiated; the theoretical and methodological basis as well as methodological tools of the research are described; the main points of the research are summarized.

Chapter One Representations of family as an object of psychological analysis Theoretical analysis of the issues of developmental process, structure, components and functions of family representations in a child coherently explores different approaches to their operationalization both in Russian and Western theoretical and

9

empirical research. Theoretical model of family representations in a preschooler is elaborated: definition and contents of family representations are described; its two components (cognitive-activity and emotional) are figured out and operationalized; general functions (cognitive, motivational-prognostic and regulative) are outlined (Demidova N.I., Kulish O.G., Karabanova O.A., Lisina M.I., Mishina T.M., Koroleva S.A., Kalina O.G., Barintseva I.V., Pankova T.V., Baldwin M. W., Davies P. T., Winter M. A., Cicchetti D., Cummings E.M., Davies P., Strümpel V. et al.).

Ambiguity of terminological and conceptual definition of the notion of “family representations” in contemporary developmental psychology is shown. The following approaches and theories are analysed: systemic approach (E.G. Eidemiller, A.V. Aleksandrov, V. Yustitskis); contemporary attachment theory (J. Bowlby, Crittenden P.); psychoanalytical theory (M. Balint, D. Winniccott, M. Klein, M. Maler, U. Ferbeirn); theory of emotional security (Davis A., Havighurst R.); socio-cognitive approach (Baldwin M.); psychosemantic approach and implicit family theories (J. Bruner, R. Tagiuri). Further comparative analysis of approaches to description of a child’s family representations is provided.

Chapter Two Family socioeconomic status and family representations in a child The chapter provides the definition of the concept of “socioeconomic status” considering borderline notions of “well-being” and “quality of life”; describes approaches to measuring family socioeconomic status; summarizes results of Russian and international research of links between socioeconomic status and different characteristics of family system; outlines mechanisms underlying links between family socioeconomic status and family representations in older preschoolers.

A range of contemporary international and Russian research demonstrate the links of socioeconomic status with peculiarities of people’s subjective experience of their social status, peculiarities of psychological well-being in family as well as each of its members, children’s psychological development and personal identity, parental behaviors and childrearing practices (Gurko T.A., Isenina E.I., Baranovskaya T.I., Popova O.D., Khaschenko V.A., Shamionov R.M., Tugusheva A.R., Adams B.N., Amato P.R., Zuo J., Bradley R.H., Whiteside-Mansell L., Bronfenbrenner U., Gardner D.M., Kohn M. L. и др.). Meanwhile, special characteristics and mechanisms of these links in different social groups are nor comprehensively investigated. Another issue is lack of unified definition of “family socioeconomic status” as well as common means of its measurement in psychological science. The international research, compared to the works by Russian authors, provide much broader outlook of the links between socioeconomic family environment and psychological phenomena. Currently there are two complimentary approaches to evaluation of family socioeconomic status: objective and subjective approaches. Observable family characteristics such as income and several sociodemographic variables (profession, level of education) are analysed from the standpoints of objective approach (Ensminger M.E., Forrest C.B., Riley A.W., Kang M., Green B.F., Starfield B., Ryan S.A., Entwisle D. R., Astone, N. M.,Isaacs B. J., Brown I.,

10

Brown R. I., Baum N., Myerscough T., Shimshon N., Koerner A.F., Fitzpatrick M.A. and others). Subjective approach integrates actual economic status and psychological phenomena, for instance, needs (their fulfillment), level of aspirations (self-assessment of socioeconomic status) and the other (Dyer S., Moneta G., Garbarino J., Amato P.R., Zuo J., Bradshaw J., Hoelscher P., Richardson D., Fletcher G. J., Campbell A., Converse P. E., Rodgers W. L.).

Belonging to lower socioeconomic class correlates with maximal amount of risks for a child in all the spheres of development. Lower socioeconomic status and related chronic parental stress lead to children’s poor well-being via direct and mediated pathways, such as inadequate parental practices and dysfunctions in spousal relationships. The issues of child-parent relationships in this social group are not investigated in details. The search for efficient psychological and educational means of prevention and correction of problems in children’s development, induced with socioeconomic factors, is also a priority task. Child-parent relationships in high- and middle-class families have their peculiarities, including both risk factors and protective factors, facilitating successful child development.

Chapter Three Empirical research of links between a child’s family representations and socioeconomic status of his/her family The chapter discusses advantages of projective methods for investigation of family representations in older preschoolers; comprehensively describes the research methods (including the methods developed by the author and adjusted for use with preschoolers) and provides the rationale for their implementation. The chapter outlines the design of the empirical research, its stages and results. The research design is based on the theoretical analysis of links between family representations in a child and socioeconomic status of his/her family. It was performed in three stages; each of them was aimed at fulfilment of certain tasks.

Results of the 1st stage of research Assessment of socioeconomic status of participant children’s families The research sample was divided into three subgroups – 30 families with high socioeconomic status (SES), 30 families with middle socioeconomic status (SES), and 30 families with low socioeconomic status (SES) – at the first stage of the research.

Subgroups formation was performed according to the analysis of objective and subjective components of socioeconomic status.

Objective indicators of SES and median values on the scales of subjective economic well-being were revealed for each of the subgroups in the course of the structured interviews with children and their parents. Data collection was followed with correlational analysis and pair comparisons of the subgroups’ mean values on the scales of subjective economic well-being: index of economic optimism и assurance, subjective

11

income adequacy in relation to personal aspirations and needs, index of current family welfare, index of financial deprivation, index of economic anxiety, and summarized index of subjective economic well-being. Significant differences (p<0.01) were obtained between all the sample subgroups (3 subgroups) on all the scales (6 scales). Thus we have shown statistically significant correlation between subjective and objective components of socioeconomic status. It is demonstrated that the subgroups, divided according to the objective and subjective components of socioeconomic status, differ significantly in the level of their actual socioeconomic status.

Results of the 2nd stage of research Research of family representations in older preschoolers All the components of family representations (? components) were investigated in children from three subgroups (from families with high, middle and low SES) at the second stage of the research with the use of selected methods (? methods). Correlational analysis, means comparison, and pair group comparison revealed significant links between family SES and certain components of family representations in children.

Namely, implementation of “Family Board” (K. Ludewig) showed significant links between SES and  results on the scale “Spatial distance between figures” in the parameter “Spatial distance to a father’s figure” (р≤0.05);  results on the scale “Family composition in the constellation” in the parameter “Correspondence to actual family composition – inclusion of people outside a family” (р≤0.01);  results on the scale “Direction of the figures’ looks” in the assessment of orientation of their looks (р≤0.01).

The results of “Child’s interpersonal relationships” method (R. Gilles) demonstrate increase in positive choices on all the scales, which characterize a child’s personal relationships with certain people (excepting “relationships with a friend” scale), at higher levels of family socioeconomic status. Comparison of results of “Family roleplay” (modified by A.A. Shvedovskaya) in children from families with low SES and high SES revealed more indicators of dysfunctional relationships with fathers and more frequent performance of episodes of humiliation of one of a family members in the low SES subgroup. Analysis of emotional and cognitive-activity components of family representations in children from families with low SES, as assessed via the methods of “Family role-play” and “Family Drawing” (A.A. Shvedovskaya) leads to the conclusion that these children prefer to maintain contact with certain family member(s) and avoid communication with the other relatives. Comparison of play in children from families with middle and high SES demonstrated more frequent extension of actual family composition via inclusion of non-relatives (friends, preschool teachers,

12

babysitters) into the play in the middle SES subgroup. Noteworthy, similar trend was expressed in the drawings made by the children from this subgroup.

Basing on the analysis, we can argue that family representations in children from families with high and middle SES reflect more harmonious, emotionally positive children’s relationships within their family circle as well as with non-relative significant adults (preschool teachers, family friends etc). Analysis of the data that was obtained from all the implemented methods allows to conclude on peculiarities of a child’s emotional relationships with parents and the other family members, on his/her behavioral strategies in conflict and frustrating situations and emotional experience of well-being in the course of family communications. The most explicit tension in family relationships in low SES subgroup is observed in the field of child-father relationships, and less frequently – in relationships with the other family members. Family representations in this subgroup of children are also peculiar with reflected lack of emotionally warm communication between all the family members, shortage of shared leisure, and abundance of indicators of anxiety, frustration, and stress in communication with family members.

Older preschool children from families with low socioeconomic status more frequently demonstrate pronouncedly poor well-being in their family representations compared to children from families with middle and high socioeconomic status.

Results of the 3rd stage of research Analysis of links between older preschoolers’ family representations with socioeconomic status of their families Empirically-grounded typology of family representations in older preschoolers was constructed at the third stage of the research. The typology was based on the data of cluster analysis of the key indicators of the main components of family representations of participant children. The core characteristics of cognitive-activity and emotional components of family representations in children include: peculiarities of a child’s emotional relationships with parents and the other family members (distance, intensity, affective characteristics); character of a child’s subjective experience of situations of family communication (general integrative indicator of well-being); a child’s behavioral strategies in conflict and frustrating situations (severity of aggressive-attacking or protective trends in communication with relatives). With the use of the research methods we obtained data on 12 key indicators of the components of family representations (Table 1). с близкими). The indicators were selected in accordance with the research aims.

Table 1.

Key indicators of the family representations components, presented by methods № 1

Method Family Drawing

Key indicators General integrative indicator of poor well-being (1 indicator)

13

2 3

Family Role-play General integrative indicator of poor well-being (1 indicator) “A child’s interpersonal Relationships with mother; relationships with father; attitude relationships” by Rene Gilles toward mother and father as parents and spouses; relationships with siblings; relationships with grandparents (5 indicators) “Family Board” by Kurt Spatial distance of figures; composition of figures in Ludewig constellation; direction of figures’ looks (3 indicators)

4

Cluster analysis revealed five types of family representations in older preschoolers: 1 type – family representations reflecting good well-being (“Favorable family”); 2nd type – family representations with elements of disharmony (“Unstable family”); 3rd type – representations of a distant family (“Distant family”); 4 th type – representations of a conflict family (“Conflict family”); 5th type – family representations reflecting poor wellbeing (“Adverse family”). Percentage ratio of the families from the general research sample according to different types of family representations in children was as follows: favorable family – 28%, unstable family – 22%, distant family – 14%, conflict family – 18%, adverse family – 18%. st

Quantity of families from each SES subgroup in relation to types of family representations in children was as follows (Fig. 1): “Favorable family” representations (25 families in the sample) – 20% from families with low SES, 40 % from families with middle SES, and 40 % from families with high SES; “Unstable family” representations (20 families in the sample) – 10% low SES, 50% middle SES, and 40% high SES; “Distant family” representations (13 families in the sample) – 31% low SES, 31% middle SES, and 38% high SES; “Conflict family” representations (16 families in the sample) – 69% low SES, 19% middle SES, and 12% high SES; “Adverse family” representations (16 families in the sample) – 50% low SES, 19% middle SES, and 31% high SES (Figure 1). The data show that children from families with low SES demonstrate favorable family representations twice less frequently than children from the other subgroups. Noteworthy, 63% children from families with low SES have very problematic family representations (conflict and adverse).

Description of the contents of the outlined types of family representations in older preschoolers was performed on the basis of descriptive statistics (means) of data from all the research methods in each of the clusters as well as their pair comparison via MannWhitney U. Comparison of values of the indicators of family representations in children, in relation to the types of family representations is provided in Table 3.

Thus we have proved the existence of a statistically significant link between the types of family representations in preschoolers and socioeconomic status of their families (р≤0.01); between the type of family representations in a child and the level of subjective economic well-being of his/her parents (р≤0.05). The subjective indicator of economic well-being of one’s family (according to a child’s assessment) is linked with subjective assessment of subjective economic well-being by his/her parents as well as objective SES indicators (р≤0.01).

14

25

20

16

16

13

Figure 1. Quantity of families in relation to types of family representations in children and family socioeconomic status Table 2 provides the results of correlational analysis of the typology of family representations in preschoolers and the components of family socioeconomic status.

Table 2.

Analysis of correlations between the types of family representations in preschoolers and the components of family SES Representations types 1

SES

GI SEWB adults .252*

GI SEWB children

.287** .194* Representations types .287** 1 .992** .924** SES * ** .252 .992 1 .927** GI SEWB adults .194* .924** .927** 1 GI SEWB children Note: ** - correlation significant at p ≤ 0.01 (2-tailed); * - correlation significant at p ≤ 0.05 (2-tailed). SES – socioeconomic status. GI SEWB – general index of subjective economic well-being.

15

Table 3.

Comparative analysis of parameters of representations in different types of family representations in a child Family representations type

Family representations type

Favorable family

Favorable family

Unstable family

Distant family

Conflict family

Adverse family

house – outside view (р=0.023); drawing basement line (р=0.041); no coloring (р=0.050); lack of interactions between family members (р=0.020); “relationships with mother” (р=0.020); “relationships with siblings” (р=0.024); distance from father’s figure in the constellation (р=0.037); composition of figures in the constellation: inclusion of people from outside the family (р=0.017); direction of looks: direction of look of father’s figure (р=0.012).

distancing self from the others (р=0.050); lack of significant details of body or clothes (р=0.004); peculiarities in drawing palms (р=0.038); drawing basement line (р=0.009); use of dark colors (р=0.001); poorly colored figures (р=0.023); impulsive broken lines (р=0.049); play actions with inanimate objects (р=0.013); initiates end of the game (р=0.044); “relationships with mother” (р=0.041); “distanced” (р=0.032); distance from a sibling’s figure (р=0.

013); composition of figures in the constellation: inclusion of people from

absence of self in the drawing (р=0.023); distancing self from the others (р=0.044); distortion of figures’ sizes (р=0.045); peculiarities in drawing palms (р=0.038); reluctant drawing (р=0.038); large hatched spaces (р=0.023); inclusion of pet into the family (р=0.013); play actions with inanimate objects (р=0.023 separation of a family member in space or with an object (р=0.024); conflicts and quarrels in play (р=0.014); initiates end of the game (р=0.024); problematic resolution of test conflicts (р=0.024); distance from a sibling’s

strangers (р=0.038); family members as fairy-tale heroes (р=0.038); absence of father in the drawing (р=0.002); absence of the other family members in the drawing (р=0.038); people from outside the family in the drawing (р=0.024); distortion of absolute sizes (р=0.038); pauses before drawing figures (р=0.038); non-constructive erasing and re-drawing (р=0.045); poorly colored figures (р=0.04); weak unsure pressure on the pencil (р=0.038); exclusion of father from the play (р=0.012); exclusion of the other family members, living with the child (р=0.012); age-inappropriate toys (р=0.044); manifestations of fear/anxiety (р=0.031);

16

Unstable family

-

outside the family (р=0.014); direction of looks: intensity of relationships with mother’s figure (р=0.050) intensity of relationships with father’s figure (р=0.044).

figure (р=0.022); composition of figures in the constellation: inclusion of people from outside the family (р=0.017).

problematic resolution of test conflicts (р=0.031); “relationships with father” (р=0.038) and “Social adequacy of behavior” (р=0.033); direction of looks: figures of the other family members (р=0.050); distance from a sibling’s figure (р=0.044).

people from outside the family in the drawing (р=0.005); strangers (р=0.047); exclusion of mother from the play (р=0.

002) and exclusion of father from the play (р=0.034); direction of looks: intensity of relationships with mother’s figure (р=0.041)

family members as fairytale heroes (р=0.019); absence of self in the drawing (р=0.004); absence of father (р=0.024); reluctant drawing (р=0.038) large hatched spaces (р=0.044); “relationships with mother” (р=0.014); composition of figures in the constellation: inclusion of people from outside the family (р=0.013); direction of looks: intensity of relationships with mother’s figure (р=0.049)

family members as fairy-tale heroes (р=0.045); drawing other family members, living with the child (р=0.045); lack of significant details of body or clothes (р=0.045); peculiarities in drawing head (р=0.004); non-constructive erasing and re-drawing (р=0.045); weak unsure pressure on the pencil (р=0.049); choice of animal toys (р=0.031); distorted size ratio (р=0.031); playing punishments (р=0.031); manifestations of fear/anxiety (р=0.049); “relationships with mother” (р=0.038); direction of looks: intensity of relationships with mother’s figure (р=0.031)

17

Distant family

-

“relationships with mother” (р=0.017)

Conflict family

-

-

absence of father in the drawing (р=0.036); reluctant drawing (р=0.049); large hatched spaces (р=0.044); “social adequacy of behavior” (р=0.011)

distancing self from the others (р=0.004); слабый нажим неуверенность (р=0.049); прерывистая, импульсивная линия (р=0.044)

people from outside the family in the drawing (р=0.044); absence of father in the drawing (р=0.044); distorted absolute size (р=0.038); nonconstructive erasing and redrawing (р=0.049); conflicts and quarrels in the play (р=0.020); “attitude toward mother and father as spouses” (р=0.024)

family members as fairy-tale heroes (р=0.038); lack of family members, living with the child (р=0.038); strangers (р=0.031); exclusion of father from the play (р=0.034); gender-inappropriate toys (р=0.050); composition of figures in the constellation: inclusion of people from outside the family (р=0.033)

18

Conclusively, the “Favorable family” type of representations is characterized with a child’s feelings of family cohesion. A child expects support and aid from the family environment in cases of necessity. The participants with favorable family representations are open for interaction with the others, have adequate selfassessment and perceive themselves as competent in interpersonal interactions.

Interactions with parents are emotionally robust and positive in the frames of favorable family representations. A child perceives little social distance with the relatives, conditioned with distribution of family roles. A child experiences him/herself as a wholesome participant of communication, expresses his/her thoughts and emotions freely, and considers parents to be accepting and caring.

Children with this type of family representations do not experience fear or anxiety in situations of family communication; even the cases of conflicts of interests are managed to resolve positively by their family members. The “Unstable family” type is characterized with children’s episodic longing for more stable family system. Alongside with signs of general emotional well-being the children in this group demonstrate some symptoms of occasional discomfort and stress in situations of family communication as reflected in their family representations.

Emotional and social distance between them and their parents is not large but there are no persistent intensive and emotionally positive interactions with relatives. The participants from this group may experience anxiety in communication with certain family members (often with fathers), feel pressured or unaccepted. The “Distant family” type is characterized with the lack of emotional support in a child, feelings of rejection and his/her insignificance in situations of family communication.

Family situation is not represented as a positive one. A child constantly experiences lack of continuous close relationships with the parents. He/she feels lonely in the family most of the time. The children from this group feel that they problems evoke little sympathy. Social and emotional distance between a child and his/her relatives seems very large, so children have to fulfill their needs for love and acceptance in communications outside the family circle. The “Conflict family” type is characterized with children’s experiences of negative emotional interactions with family members. Signs of stress and anxiety are observed in their family representations. The signs of mutual (with different family members) displeasure and irritation, inability to interact efficiently with the family environment are revealed. A child does not perceive his/her family as a whole, since it is often associated with opposition and conflicts. Even though a child considers social distance between him/her and the relatives to be quite close, he/she may strive to make it more distant. The children from this group do not possess means for constructive resolving conflicts and often respond to them with melancholy or crying. The “Adverse family” type is characterized with signs of a child’s feelings of inadequacy and defectiveness in situations of family communication, while defensive mechanisms are expressed as the trends to avoidance of communication, autoaggressive and aggressive manifestations. The experiences of anxiety, stress and fear of the relatives are constant by nature; they

19

have pervasive influence on a child’s behavior: relative adults are not perceived as authoritative figures, a child tries to hide his/her emotional experiences from them.

Thus, the obtained results generally support the hypotheses that family representations in an older preschooler is linked with the character of a child’s subjective experience of his/her family socioeconomic well-being, and that there are typological peculiarities of family representations in older preschoolers, conditioned with the subjective experience of family interactions.

In the conclusive chapter the research is summarized and the conclusions are outlines.

Conclusions 1. Socioeconomic family status includes objective and subjective components. The objective component of socioeconomic status includes sources of income, structure of expenses, and amount of monetary assets. The subjective component is defined as subjective economic well-being, which includes: assessment of internal and external conditions for change in material well-being, assessment of income adequacy in relation to personal aspirations and needs, level of general family welfare, level of financial deprivation, level of economic financial stress.

1. Approbation of diagnostic methods, aimed at investigation of peculiarities in components of socioeconomic status of a family, was performed. The methods include: Subjective economic well-being questionnaire (V.A. Khaschenko) – forms for parents and for children (the author’s modification) and Questionnaire for assessment of a family socioeconomic status. A set of diagnostic methods was selected to investigate peculiarities of family representations in older preschoolers: “Family Drawing”; “Family Board” (K. Ludewig); “A child’s interpersonal relationships” (R. Gilles); “Family Role-play” (A.A. Shvedovskaya).

2. Subjective and objective components of socioeconomic status correlate significantly both in children and adults. Pessimistic evaluations of external and internal conditions for change in material well-being prevail in the families with low socioeconomic status; the participants consider their income to be insufficient for the needs of their families; they assess financial status of their families as generally low, experience sheer shortage of monetary assets and pronounced financial stress. Average levels on the scales of economic optimism and assurance prevail in the families with middle socioeconomic status; the participants assess their current family well-being as “average” or “above average”; they do not experience financial deprivation and shortage of monetary assets, though wish to improve their financial situation; they do not show extreme signs of financial stress. Families with high socioeconomic status demonstrate prevalence of high levels of economic optimism; the participants assess external and internal conditions for change in the financial well-being of their families as favorable; their income completely satisfies the needs and aspirations of their families;

20

current family well-being is assessed as “good”; there are no any signs of financial deprivations as well as indicators of anxiety and concerns.

3. Family representations in a child, being a holistic integrative formation and reflecting the system of significant relationships in a family, includes cognitiveactivity and emotional components. The emotional component is related to a child’s personal features, self-assessment and assessment of self and his/her family members; the cognitive-activity component is related to mindsets and images of oneself as a family member, of the other family members as well as of the family on the whole. Basing on the suggested model, five types of family representations in older preschoolers were outlined empirically: favorable (“Favorable family”), with elements of disharmony (“Unstable family”), distant (“Distant family”), conflict (“Conflict family”) and will poor level of emotional well-being (“Adverse family”). The types of family representations in children differ in the levels of general well-being and peculiarities of children’s subjective experiences of family situations, social and emotional distance between family members, children’s emotional attitudes toward family members, stress and frustration in communication with family members.

4. The main characteristics of the family representations of the “Favorable family” type include feelings of family cohesion, orientation toward support and aid from the family environment, openness for interactions with the others, have adequate self-assessment and self-assurance in situations of interpersonal interactions. Interactions with parents are emotionally robust and positive. A child perceives little social distance with the relatives, conditioned with distribution of family roles. A child experiences him/herself as a wholesome participant of communication, expresses his/her thoughts and emotions freely, and considers parents to be accepting and caring; in cases of conflicts of interests with family members a child manages to resolve them positively.

The “Unstable family” type is characterized with children’s episodic longing for more stable family system. Alongside with signs of general emotional well-being the children in this group demonstrate some symptoms of occasional discomfort and stress in situations of family communication as reflected in their family representations. Emotional and social distance between them and their parents is not large but there are no persistent intensive and emotionally positive interactions with relatives. The participants from this group may experience anxiety in communication with certain family members (often with fathers), feel pressured or unaccepted.

The “Distant family” type is characterized with the lack of emotional support in a child, feelings of rejection and his/her insignificance in situations of family communication. Family situation is not represented as a positive one. A child constantly experiences lack of continuous close relationships with the parents, loneliness and insufficient empathy and sympathy. Social and emotional distance between a child and his/her relatives seems very large, so children have to fulfill their needs for love and acceptance in communications outside the family circle.

21

The “Conflict family” type is characterized with children’s experiences of negative emotional interactions with family members. Signs of stress and anxiety are observed in their family representations. The signs of mutual (with different family members) displeasure and irritation, inability to interact efficiently with the family environment are revealed. A child does not perceive his/her family as a whole, since it is often associated with opposition and conflicts. Even though a child considers social distance between him/her and the relatives to be quite close, he/she may strive to make it more distant. The children from this group do not possess means for constructive resolving conflicts and often respond to them with melancholy or crying.

The “Adverse family” type is characterized with signs of a child’s feelings of inadequacy in situations of family communication, while defensive mechanisms are expressed as the trends to avoidance of communication and aggressive manifestations. The experiences of anxiety, stress and fear of the relatives are constant by nature; they have pervasive influence on a child’s behavior: relative adults are not perceived as authoritative figures, a child tries to hide his/her emotional experiences from them.

6. The types of family representations in children from families with middle and high socioeconomic status are significantly more frequently represented with more optimal ones (“Favorable family”, “Unstable family”) than in children from families with low socioeconomic status. Thus, the research hypothesis about the existence of typological peculiarities of older preschoolers’ family representations, which are conditioned with their subjective experience of family interactions, is confirmed.

7. The obtained data revealed the general trend: the lower is a family socioeconomic status, the more pronounced is poor well-being in a child’s family representations. The hypothesis about the links between family representations in older preschoolers and the character of their subjective experiences of their families’ socioeconomic well-being is also confirmed.

The main content of the thesis is presented in the following papers: Articles in the periodicals, recommended by the Russian Higher Attestation Committee: 1. Zagvozdkina, T.Yu., & Shvedovskaya, A.A. (2013). Social'no-e'konomicheskij status sem'i i psixicheskoe razvitie rebenka: zarubezhnyj opyt issledovaniya [The concept “socio-economic status of a family” (SES): A review of international research]. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovanie [Psychological Science and Education], 1, 65-74.

2. Zagvozdkina, T.Yu., & Shvedovskaya, A.A. (2014). Diagnostika obraza sem'i u detej doshkol'nogo vozrasta s pomoshh'yu metodiki «Semejnaya doska» [Diagnostic of family representations in older preschoolers with the “Family Board” method]. Voprosy Psikhologii [Issues in Psychology], 2, 117-124.

22

3. Zagvozdkina T.Yu. (2014). Izuchenie obraza sem'i u detej doshkol'nogo vozrasta na osnove metoda semejnoj doski [Investigation of family representations in older preschoolers with the use of the “Family Board” method]. Nachal'naya shkola plyus do i posle [Primary School Plus], 2, 63-66.

Scientific publications in the other periodicals: 4. Zagvozdkina T.Yu. (2012). Izmerenie social'no-e'konomicheskogo statusa v psixologicheskix i sociologicheskix issledovaniyax [Assessment of socioeconomic status in psychological and sociological research]. Materialy III Mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii «Psixologiya i pedagogika v sisteme gumanitarnogo znaniya» [Materials of III international scientific conference “Psychology and education through the lens of humanities”]. (pp. 53-57). Moscow: Scientificresearch center The Institute for strategic research.

5. Zagvozdkina T.Yu. (2012). Izmerenie social'no-e'konomicheskogo statusa sem'i v zarubezhnyx issledovaniyax [Assessment of a family socioeconomic status in international research]. Materialy XI mezhvuzovskaya nauchno-prakticheskaya konferenciya s mezhdunarodnym uchastiem «Molodye uchenye nashej novoj shkole» [Materials of ХI inter-university scientific-applied conference with international participation “Young scientists – to our new school”]. (pp. 32-33).

Moscow: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education.

6. Zagvozdkina T.Yu. (2013). Izuchenie obraza sem'i u detej doshkol'nogo vozrasta na osnove metoda semejnoj doski [Investigation of family representations in older preschoolers with the use of the “Family Board” method]. Materialy XII Gorodskoj nauchno-prakticheskoj konferencii «Molodye uchenye – stolichnomu obrazovaniyu». [Materials of XII city scientific-applied conference “Young scientists – to Moscow education”]. (pp. 67-69). Moscow: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education.

7. Zagvozdkina T.Yu. (2013). Vzaimosvyaz' obraza sem'i u sovremennyx doshkol'nikov i social'no-e'konomicheskogo statusa sem'i [Relationships between family representations in contemporary preschoolers with socioeconomic status of their families]. Materialy chetvertoj vserossijskoj nauchno-prakticheskaya konferenciya "U istokov razvitiya" [Materials of IV Russian scientific-applied conference “The sources of development”]. (pp. 97-98). Moscow: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education.

8. Zagvozdkina, T.Yu., & Shvedovskaya, A.A. (2015). Obraz sem'i u detej starshego doshkol'nogo vozrasta, vospityvayushhixsya v sem'yax razlichnogo social'no-e'konomicheskogo stausa [Family representations in older preschoolers, growing up in families with different socioeconomic status]. Materialy VI mezhdunarodnoj nauchnoj konferencii «Psixologicheskie problemy sovremennoj sem'i» [VI international scientific conference “Psychological issues of contemporary family”]. (pp. 335-351). Moscow: Lomonosov Moscow State University.