Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The Effects Of Generation, Religion, And Sex On The Relationship Of Family Vertical Solidarity And Mental Health In Lebanon
(USC Thesis Other)
The Effects Of Generation, Religion, And Sex On The Relationship Of Family Vertical Solidarity And Mental Health In Lebanon
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
72-6061 HADDAD, Anees Adib, 1931- THE EFFECTS OF GENERATION, RELIGION, AND SEX ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY VERTICAL SOLIDARITY AND MENTAL HEALTH IN LEBANON. University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1971 Sociology, family University Microfilms, A X ER O X Com pany, Ann Arbor, Michigan © Copyright by ANEES ADIB HADDAD • 1971 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE EFFECTS OF GENERATION, RELIGION, AND SEX ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY VERTICAL SOLIDARITY AND MENTAL HEALTH IN LEBANON by Anees Adib Haddad A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Sociology) August 1971 UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA T H E G R A D U A TE S C H O O L U N IV E R S IT Y PA RK LO S A N G E L E S , C A L IF O R N IA 9 0 0 0 7 This dissertation, w ritten by Anees Adib Haddad under the direction of h .ls Dissertation C om mittee, and a p p ro ved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by T h e G radu ate School, in partial fulfillm ent of require ments of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y 'Tn f / Dean D a te.. DISSERTATION ■MMITTEE Chairman To M. Q. I ii ! i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many classes of people to whom I am indebted in researching this topic. First, I want to acknowledge God, however, Who gave me whatever intellectual abilities I have and then sustained me through the demanding program of a graduate degree. Then, I want to acknowledge my intellectual debt to my professors and particularly to my dissertation committee composed of Dr. Vern L. Bengtson, Chair man, Dr. Solomon Kobrin, and Dr. Edward Connelley. Patiently, and competently they guided me through this dissertation. I am thankful to Dr. Reubin Hill, Dr. Bernard Farber, Dr. Ira Reiss, and Dr. Robert Sears for consultations and valuable assistance; to, Dr. Steven Lubeck, Mr. Wayne Hansen, Mrs. Marijo Walsh for their help in data processing and statistical analyses; to Professors Edmond Haddad and Ignatius Yacoub of Middle East College, Beirut, Lebanon, for supervising the data gathering and to the eight interviewers who helped them; and finally, to the friends who assisted in coding and key-punching the massive data. I am grateful to that breed of unique men and women who meet the challenge of a Ph.D. program head-on, to my friends who gave me invaluable co-oriented peer support whenever I needed it most: to William Johnson, Jean Sydner, William Martin, Connie Russell, Ed iii Olander, Sharon Moriwaki, Henry Heald, Marian Shulman, and Archie MacDonald. My greatest gratitude, however, goes to my wife Nellie, and to my three children, Eddie, Hiam, and Ella for an emotional debt I can hardly ever repay; for their patience and sacrifice; for their total understanding under the most frustrating of circumstances; and for their supporting encouragment and love. Without such assets, this work would never have been accomplished. Finally, to the honorable Trustees of the Acquinas Fund based in New York City, I express my appreciation for the grant that partially made this project possible. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION................................................... 1 Chapter 1. BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM....... 8 Solidarity and Macro-social Systems Solidarity and Micro-social Systems Solidarity and the Family— A Prototype Solidarity and Mental Health Issues to Be Investigated Postulates and Hypotheses to Be Tested 2. THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF LEBANON............................ 48 Features that Make Lebanese Society Unique The Family— The Hub of Lebanese Social Life The Family and Religion The Family and Jurisprudence The Family and Polity The Family and Welfare The Family and Economy Four Major Reasons for the Choice of Lebanon 3. RESEARCH DESIGN.......................................... 70 The Variables The Sample Research Instruments Family Vertical Solidarity Measurements Mental Health Measurements Scaling Technique Significance of the Research 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE................................ 98 The Variables: Background, Solidarity, Mental Health Background: Sex Lineage, Age, Religious Affiliation, Importance of Religion, Church/Mosque Attendance, Family Size, Distance from Home, SES, Ecuation, Financial Dependence, and Employment Family Solidarity for the Three Generations v Mental Health: Psychological Well-being Affect Balance Scale Positive Affect Scale Negative Affect Scale Worry Extensity Scale Avowed Happiness Scale Summary of Chapter 5. BACKGROUND FACTORS, SOLIDARITY, AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING 138 The Relation of Background Variables to Solidarity Solidarity and Background Variables Taken Singly Solidarity and Background Variables in Combination Multiple Regression Analysis Section Summary The Relation of Background Variables to Mental Health Mental Health and Background Variables Taken Singly Mental Health and Background Variables in Combination Multiple Regression Analysis Section Summary 6. RELATIONS BETWEEN SOLIDARITY AND MENTAL HEALTH; SOLIDARITY AND HOMANS’ INTERACTION THEORY.......................... 183 Solidarity and Mental Health— General Solidarity and Mental Health— Specification Section Summary Solidarity and Homans' Theory Interaction Theory Tested— General Interaction Theory Tested— Specification Summary 7. SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS.................................. 211 Summary Conclusion and Implications REFERENCES...................................................... 231 APPENDICES...................................................... 242 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Mean Age and Number of Subjects by Generation and Sex.... 103 2. Religion of Subjects by Generation and Sex............... 103 3. Importance of Religion by Sex and Generation............. 105 4. Church/Mosque Attendance by Sex and Generation........... 105 5. Income of Subjects by Generation and Sex................. 107 6. Education by Generation and Sex......................... 107 7. Financial Dependence on Parents by Generation and Sex.... 110 8. Employment by Generation and Sex......................... 110 9. Mean Family Solidarity by Solidarity Type— Pearsonian Correlations— for.G-^.................................. 112 10. Mean Family Solidarity by Solidarity Type and Generation— Pearsonian Correlations— for G^........................ 112 11. Mean Family Solidarity by Solidarity Type— Pearsonian Correlation— for .................................... 115 12. Mean Total Family Solidarity by Sex and Generation— Pearsonian Correlations— for G2 ........................ 115 13. Intercorrelation of Solidarity by Generation and Sex for G2..................................................... 117 14. Correlation of Global Solidarity by Generation and Sex for G3..................................................... 117 15. Intercorrelations of Global Solidarity for Gg............ 119 16. Intercorrelations of Solidarity by Generation and Sex for ..................................................... 119 vii 120 121 121 123 124 126 128 131 132 140 143 145 147 149 151 153 155 156 157 ; Affect Balance Scores by Generation and Sex............... Intercorrelations of Psycological Well-being Indices....... Rankorder of Gensex on ABS Mean Scores.................... Questionnaire Items Reflecting Positive Affect by Genera tion and Sex Rankordered in Percentages................. Rankorder of Generation-Sex on Positive Affect and Negative Affect Mean Scores .......................... Questionnaire Items Reflecting Negative Affect by Genera tion and Sex Rankordered in Percentages................. Questionnaire Items Reflecting Specific Worries by Genera tion and Sex Rankordered in Percentages................. Rankorder of Generation-Sex on Worry Extensity and Avowed Happiness Mean Scores................................... Avowed Happiness by Generation and Sex in Percentages..... Association of Family Tri-Generational Solidarity with Sex, Generation, Religion, and SES in Percentages............ Mean Family Solidarity by Solidarity Type, Religion, and Generation.............................................. Mean Solidarity Scores by Solidarity Types and Gensex..... Mean Family Solidarity by Sex and Age Group............... Mean Family Solidarity by Generation and Socio-Economic Status (Income Level)................................. . Mean Solidarity by Solidarity Types and Education......... Mean Family Solidarity by Generation, Sex, and Religion (Total Solidarity)...................................... Multiple Regression of Family Solidarity and Background Variables for Generation-1.............................. Multiple Regression of Family Solidarity and Background Variables for Generation-2.............................. Multiple Regression of Family Solidarity and Background Variables for Generation-3.............................. viii 36. Association of Affect Balance Scale with Sex, Generation, Religion, and SES in Percentages........................ 162 37. Mean Mental Health by Generation and Religion............. 165 38. Mean Mental Health by its Different Measures and Gensex.... 167 39. Mean Mental Health by Sex and Age Group................... 169 40. ‘Mean Mental Health by Generation and SES (Income Level).... 171 41. Mean Mental Health by its Different Measures and Education 173 42. Mean Affect Balance Score by Generation, Sex, and Religion 176 43. Multiple Regression of Affect Balance Scores with Total Global Solidarity and Background Variables by Generation 178 44. Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health.................................................. 185 45. Association of Family Solidarity (Total) and Mental Health Affect Balance Score.................................... 186 46. Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health— by Sex— ........................................ 188 47. Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health— by Generation— ................................. 191 48. Multiple Regression of Mental Health (ABS) on Solidarity by Solidarity Type and Generation....................... 193 49. Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health— by Religion— ................................... 195 50. Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health— by SES— ........................................ 197 51. Association of the Three Types of Solidarity— Total— .......200 ix LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Illustration Page 1. The Relationships between Association, Affection, and Consensus............................................ 23 2. Western Political System vs. Lebanese Political System.. 60 3. Male and Female Descent Lines.......................... 73 4. Scheme of 12 Responses for the Global Family Solidarity.... 89 5. Model Linking Background Variables to Family Solidarity and Mental Health........................................ 101 x LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Association-Consensus-Affection: Total Sample............ 202 2. Association-Consensus-Af f ection: Male................... 202 3. Association-Consensus-Af fection: Female................. 202 4. Association-Consensus-Affection: Generation-1........... 204 5. Association-Consensus-Af fection: Generation-2........... 204 6. Association-Consensus-Af f ection: Generation-3........... 204 7. Association-Consensus-Aff ection: Mohammedan............. 206 8. Association-Consensus-Affection: Christian.............. 206 9. Association-Consensus-Affection: Upper SES.............. 208 10. Association-Consensus-Affection: Middle SES............. 208 11. Association-Consensus-Affection: Lower SES.............. 208 xi INTRODUCTION The major objective of this research is to investigate the rela tionship between perceived family vertical solidarity and individual mental health or psychological well-being within the culture of a Middle Eastern society, Lebanon. In pursuit of this goal, a multi-dimensional approach of both family solidarity and mental health will be presented and utilized throughout the study. The general questions to be investigated in this research are the following: 1. What is the relationship between demographic or respondent's background factors (such as sex, religion, generational membership, and social class) and the perception of family solidarity? 2. What is the relationship of background factors to indices of mental health or psychological well-being? 3. What is the relationship between perception of family solida rity and psychological well-being? 4. How do background factors influence the relationship between perception of family solidarity and the state of mental well-being? 5. Homans' human behavior theory posits a direct relationship between association, consensus, and affect. To what extent is this relationship upheld within the context of the family in Lebanon? 1 The principal proposition of this study is that there is a direct relationship between family solidarity and psychological well-being. Further, it is proposed that the respondent’s background affects his perception of family solidarity and his measures of mental well-being as follows: (1) Females will have higher perception of family solidarity, but lower scores of psychological well-being than males; (2) Christians will have higher perception of family solidarity and higher scores of psychological well-being than Mohammedans; (3) G^ (the old generation) will show higher perception of family solidarity and higher scores of psychological well-being than both G2 (the middle generation) and Gg (the young generation); (4) there will be no significant relationship between socio-economic status and perception of family solidarity or scores of psychological well-being. Lebanon was chosen for the research because of its "functionally extended family." Though Lebanon must be considered a modern, Western ized society, the family still plays the most important role in all aspects of secular and religious life. For example, how far an individ ual advances in his education, his economic status, government appoint ments to all kinds of positions both domestic and foreign, and a host of other social functions will depend mostly on his family of orienta tion. The family name is an important ascribed status in Lebanon. Furthermore, Lebanon's evenly-divided population between Chris tians and Mohammedans affords a maximum degree of variability of atti tudes towards the family between these two world religions not available anywhere else (See Gulick, 1965:1). With a higher rate of divorce among Mohammedans than among Christians, it is expected that the Chris- 3 tians will perceive a higher degree of family solidarity, and that there will be less association between family solidarity and psychological well-being for Mohammedans than Christians. Third, Lebanon also presents a unique situation for the study of male-female contrasts, especially in status and role. While the Lebanese female is more educated and Westernly-oriented than her coun terpart in any other Arab country, yet the male is still predominantly the master, both within and outside the family. It is expected that the female will, therefore, be higher than the male in her perception of family solidarity, but that there will be a higher association between family solidarity and psychological well-being for the male than for the female. To test the theory that family solidarity is directly related to psychological well-being or mental health, a purposive sample (evenly divided between Christians and Mohammedans and selected to include a wide spread of social class) of sixty (60) families, or three-hundred and sixty (360) individuals, was chosen in the Republic of Lebanon. Each family was to be composed of three generations: the grandparental generation, the parental generation, and the adult children's genera tion. From each generation two subjects were chosen: the grand parents, the parents, and two of the parents' adult children, in most cases one male and one female. Hence, solidarity was across genera tions and not within generations. This called for a distinct type of solidarity which we term Family Vertical Solidarity to distinguish it from Family Horizontal Solidarity which might be found between spouses or siblings. Family Vertical Solidarity was operationalized by using three indeces: (1) Associational Solidarity: the frequency of association between members of three-generational families; (2) Affectual Solidarity: measuring the degree of affection perceived by intergenerational family members; and, (3) Consensual Solidarity: the degree of perceived attitudinal consensus between family members on a variety of topics relevant to five social institutions. Psychological well-being was measured in three basic ways using Bradburn's (1969) operational scales of: (1) Affect Balance Scale, with its two sub-scales of Positive Affect and Negative Affect; (2) The Worry Scale; and, (3) The Avowed Happiness Scale. The items of the Affectual Solidarity Scale and those of the Affect Balance Scale have nothing in common except the word "affect," and, therefore, they should not be confused with each other. The central theme of this research, then, is the relationship of perceived family vertical solidarity and psychological well-being. Paul Schrecker (1959:490) has defined the family as "...an organization of several individuals constituted by common descent and destined to preserve and convey certain traits, dispositions, skills, and physical, mental, and moral patterns of life across time." Schrecker emphasizes the association between the family and several life patterns of its individual members, including the mental. 5 Ackerman (1958:7) says that the "criteria for emotional illness and health cannot be restricted to the individual; they must encompass the individual within the group and the group as well." He elaborates by saying "we must, it seems to me, acknowledge the fact that mental health cannot be understood within the limited confines of individual experience... A broader approach to mental health must embrace the dynamics of the family group as well" (Ackerman, 1958:11). "The family is the basic unit of growth and experience, fulfillment or failure. It is also the basic unit of illness and health" (Ackerman, 1958:15, italics supplied). It is assumed in this study that the family forms a buffer between the individual and the stresses and strains that bombard him constantly from society. It is, therefore, hypothesized that where there is high solidarity in the family, the individual can take the stress and strain better than if the family solidarity is low, and hence his score on psychological well-being or mental health will be higher. Consequently, all other things being equal, the psychological well-being of a family member will tend to be higher where he feels high family solidarity and lower with low solidarity. However, there are mediating mechanisms such as religion, sex, and social position, that inevitably will affect this. For example, the relationship between solidarity and mental health for young Christians may not be the same for young Mohammedans, even though other generations of both religions may be the same, or vice versa. In Chapter 1, the concept "solidarity" is introduced on both the macro and the micro societal levels. A review of the literature shows the importance of the concept. Family solidarity is shown to be a special case of small group solidarity found on the micro-social systemic level. "Family solidarity" is considered as perceived by the individual. This is based on the so-called phenomenological position, following Lewin and W. I. Thomas, among others: "the phenomena to which the psychologist should direct his attention are what the indi vidual subjectively perceives, not what the observer perceives as the 'objective reality"1 (Shepherd, 1964:24). Chapter 1 also discusses the concept "psychological well-being" and its association with family solidarity. Chapter 2 introduces Lebanon as the arena for the research. The family is seen as the hub of Lebanese social life interpenetrating the spheres of religion, jurisprudence, politics, welfare, and economics. This, and the opportunity to explore family solidarity in two very different religious traditions, are the principal reasons given for the choice of Lebanon. In Chapter 3 the research design is presented. The sample is discussed as are the research instruments and the general research methodology. From nominal definitions, the operational definitions of the concepts and the scale items are shown. Finally, scaling is dis cussed in detail, and the significance of the research is outlined. Chapter 4 presents the statistical analyses of the data as regards the description of the sample on background and demographic variables, on their perception of solidarity, and how they stand on the various measures of psychological well-being. Chapter 5 presents more statistical analyses of the data focusing 7 on two questions: (a) How do background variables of an individual influence his perception of family solidarity; and (b) How does a person's background influence his mental health. Chapter 6 presents the statistical analyses of the relationship of family solidarity to mental health. The effect of a person's back ground is considered in the relationship of his perception of family solidarity and the measures of his psychological well-being. In this chapter, Homans' theory is also tested as to the relationship between Consensus, Affect, and Association. In Chapter 7 a general summary is presented, and the implications for future research are outlined. An appendix and a selected bibliog raphy are presented at the end of the dissertation. It is hoped that the central question of the research: To what extent is family solidarity related to the mental health of the family member will not only be answered in part, but will receive more atten tion in future research than it has so far. Chapter 1 BACKGROUND AND THEORETICAL CONTEXT OF THE PROBLEM The Concept of Solidarity The concept of solidarity has had an extensive background of usage in the literature of sociology and social psychology. Many writers have stressed the import ance of the concept for the analysis of group and social system phenomena. If one were to equate, as some do, the concepts "integration,” "cohesion," and "solidarity," one would find that these concepts have been recognized and studied by social scien tists for centuries. This study will focus on the issue of solidarity within the family. The study assumes that, just as on the macro-societal level, integra tion, solidarity, or cohesion is an important prerequisite for the proper functioning of society, so it is with any social sub-system including the family. According to Parsons (1968:40) "the family is the 'primordial' solidary unit of all human societies. Indeed, in the most primitive, kinship, which includes much more than the nuclear family, is the mode of organization of all solidarity." Parsons goes on to give the reason by suggesting that family solidarity is the primordial basis of social solidarity 8 9 generally, "guaranteed" by the personal security of the indi vidual. It is the groundwork on which the possibility of mutual trust in ramified systems of associative relationships— and hence openness to mutual influence— is built in a complex society (Parsons, 1968:41). This study will first define and measure inter-family solidarity across three generations by measuring the individual family member's perception of the solidary relations between himself and another family member, either his father, his mother, his son, or his daughter. In subsequent analyses, perception of dyadic solidarity will be consid ered, and finally a summary index of the entire inter-generational family solidarity will be used. An examination of the correlates and consequences of high and low family solidarity to the members of this sub-system will constitute an important portion of this research. How ever, this will be only supportive investigation of the major question: What is the relationship of solidarity to mental health? And, How do background variables affect this relationship? In this chapter the works of several social scientists will be reviewed to frame the concept solidarity in its proper perspective. Theoretical formulations and ideas by Ibn Khaldoun, Durkheim, Brown, Parsons, and Merton will be discussed. In addition, small group theorists such as Deutsch, Krauss, Thibaut, Kelley, and Homans will be presented briefly. The theoretical association between family solidarity and mental health will be discussed. The issues to be investigated in this study will be reviewed, with a summary of the literature on family solidarity and mental health or psychological well-being. Finally, the postulates and hypotheses to be tested will be detailed. 10 A. Solidarity and Macro-Social Systems Ibn Khaldun One of the earliest students of society to investigate solidarity was Ibn Khaldun (See Rosenthal's translation: Khaldun, 1958) who focused on mutual interdependence and power relationships. The analyt ical factors which he used, group feeling (social or group solidarity), leadership, and cycles of affluence and decay, were applied to a population representing two polarities of the social environment: (a) Bedouins, and (b) Sedentary people. Two fundamentally different environments in which all human cooperation takes place and the forms of social organization develop were distinguished by Ibn Khaldun as "desert, desert life" (Gemein- schaft?) or nomadism, and "town, sedentary environment" (Gesellschaft?). However, "urban population" did not have the same meaning as it does today. Cities of the period required much agricultural activity (Khaldoun, 1958:77). Just the same, Ibn Khaldun evaluates the two types of social sys tems as follows: Bedouins are closer to being good than sedentary people. Sedentary people are much concerned with all kinds of pleasures. They are accustomed to luxury and success in worldly occupations and to indulgence in worldly desires. Therefore, their souls are colored with all kinds of blameworthy and evil qualities. The more of them they possess, the more remote do the ways and means of goodness become them. Eventually they lose all sense of restraint (Khaldoun, 1958:254). From this we gather that social solidarity and social integration existed in their "purist" form among Bedouin tribes. The hard rigorous bare life of the desert and nomadic life engenders rugged endurance and 11 self-discipline in which members of the unit are bound together by kin ship ties, intense tribal spirit and obedience to leaders. By contrast, the settled conditions of agriculturalists living a more sedentary and secure life in towns and villages leads to decay of moral fiber, pursuit of self interest with loss of communal solidarity. Ibn Khaldun noted that as people take on civilized manners they become prey to raids of nomadic tribes or Bedouins who can vanquish a sedentary community of equal man-power. States originate because there must be some factor that causes such differences, some incitement for the desire for cooperation to exist on a larger scale among human beings than others. The significant factor is "group feeling." "Group" in a general sense referred to the group with which a human being feels most closely connected, relatives, people with whom he shares a common descent. However, "asabiyah" (or group feeling) can also be shared by people not related to each other by blood ties but by long and close contact as members of a group. Khaldun's use of the term is unique because in Muslim literature the term had a different meaning and was originally considered a mean "bias" or blind support of one's group without regard for the justice of its cause (Khaldun, 1958:29-30). In his introduction to Tonnies' Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, Sorokin says that this typology "is the central idea of the great Arabian thinker, Ibn Khaldun, in his History of Berbers and in his Prolegomenes to the Universal History. His analysis of both types is one of the most penetrating, detailed, and enlightening" (vi). Durkheim Durkheim's typology of solidarity on the societal macro-level, as presented in his doctoral dissertation "De l<i Division du Travail Social" (1893), has been one of the most useful theoretical orienta tions. His interest in the study of group solidarity may have developed 12 from his identification with the strongly integrated Jewish minority, his having been born in about the most nationalistic area of France, and his first-hand experiences with the disasters brought about by the Franco-Prussian war. These are some of the possible sources of Durk- heim's interests. The solidarity issue, however, in one way or another, formed the center of gravity for the development of sociological theory in both France and Germany from Comte on down. Nisbet (1966:19) joins in asking the pertinent question: "How did Durkheim get his controlling idea?" "We may be sure of one thing: he did not get it, as the stork story of science might have it, from a preliminary examination of the vital registers of Europe, any more than Darwin got the idea of natural selection from his observations during the voyage of the Beagle... Where, then, did he get the idea? We can only speculate. He might have got it from reading Tocqueville, who could certainly have got it from Lamennais, who could have got it from Bonald or Chateaubriand. Or, it could have come from personal experience— from a remembered fragment of the Talmud, from an intuition born of personal loneliness and marginality, a scrap of experience in Paris. Who can be sure?" On the other hand, Nisbet presents a more fundamental possibility that is more convincing as to where these giants of sociology got their molding ideas. "Community-society, authority-power, status- class, sacred-secular, alienation-progress: these are rich themes in nineteenth-century thought. Considered as linked antitheses, they form the very warp of the sociological tradition." (1966:7) In elaborating on the concept Community (one of the five basic "unit- 13 ideas" of sociology) Nisbet explains: "Community includes but goes beyond local community to encompass religion, work, family, and culture; it refers to social bonds characterized by emotional cohesion, depth, continuity, and fullness" (1966:6). Borrowing the terms "mechanical" and "organic" from Simmel (but, incidentally, reversing their usage), Durkheim attributed "mechanical solidarity" to primitive societies and "organic solidarity" to the more advanced societies. The nature of the new society "lay in the shift in human sentiments, in the loss of ethnic (or in his words 'mechanical') solidarity in favor of transinstitutional (or 'organic' solidarity" (Gross, 1967:90). He also attributed mechanical solidarity to folk societies and said that it was "based upon likeness rather than differ ence. The individual follows all of the group's movements automatical ly or mechanically because he is an undifferentiated part, and his reactions are like those of everyone else..." On the other hand, he attributed organic solidarity to modern industrial societies because "modern industry and commerce have pushed specialization to great extremes. Consequently, many new interests and groups are created, because those engaged in the same specialized activities tend to see the world alike and have a common stake in it. In addition, the individual's life is less unified and more compartmentalized" (see Broom and Selznick, 1963:46). Whether or not a highly specialized division of labor would under mine a society's integration was also considered by Durkheim. He realized that unless there was an underlying set of values and aims, the compartmentalization would lead to a division of labor he termed 14 "anomic." Specialized activities in a highly differentiated society are therefore interdependent, resembling the organs of the body (hence the term "organic solidarity"), but they are also guided by principles and rules and tied together so that the parts are not fighting with each other nor with the whole. As Broom and Selznick (1963:46) say: "Durkheim concluded that there must be a mixture of the two types of solidarity if social cohesion is to be maintained." Whereas organic solidarity "suggests two beings mutually dependent because they are each incomplete," mechanical solidarity "consists in an agglutination. The two representations become solidary because, being indistinct...they confound each other, and become no more than one." Durkheim saw mechanical solidarity as an inherently "low-synergy" mechanism, since it was strong only to the extent that "individuality" was obliterated, while organic solidarity, on the other hand, depended upon individual differences: "the individuality of all grows at the same time as that of its parts" (Smelser, 1967:587, 588). Smelser sees in the distinction of mechanical vs. organic soli darity a blueprint for later psychoanalytic theory. In fact he feels that the distinction "is precisely reproduced." Mechanical solidarity becomes narcissistic love, and organic solidarity anaclitic love. Narcissistic love is based on the resemblances between ego and alter, while anaclitic love is based more on dependency. (Flugel (1921:103, 104) writes: "The lover is here attracted towards his object because he finds in it something that is essential to the fulfillment of his own bodily or mental needs" (see also Freud, 1953:30-59). The first type of love, narcissistic, underscores similarities; the second type, anaclitic, emphasizes differences. Thus a social system based on narcissistic love would have mechanical solidarity; one based on anaclitic love would have organic solidarity. 15 Smelser, recognizing the fact that all relationships are an admix ture of the two types of love, concludes that "all collectivities presumably involve both kinds of solidarity. It is therefore increas ingly clear that Durkheim's equation— qualified though it was— of mechanical solidarity with primitive societies and organic solidarity with modern societies was still considerably overdrawn" (1967:587). It is recognized, however, by all social scientists that Durkheim was presenting ideal types in calling attention to the contrasting forms of solidarity in social systems. Roger Brown A useful social-psychological perspective on solidarity is pre sented by Roger Brown in his textbook for undergraduates. Brown suggests that, on a highly abstract level, there are two basic dimen sions of human relationships and interaction: (a) Solidarity, being the horizontal dimension, and (b) Status, being the vertical. In his Table 2-1, reproduced as page 16 here, Brown presented five dimensions of solidarity and their counterparts in status: (A) Personal characteristics, (B) Spatial relations, (C) Sentiments, (D) Behavior, and (E) Symbols. Personal characteristics would include such things as "seniority, maleness, noble lineage, higher education, a large income, and positions of formal authority" CBrown, 1965:74). Spatial relations are important in so far as geographic -distance would inhibit the interaction needed for the development of solidarity. Or as Brown says (p. 79) "Proximity in space makes for solidarity because it is prerequisite to interac- Symmetrical relations Asymmetrical relations n Table 2-1. Aspects of Solidarity and Status * B C D e Personal ^ 4 4r v characteristics Spatial relations Sentiments Behavior Symbols Solidarity marked by similarities of taste, attitude fate, age, sex, occupation, in come, etc. Solidarity marked by proximity (be ing near). Solidarity marked by liking, sym pathy, trust, and other pleasant sentiments. Solidarity marked by frequent inter action, confiding in one another, beneficent actions self-disclosure, etc. Solidarity marked by any perceptible similarity, proxim ity , or intimacy. Nonsolidarity marked by differ ences Nonsolidarity marked by remote ness (being far). Nonsolidarity marked by indif ference or dis like which are not pleasant sentim- ments. Nonsolidarity marked by infre quent interaction and little inti macy. Nonsolidarity marked by any per ceptible difference distance, or for mality. Status differences marked by differ ences in valued characteristics such as age, sex, occupation, in come, etc. Status differences Status differences Status differences Status differences marked by being above or below, in front or behind. marked by agree- marked by influ- able sentiments of ence, control, superiority and by power, etc. disagreeable sentiments of inferiority. marked by any per ceptible differ ences in .valued characteristics, by "superior" and "inferior" spatial positions, or by influence and control. 17 tion." Also sentiments seem to be one of the main factors in soli darity, one of the few common denominators mentioned by students of social solidarity. "Feelings of solidarity are extremely pleasant; they are one of the best things that life offers," says Brown, but "the basic sentiment in solidarity is a feeling of union with someone else, a feeling that the self has grown beyond its skin" (Brown, 1965:82). Brown also includes behavior as an important dimension of solidarity. He says that while asymmetric behavior belongs to the status cluster (the other basic dimension of human relationships), symmetrical behavior "seems to belong to the solidarity cluster." Symbols, of course, are often an earmark of solidarity of those who share like- mindedness. This seems to be the main reason Brown uses symbols as a fifth dimension in his scheme of analysis. In putting his formulation together, Brown says: Relations between two persons may be classified into five types: relations involving personal characteristics (e.g. age, sex, nationality, education); relations in space (e.g. close, remote, above, below, before, and behind); relational sentiments (e.g. liking, dislike, superiority, and inferiority); relational behavior (e.g. cooperation, confiding in, influence); symbols of relations (e.g. wedding rings, secret handclasps, salutes, "brass"). These five types apply to relations of both the symmetrical and the asymmetrical varieties (Brown, 1965:73). In our own theoretical formulation of the concept solidarity Brown's column A (see Table 2-1) represents a combination of the demographic factors we have included as well as the Consensual Inte gration Index. Column B represents the distance between the dwellings of members of the three generations of our subject families. Column C is much like our Affectual Integration Index. Column D is a mixture of Associational Integration Index and Affectual Integration Index items. 18 There is nothing in our formulation that resembles Brown's column E— Symbols. Parsons On the macro-sociological level, Parsons has extracted four func tional prerequisites for any social systemr. to function satisfactorily. In his AGIL paradigm, he enumerates these prerequisites as the (1) Adaptive, (2) Goal-attainment, (3) Integrative, and (4) Latency, which has as sub-divisions (a) pattern maintenance, and (b) tension manage ment. Parsons points out, then, that for any social system on any level, from the macro-level to the micro-level, solidarity is essential for proper functioning. The system must be integrated. The mechanisms of integration differ from one social system to another, but whatever the mechanism the systemic sub-parts must be in cohesion for proper functioning as a social system. Taking it down to the micro-social level of the family, we have already seen that Parsons believes that "the family is the 'primordial' solidary unit of all human societies" (1968:40). Not only is the family the "primordial" solidary unit, but for him the family's "most crucial function lies in the area of solidarity" (1968:43). Merton Merton (1957:315) points out that "the degree of social cohesion has been recognized as a group-property which affects a wide variety of behavior and role-performance by members of a group." This recogni tion will serve us as a bridge between solidarity on a macro-societal level to solidarity of small groups on a micro-social level. 19 B. Solidarity and Micro-Social Systems Thibaut and Kelley (1967:247) report studies by Festinger, Schachter, Back, Kelley and Vokart which show that "the more the mem bers are, on the average attracted to a group (or the greater the group cohesiveness), the greater is their conformity to its norms." There is no doubt, then, that group cohesiveness must have differential effects on the members' performance. Cartwright and Zander (1960:92) call attention to another important function of cohe siveness. They say: ...Group cohesiveness affects group productivity. Cohe siveness as such does not necessarily increase or decrease the productivity of a group. Rather, cohesiveness (or attraction to group membership) serves to heighten the susceptibility of group members to influence from other members. In this section, Deutsch, Krauss, and Homans will be briefly presented only as representatives of small group theorists who have dealt with the concept of group solidarity. Later on, in the next section, the family itself will be studied as a special case of a small group. Deutsch and Krauss Deutsch and Krauss (1965:55) state that One of the key concepts which has been the subject of much experimental investigation, is that of cohesiveness. Intui tively, cohesiveness refers to the forces that bind the parts of a group together and that, thus resist disruptive influences. Hence, the study of conditions affecting group cohesiveness and of the effects on group functioning of variations in group cohesiveness lies at the heart of the study of group life. In dealing with group cohesiveness, Deutsch and Krauss (1965:56) restate a theoretical formulation by Deutsch in which he provides a 20 rationale for the use of a wide variety of measures of membership motives. He develops the hypotheses that "members of more cohesive (cooperative) groups as compared with members of less cohesive (compe titive) groups, under conditions of successful locomotion: (1) Would be more ready to accept the actions of other group members as possible substitutes for similarly intended actions of their own (and therefore would also not have to perform them); (2) would be more ready to accept inductions (be influenced) by other members; and (3) would be more likely to cathect or value positively the actions of other group members. From the second hypothesis a prediction would follow that "members of more cohesive groups would be more attentive to one another, be more understood by one another, be more influenced by one another, be more likely to change and have more internalization of group norms than members of less cohesive groups." These hypotheses are claimed by Deutsch and Krauss to have been supported by the work of Back, Deutsch, Gerard, Levy, and Schachter. Homans Homans' work for many years has been centered in the mechanics and motivations of elementary social behavior. By this is meant the direct face-to-face interaction of people from which rewards and punishments, costs and profits are immediately forthcoming. Consequently, he has focused most of his interest on the small group which he feels is basic to human life. Homans brings unique ability to observe and synthesize sociological and anthropological studies of all types of groups. "Sociology has 21 been gorged with facts; it needs to digest them" (Homans, 1950:3). He presents a theory about the very basic stuff of human interaction— the face-to-face interaction of the small group. His interest is the utilization of the concept of system as primary for sociological analy sis. He defines system and its components as: 1. Activity: What the members do. 2. Interaction: The relation of the activity of one member of the group to that of another and is measured through frequency. 3. Sentiment: The sum of the feelings of group members with respect to the group, and examined from the point of view of intensity. 4. Norms: The code of behavior adopted consciously or uncon sciously by the group. Homans theorizes (largely on the basis of Skinnerian operant conditioning and on "Economic Man" principle) that friendly interaction is sustained between two or more persons as long as the behavior of one represents a social reward or reinforcement (e.g., the giving of social approval) for the other. Here there is a reward-punishment system operating. "Person," for example, exchanges activities (action or sentiment) with "Other" in order to profit from the transaction. Inter action continues only as long as it is profitable to both. Profit is evaluated in terms of reward less the cost involved in forgoing the rewards of alternate transactions. The presence of viable options leads to differential dependence and power in relationships. This simplified statement of Homans' position is also referred to as Social Exchange Theory and is used to account for a number of generalizations concerning groups and interaction stated in an earlier publication, the Human Group (1950). With respect to solidarity, the 22 most relevant hypotheses were: a. If the frequency of interaction between two or more persons increases, the degree of their liking will increase, and vice versa (Homans, 1950:112). b. Persons who interact with one another frequently are more like one another in their activities than they are like other persons with whom they interact less frequently (p. 135). Homans, like Heider, believes that cause and effect can work in either direction in the above generalizations, and, as I understand it, Exchange Theory is intended to account for the persistence of solidary interaction once it has begun. It is also profitable to look at Balance Theory in this connection. Balance Theory was originally formulated by the Gestalt psychologist Fritz Heider who was interested in perceptions in interpersonal situa tions. The following propositions are germane here: a. In respect of attitudes directed toward the same entity, a balance state exists if positive (or negative) attitudes go together; a tendency exists to see a person as positive or negative in all respects. b. In respect of attitudes toward an entity combined with belong ingness, a balanced state exists if a person is united with the entities he likes and if he likes the entitites he is united with; and the converse is true for negative attitudes (Deutsch and Krauss, 1965:33-34). According to Brown (1965:76), propositions even more specific to the issue of solidarity are: a. "P similar to 0 induces P likes 0" where P is one person'and 0 another. b. "P likes 0 induces P in contact with 0" where contact includes both proximity and interaction. c. "P likes 0 induces P benefits 0." Brown also notes that : 23 Heider furthermore subscribes to all of these propositions in reverse with liking inducing similarity, contact inducing liking, and benefit inducing liking. He believes, in other words, that cause and effect can work either way in these correlations. The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations cites a large amount of evidence that supports Heider's propositions (Brown, 1965:76). Balance and dissonance theories both deal with perceptual struc tures and are basically derived from Gestalt psychology; Homans' ex change theory builds upon concepts from behavioral psychology and economics. Balance and dissonance theories see solidarity between Person and Other as part of a configuration of feelings and beliefs; they deal with the phenomenal self. Exchange theory is more sociolo gical. In our theoretical formulation of Family Vertical Solidarity, we have recognized the basic three dimensions of interaction theory, namely, association, affection, and similarity or consensus. Balance theory would lead us to believe that we should find a high association between these three dimensions in families that are high on solidarity. Association Cartwright and Zander (1960:83-86) present some conditions which decrease the valence of a group, i.e. its impact on the individual: (1) A person will attempt to leave a group when its net attrac tiveness becomes less than zero, that is, when it becomes nega tive. He will actually leave it when the forces driving him away from the group are greater than the sum of the forces attracting him to the group plus the restraining forces against leaving. (2) The attractiveness of a group may be decreased if one has un pleasant experiences in it. (3) The negative evaluation placed upon membership in a group by 24 people in the surrounding community can also make the group un attractive to its members. (4) The competition among groups for members provides a final reason that members may wish to leave a group. Homans emphasizes the integrative aspects as a result of inter action. From a logical standpoint, Homans seems to be on the right track. Social systems in behavior and integration are broadly covered by activity, consensus on goals and norms, and sometimes basic values, (at least for a universe of discourse), and lastly by sentiments. C. Solidarity and the Family The family is a special type of small groups. In fact it is the prototype of small groups. Durkheim (1951:202) states that cohesion depends upon the degree of interaction among persons. "The integration of a social aggregate can only reflect the intensity of the collective life circulating in it... It is more unified and powerful the more active and constant is the intercourse among its members." Interpreting Durkheim, Aldous and Hill (1965:473) state that "Where cohesiveness is lacking in the family group, there will be barriers to interaction bet ween parents and children." Further, that "in attempting to account for the similarities linking the various generations of a family, the concept of social cohesion is essential." Other students of the family have noted the effect of cohesiveness or the lack of it on individual family members. A few examples will suffice: According to Berkowitz (1965:71) "Family cohesiveness counters delinquent neighborhood and peer influences in at least three ways. 25 For one, home life can determine the extent to which the boy becomes attracted to aggresively anti-social activities outside the home." Berkowitz goes on to say: In addition, a secure, emotionally satisfying family life probably facilitates the development of law-abiding self- concepts... Third, the family, especially the parents, may teach the child— implicitly or explicitly— either to engage in socially disapproved actions or to avoid such behavior. Jackson Toby (1957:505-512) reanalyzed Shaw and McKay's data on 1675 delinquents and 7278 schoolboys in which no difference in inci dence of broken homes was found between delinquent and non-delinquent boys. Toby finds there is a difference in incidence of broken homes for younger adolescent boys and for all girls. He concludes that the better integrated the family, the more successful it is in combatting anti-social neighborhood and peer group influences with respect to girls and younger adolescents. Charles Browning (1960:37-44) compared 60 sets of 3 families each having boys who were classified as either nondelinquent, truant delinquent, or auto thief delinquent. There were significantly more broken homes among the two delinquent groups, but there was also sig nificantly more marital adjustment and family solidarity in the non delinquent group controlling for broken homes. He concluded that adolescent male delinquents are as likely to come from "disorganized but structurally unbroken homes as they are from broken homes." Family Horizontal Solidarity: Much of the family literature deals with what one might term horizontal solidarity, i.e. cohesiveness of same-generation members such as husband and wife, and in some instances siblings. To complete 26 ly cite such literature is beyond the scope of this research. However, a few studies will be summarized as examples. Navran (1967) tested the correlation between communication and marital adjustment. He found that good communication leads to good marital adjustment. Adjusted couples were found to "talk more together, convey understanding of meaning," to be "sensitive to each other's feelings," and to "use more nonverbal communication." In this study the importance of verbal and nonverbal communication is demonstrated for solidarity among spouses. Levinger (1965) set out to develop a theory of marital cohesive ness and dissolution. He sees marriage as a special case of small group interaction and ties marital cohesiveness into small group theory: The cohesiveness of a marriage is a direct function of the attractions from within and the barriers surrounding it, and an inverse function of alternative attractions. The "sources of attraction" were: (1) affectual rewards, (2) socio-economic rewards, (3) similarity in social status. The sources of "barrier strength" were: (1) feelings of obligation, (2) moral proscriptions, and (3) external pressures. Pickford (1966) found that similar or related personality traits are significantly related to marital happiness, and that dissimilar or unrelated personality traits are significantly related to marital un happiness. Here similarity and consensus are brought out as important dimensions of inter-personal solidarity. Babchuk and Ballweg (1967) found that common religious affiliation affects the stability of the family. The majority of couples studied changed at or near marriage so as to share a common religious affil- 27 iation. Eighty-four percent of the couples interviewed had changed. Again we see here the importance of consensus in inter-personal co hesion. (For some other studies bearing on„„horizontal solidarity see: Goodman and Ofshe, 1968; Clements, 1967; Haley, 1967; Strauss, 1968; Lennard and Beaulieu, 1965; Michel, 1967; Elder, 1965; Adams et al., 1965; Miller and Barnhouse, 1967; Buric and Zecvic, 1967; Geismar and Gerhart, 1968; Thomas, 1968; Gordon, 1969; Dean, 1966; Luckey, 1966; Whitehurst, 1968; Crouse, et al., 1968; McMillan, 1969; Sharpe and Broderick, 1967) Family Vertical Solidarity: Relatively less of the family literature deals with vertical relationships between two generations (parent-child interaction and influence), and far less with vertical relations between three gene rations (parent-child-grandchild). These types of relations shall be termed in this study "Family Vertical Solidarity." The available research along this axis seems to deal mostly with such areas as communication, educational achievement, mobility, emotional sickness such as in schizophrenia, socialization, and so forth. A few will be reviewed in brief: Gordon (1969) sought to assess the relative effects of self conceptions, race, and family factors on the achievement orientations of adolescents. He found that when other factors were controlled, race showed no relation at all to parental aspirations for their children. But when race and SES were considered simultaneously, lower class black students are somewhat more likely to report parental 28 encouragement toward educational achievement than are lower class white students. Kandel and Lesser (1969) investigated the relative influence of parents and peers on the educational aspirations of adolescents under differing social and cultural conditions. They found that peer influ ence may not be as strong a deterrent to intellectual development and educational aspirations during adolescence as some had inplied. Sewell and Shah (1968) aimed at determining if parental encourage ment exerts an independent effect on educational aspirations of child ren when the effects of SES and intelligence are controlled. Their findings showed that the direct effect of parental encouragement on educational aspirations was greater than that of either SES or IQ. Rehberg and Westley (1967) found that occupational level of the father, educational level of the parents, and parental encouragement were positively correlated with the educational expectations of the child. Myerhoff and Larson (1965) found that the higher the family consensus, the greater the likelihood that the adolescent son was well adjusted at school. They found no correlation between family consensus and perception of problems. Aldous (1965) found that within her sample, white-collar workers following a family occupational tradition appeared to have higher incomes than white-collar workers lacking such a tradition. Continuity in religious affiliation over three generations was found to be associated with less marital tension for the youngest generation. There was also some suggestion that when married children have a shared 29 heritage, they visit their parents more frequently. Aldous and Hill (1965) found some support for the differential transmissibility of norms and a greater cohesiveness in lineages based on same-sex linkages. The all-male descent type showed more continuity, followed by the female. The all-female or predominately female line ages showed most continuity in expressive norms, such as religion, and the all-male or predominately male lineages exhibited most continuity in instrumental norms, such as occupation and education. While a few scholars have done some investigation about inter action and influence of vertically-related family members, multi- generational family lineage research, i.e. grandparents, parents, and their adult children, is a relatively unresearched area in the family. However, it is an area that is fast expanding. Streib (1965:469) says: The analysis of intergenerational relations is a focus of growing interest. Psychology, social psychology, and sociology have contributed much work to the study of relations between parent and young child, but very little empirical research has been done on the relations between retired parents and their adult children. Simos (1970:135) states much the same thing when he says that "intergenerational relations, while usually focusing on the interactions between parents and youth, must also focus on relations between aging parents and their children." Litman (1969:2) suggests that "an intergenerational approach to family research...allows examination of not only the interaction of family members but the totality of intra-familial transactions as well as within the context of historical time...families and family members, within and throughout the three phases of the life cycle." 30 There is, then, a felt need to study the family intergenerational- ly. Questions such as, What are the consequences of family continuity or discontinuity upon various family members in different generation? What is the influence of parent-child solidarity upon the child and the parent? What are the correlates and consequences of high and low intergenerational family solidarity? These and many other questions like them urgently need investigation. Sussman (1968:387) says that "the need is for studies designed to investigate how activities of kinship units— especially, those of members linked intergenerationally — influence the behavior of nuclear family members and the actions of related social systems and institutions in the society." He says that "since 1950 serious research has been undertaken on intergenera tional family relationships" (Sussman, 1968:394). It is rather apparent from the literature that much has been done along the axis of Family Horizontal Solidarity, especially parental or spouse solidarity. This study, then, will not deal with this type of family solidarity, and anything along that line will be only inci dental. The main focus of this research is on intergenerational family solidarity, designated as Family Vertical Solidarity. The basic questions to be answered will be presented in a later section below. D. The Family and Mental Health "We must, it seems to me, acknoxjledge the fact that mental health cannot be understood within the limited confines of individual experience...A broader approach to mental health must embrace the dynamics of the family group as well." With these words Ackerman (1958:11) spotlights the bridge that connects the family and the 31 mental health of the individual. it is the thesis of this research that the perception of family relationships, as manifested in high family solidarity, will show high association with a survey measure of psychological well-being. This is a position assumed by Sherman also (1967:216-221) in his research on "intergenerational discontinuity and therapy of the family." He stresses the importance of family cohesiveness and mental health. M. Brewster Smith (1969:171) warns that "interpersonal integration as a sole criterion neglects the embeddedness of the individual in a social and physical reality...To conceive of mental health narrowly in terms of psychological integration runs the risk of confusing encap sulation with health." This research deals with inter-personal inte gration in the family sub-system and with intra-personal integration only as a psychological well-being consequence of inter-personal soli darity. It offers a means of underst aiding mental health in part as a function of family interaction. What is the definition of Mental Health? Jahoda (1950) offers five criteria for the delimitation of mental health: (1) the absence of mental illness, (2) normality of behavior, (3) the adjustment to environment, (4) the internal unity of personality, and (5) the correct perception of reality. Meninger (1947:2) states that "mental health is the adjustment of human beings to the world and to each other with a maximum of effec- I " 32 jtiveness and happiness." Fromm (1941:138) says that "from the standpoint of function in ^society one can call a person normal or healthy if he is able to ful fill his social roles— if he is able to participate in the reproduction iof society. From the standpoint of the individual we look upon health ior normalcy as the optimum of growth and happiness of the individual." The Constitution of World Health Organization as quoted by Ackerman (1958:5) defines health as the "capacity to establish har monious interpersonal relations." This is in harmony with Ackerman's ;Own views that we should broaden our concept and "examine mental ill ness as an expression of the significant relations of the individual with his social group as well as the balance of internal psychic processes." In fact many scientists are well aware of the interplay between an individual's multidimensionality. Reusch (1956:xi) says: Today we conceive of the individual as a living organism | whose social relations are combined into a complex organization, 1 whose inner world of experience is closely related to his social operations, and whose soma materially makes possible his various activities— such a view necessitates a more unitary approach i to man— one which will enable us to represent physical, psycho logical and social events within one system of denotation. If i such an undertaking were to be successful, it would provide for j an entirely new perspective of the intricate relations of mind, body and socioeconomic events and would furnish a framework i which would consider simultaneously the individual and his i surrounding, both in health and disease, i Bradburn (1969:1) says that "because there is at present no i jgeneral agreement about the way to measure mental health or illness, i or indeed about the meaning of the terms themselves, research in this -area has been largely noncumulative. The results of one research pro ject have little or no relevance for others." For his own research I 33 ! Bradbum uses the concept "psychological well-being" to measure the jmental health of his subjects. ; His formulation and operationalization seems to be the most jadequate for the purposes of this study, and thus it has been adapted for the present research. Bradburn's research centered on the nature :of mental health and its relation to behavior. When he operationalized the concept, he used several dimensions. In this study, three of these dimensions will be used, two of which, (a) and (c), were said by him ;(1965:56; 1969:110) to have been the most important measures of psychological well-being. The three dimensions are: (a) The Affect Balance Scale and its two sub-parts, the Positive Affect and the Negative Affect Scales; (b) The Worry Scale; (c) The Avowed Happiness Scale. i Bradburn (1969:110) concluded that the worry "measures were irelated only to negative affect." Negative Affect and Positive Affect ;are the two statistically independent sub-scales of the Affect Balance Scale. Both sub-scales are correlated to Avowed Happiness, the first iinversely, the second positively. The third scale being used, Avowed j ^Happiness, is positively correlated to both Positive Affect so that as Avowed Happiness goes up, Positive Affect goes up and Negative Affect goes down (Bradburn, 1965:19). I | For Ackerman (1958:12) "there is the challenge to discern the role of family patterns and values in the mental health of the individual..." The individual is "a mirror image, a microcosm of his family group," according to Ackerman (1958:7). One of the most sweeping statements ! 34 r i jon the social aspects of mental health is the following: ' Mental health...can be maintained only by continuous exertion and with the emotional togetherness and support of others. Ideal ly, it is the result of balanced and creative personal functioning that fulfills the best of man in social relations. It is the out- ! come of a capacity for optimal fulfillment of the individual's ‘ potential for group living. It means successful and satisfying I performance. It alludes in a general sense to such attributes as : maturity, stability, realism, altruism, a sense of social res- i ponsibility, effective integration in work and in human relations. It implies confidence and courage in facing new experience. It i implies a value system in which the individual's welfare is joined to that of others; in other words, it implies a concern for the ; common good. As has been indicated, mental health is a quality of living, a process. It is achieved by a continuing struggle for better personal adaptation. It cannot be maintained in isolation, for satisfying emotional union with others is necessary for its preservation. It is concerned not only with inner harmony but also with optimal relatedness of person, family, and society. It implies the capacity to grow, to learn, to live fully, to love, and to share with others the adventure of life (Ackerman, 1958: 7,8. Underscoring supplied). | One finding that shows the linkage between family integration and mental health is that of Albee (1965:3). After reviewing the research 'that demonstrates that the rate of psychopathology increases when the jintegrity of the family is destroyed or damaged and that it is low where the stability and strength of the family Is high, he presents his jfinding: "Children from well-integrated families have very low life- jlong rates of mental disorder, and children from broken or emotionally i Idisrupted families have high subsequent rates." He adds: "We already know that the most significant contributing factor to emotional dis order is to be found in disrupted, disturbed, and unhappy family rela tionships and that these in turn reflect profound problems in our society... Children who grow up in homes characterized by insecurity, stress, and impoverished emotional relationships are a very high risk group" (Albee, 1965:6). E. Issues to Be Investigated ! There are several issues to be investigated in this research, jsome are major and some minor. The basic issue to be investigated has Ito do with family vertical solidarity and mental health. The question ;is: To what extent is inter-generational family solidarity related to measures of psychological well-being (or mental health) of the indi vidual family member? Stated differently, What is the relationship between perception of family solidarity and psychological well-being? It is assumed in this research that the family forms a buffer between the individual and the stresses and strains that constantly come his way from extra-familial social systems. The major postulate, therefore, is that there is a positive correlation between perceived ifamily solidarity and mental health. Before attempting to answer the question that deals with the major postulate, there are other questions that need to be answered first. ;For example, What is the relationship between background factors, such i ias sex, religion, generational membership, and social class, and Iperception of family solidarity? Next, What is the relationship of | jthe same background factors to indices of mental health or psycholo- igical well-being? And lastly, How does an individual's background | ! influence the relationship between his perception of family solidarity iand his state of mental well-being? j Since the operationalization of the concept solidarity in this study parallels somewhat Homans' elements of human behaviorism, the |minor postulate of the study will deal with the relationships between Association (Homans' "activity" and "interaction"), Consensus (Homans' :"similar±ty") and Affect (Homans' "liking"). According to Homans, ithese elements are related positively and the relationship is revers ible, so that the more association, the more consensus, the more affect jand vice versa. Since this study is not a longitudinal one, it will hot be possible to measure the increments of added association to added ^consensus to added affect. That is, there are no measures at Time^ and Time2 as would be necessary to test the theory adequately. However, ;the study will test the hypothesis at a given time, the time of the measurement. The minor postulate of the study, then, posits a direct i and positive relationship between Association, Consensus, and Affect. Coming back to the relationships of background factors, perceived family solidarity, and measures of psychological well-being, the first step of the analysis will be to determine the relationships between background factors and perception of family solidarity. The second step cf the analysis will examine the relationships of ithe same background factors to the measures of psychological well-being. |The third step will deal with the central postulate which is the rela tionship of perceived family solidarity to measures of psychological jwell-being. And the last step will examine how background factors i might influence the relationship of the central postulate. | j(l) Background and Solidarity | (a) Sex i Hypothesis 1: It is postulated that in Lebanon females will mani fest higher perceived family solidarity than will males. It is often observed that the female is more family-oriented; this is particularly Itrue in Lebanon. She will tend to associate more with other members j of the family and she will also tend to have higher affection scores. ! Therefore, she is expected to perceive higher family solidarity. This |expectation should also hold when controlling for Gensex, which repre- i isents the sex and generational position of each member of the three- Igenerational six-member family. (b) Generation Hypothesis 2: There will be higher perceived family solidarity for the old generation than for both the middle and the young genera tions. Of the three generations, the family is presumably the most important for the elderly, who have lost many of the achieved roles of life (see Shanas and Streib, 1965). They have been connected with "family" the longest and have been active in family matters the longest, too. In Lebanon, the family plays a central role in all social life. Therefore, it is predicted that, particularly in this social context, the old generation, G^, will tend to have a "vested interest" in family continuity based on family solidarity. Thus, it is posited that G^ will perceive higher family solidarity than the other two generations. This expectation should also hold when background variables are used in I combination such as when age and sex are combined. (c) Religion i S Hypothesis 3: The Christians will have higher solidarity scores than the Mohammedans, though it is expected that in both groups scores I idLll be high. Even though Shari*ia-abiding Mohammedans seek to main tain high family solidarity, yet because of their higher divorce rate and the ensuing family disruptions, and because of a certain amount of polygyny that is still practiced, this study posits that the Christians jwill have higher perceived family solidarity scores than the Mohammedan. This relationship should hold when variables are combined as well, j such as when generation and religion are combined together for control ^purposes. (d) SES: Income Level Hypothesis 4: Even though it is expected that the sample in the 'Lebanese study will clearly show separate income categories which are being labled SES in this research, yet it is being postulated that ’ there will be no clear difference between the three SES classes in ! their perception of family solidarity. It is observed in Lebanon that the upper classes have very tightly-knit families just like the lower 'classes. If there is to be a difference between the three classes, the i middle class may show lower perceived family solidarity because of isocial mobility. However, it is not expected that there will be any significant differences between the classes. Even when SES is combined with other variables, such as generation, the postulation of no rela- jtionship between SES and perceived family solidarity should hold, j Hypotheses 5 through 8 take background variables in combination jusing the same logic of Hypotheses 1 through 4. (For a statement of | jthese hypotheses, see Section F) Hypothesis 9, while not one of the four major hypotheses of the study, is important enough for special treatment. j I (e) Education Hypothesis 9: Those with college and/or university education will perceive lower family solidarity than those with lower education. Education in Lebanon tends to free one from his close family ties and 39 make one more independent. This should lead to a lessening of family jinteraction through association. It should also lead to lack of con- jsensus on more issues between the educated and the rest of the family. | If this also leads to a lowering of positive affect, then all three Imeasures of solidarity will eventually be lower, i(2) Background and Mental Health The same four major background variables will be examined as to their relationship with measures of psychological well-being. This will also be done singly and in combination for the purposes of ispecification. (a) Sex Hypothesis 10: While the female is expected to show higher jperceived family solidarity scores, this should not hold for her measures of psychological well-being, even though the central postulate of the study posits a direct and positive correlation between solidari ty and mental health. In Lebanon, there are other factors that in- jfluence the psychological well-being of females more than family. In j ithis study, it is being postulated that females will have lower scores | j in their measures of psychological well-being than males. The Leba- i jnese woman is more frustrated than the man because she finds herself !in a bind: in general, and because of increased education, the female |is theoretically being emancipated. But in reality, Lebanese society jis very much a man's patriarchal world. It follows that Lebanese women will manifest lower scores of psychological well-being. This should hold true for the analysis of Gensex, with son, father, grand father showing higher scores than daughter, mother, and grandmother. ! 40 I I (b) Generation j j Hypothesis 11: Concerning the relationship of generational mem- I I ^ership and perceived family solidarity, it was posited that will have the highest scores. Since the central postulate of the study holds that there is a positive and direct relationship between soli darity and mental health, it should follow with no modifications, that the older the generation, the higher the scores in the measures of psychological well-being. This relationship should also hold when generation and sex are combined for specification. (c) Religion Hypothesis 12: In discussing the relationship of religion and perception of family solidarity, it was stated that Christians should ! have higher scores than Mohammedans. Because of the central postulate of the study, it should follow also without modifications, that Christians should show higher scores in measures of psychological well-being than Mohammedans. This same relationship should also hold ^rhen religion and generational membership are combined. ( ! (d) SES: Income Level i Hypothesis 13: The relationship of SES and perceived family soli darity was posited as non-existant. Again because of the central postulate, it should follow also without modifications, that there i I should be no relationship between SES and psychological well-being. j When generation and SES are used in combination, the same relationship should also hold. Hypotheses 14 through 17 take the background variables in combi- i nation using the same basic logic of Hypotheses 10 through 13. (See jSection F below for a full statement of these hypotheses) Hypothesis i i |18, while not one of the four major hypotheses of the study, merits ispecial treatment, j (e) Education ! i Hypothesis 18: It was postulated that in the Lebanese sample, | ithose with college and/or university education will perceive lower family solidarity than those with lower education. Based on the central postulate, it should follow that those of college and/or university education will have lower measures of psychological well-being than those with lower education. (3) Solidarity and Mental Health ! The central postulate of the research posits a direct and positive relationship between family vertical solidarity and mental health. But jthis postulate is an oversimplification because of the many mediating factors that may influence the relationship. Nature varies with dif ferent kinds of subgroups. The background variables that are being brought into the analysis for specification, namely, (a) sex, (b) i generation, (c) religion, and (d) SES: Income, will influence the i t relationship of solidarity and mental health. i | (a) Sex Hypothesis 19: It was postulated that while females will perceive higher family solidarity, males will have higher scores of psychological well-being. It is posited that the correlation between solidarity and mental health for males will be higher than that for females. The female may have higher solidarity scores, but her psychological well being is not seen as being depressed because of family solidarity. Therefore, the relationship of family solidarity and mental health is seen as more important for the male than for the female. Then, it should be expected that for the males that have high family solidarity, 1 the psychological well-being measures will also be high. (b) Generation Hypothesis 20: It was postulated that the old generation will be |the highest for both perceived family solidarity scores and measures of psychological well-being. It follows logically, then, that the relationship between family solidarity and psychological well-being ;for will be higher than the relationship for both Gq and G^. (c) Religion Hypothesis 21: It was postulated that Christians will have the highest scores for both perceived family solidarity and psychological well-being. It follows logically, then, that the relationship between I family solidarity and psychological well-being for the Christians will he higher than the relationship for the Mohammedans. (d) SES: Income Hypothesis 22: It was postulated that there would be no relation- | iship between SES and/or psychological well-being. It also follows, (then, that there would be no difference in the correlations between I jperceived family solidarity and psychological well-being for one class lor for another. 1 Miscellaneous Two minor questions arise as to the relationship of how one views one member of the family and how one views another in perceiving inter member family solidarity. That is to say, Is there a tendency for the jfather to perceive the same solidarity between himself and his mother as between himself and his father? Or, is there a tendency for the father to perceive the same solidarity between himself and his father as between himself and his son? j Hypothesis 23: There will be no tendency to view one's solidarity with one member of the family the same as with another member. | The second minor question deals with whether there is any differ ence between one solidarity type and another as to which is a stronger predictor of how family solidarity is perceived by different members of the family. That is to say, Is Associational Solidarity, for example a more important variable for a woman's perception of family solidarity i than Consensual Solidarity? i Hypothesis 24: There should be no difference between one soli darity type and another as to which is a stronger predictor of how I (family solidarity is perceived. I F. Postulates and Hypotheses Recapitulated j In this section, a recapitulation of the two postulates and the j 24 hypotheses to be tested in this research will be presented. It is jof utmost importance to note that this is not a deductive theory. This j (research presents a theory in the making; the propositions tested I jbelow are merely an explanatory sketch useful in conceptualization of i ithe research effort, j Postulates: The Central Postulate: The greater the perception of family vertical solidarity, the greater the mental health or psychological well-being. i 44 The Secondary Postulate: Association, Consensus, and Affect are jpositively correlated. iHypotheses: ------- In the next chapter, under "Solidarity and Background" there will 'be hypotheses for the relationships of variables taken singly and ; taken in combination. This will also be true under "Background and jMental Health." Background and Solidarity: Variables Taken Singly H^: If male, then lower solidarity than female. | Hg: If Gp then higher solidarity than and/or Gg. Hg: If Christian, then higher solidarity than Mohammedan. I H^j There is no relationship between SES and solidarity. Variables in Combination | Hgt If Christian and in Gg, Gg, and/or Gg, then higher solidarity I than Mohammedan in Gg, Gg, and/or Gg. | Hg: If daughter, mother, and/or grandmother, then higher soli- | j darity than son, father, and/or grandfather. i | Hy: If old, male or female, then higher solidarity than young, | male or female. Hgt There is no relationship between generation-SES and soli darity. 1 I Hg: If college and/or university educated, then lower solidarity j than if lower educated. ’ Background and Mental Health j Variables Taken Singly [ H-j^ q! If male, then higher psychological well-being (PWB) than | female. I ^1 1 * ^ then higher PWBBthan G2 and/or Gg. i % 2 : Christian, then higher PWB than Mohammedan. ' % 3 : There is no relationship between SES and PWB. I Variables in Combination i H^: If Christian and in G^, G2 , or Gg, then higher PWB than ! Mohammedan in G^, G2 , or Gg. | % 5 : Tf daughter, mother, or grandmother, then lower PWB than | son, father, or grandfather. H-^g: If old, male or female, then higher PWB than young, male j or female. There is no relationship between generation-SES and PWB. ! % 8 ; ^ co-^eSe or university education, then lower PWB than ! if lower education. i I Solidarity and Mental Health: Background Specifications H^: The correlation between solidarity and PWB for males will be higher than the correlation for females. | ^20! corre^ - at^on between solidarity and PWB for G^ will be j higher than the correlation for Gg or Gg. | Hgi-’ The correlation between solidarity and PWB for Christians i will be higher than the correlation for Mohammedans. Mgg * There will be no difference in the correlation between solidarity and PWB for one class than for another. 46 Miscellaneous I ^23’ " -^ere w;m ke no relationship between how one views one member of the family and how one views another in perceiving i inter-member family solidarity. H^: There will be no difference between one solidarity type j and another as to which is a stronger predictor of how family ! solidarity is perceived. Summary ! In this chapter the background of the concept of solidarity has I been reviewed. There is evident a considerable consensus on the importance of solidarity to the functioning of all social systems both bn the macro and on the micro levels. The family was presented as a "prototype" of micro-social systems. Family solidarity can be viewed both on a horizontal level (spouses or siblings) and on a vertical level (intergenerationally). More research has been done along the first dimension. The field of intergenerational family solidarity iCdesignated in this study as Family Vertical Solidarity) has by con trast elicited little research. This has spurred the choice of inter- i generational family solidarity as the subject of this research in Lebanon. i Since the subject of the research has to do with the association of family vertical solidarity and mental health, a brief presentation ] of the issue of mental health was made. Mental health will be defined as psychological well-being, following Bradburn, and three of his scales will be used to measure it. Finally, the issues that the research will investigate were r ' " .. i 47 jarticulated. The central proposition postulated that the greater the perception of family vertical solidarity, the greater the mental health I or psychological well-being. The secondary proposition postulated ithat Association, Consensus, and Affect are positively correlated. Twenty-four hypotheses were presented to be tested. 1 In the following chapter, Chapter 2, the rationale and the virtues pf Lebanon as a choice in which to carry the investigation will be detailed. In brief, because of the "functionally extended family" of Lebanon, it is expected that the association between family solidarity and mental health should be pronounced. Lebanon's religious composi tion of Mohammedans and Christians affords a maximum degree of varia tions of attitudes towards the family between these two world religions not available anywhere else. Two other reasons for the choice of Lebanon will be presented: first, Lebanon is the best researched country of the Arab World, hence statistical data is available for comparative purposes, and second, the investigator is of Lebanese background, therefore, he may be able to bring different perspectives i jto bear on the analysis of the data. j Chapter 2 i | THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF LEBANON I i j The family in Lebanon occupies a very unique position in the isocial structure of that culture. It is not a traditionally extended 'family in the classical sense, nor is it a nuclear family in the modern lindustrial sense. It is somewhere in between— termed by some scien tists, as will be seen later, a "functionally extended family." This "functionally extended family" is the hub-of Lebanese social life I 'interpenetrating the spheres of religion, jurisprudance, politics, iwelfare, and economics. Even though Lebanon is a modern Westernized ’ nation, the family still plays a central role in all aspects of isecular and religious life. i j In order to explain the choice of Lebanon in carrying out this jinvestigation, it is necessary to present briefly a sketch of the jgeography, history, and demography of the country, and the inter- | jpenetration of the Lebanese family in its legal, political, religious, J ! -economical, educational, and social systems. This will be followed by a summary of the main reasons for the choice of Lebanon as the arena in which this research was carried out. This may still be considered as part of the background of the problem, but because of its unique ' - 48 - } 49 |features, the material is being presented in a separate chapter. ! Geography I Lehanon is a small country on the eastern shores of the Mediter ranean. Because of its geographic location, it has been part of the j |crossroads of the world since antiquity. Gulick (1965:1) termed the country "tiny Lebanon," for it is 120 miles long and less than 60 miles across at its widest point. In its 4,000 square miles live some 2.75 | imillion people. It has an estimated coastline of 135 miles in length, I ;and its mountains have peaks of over 9,000 ft. There is a narrow plain between the mountain and the sea, 4 miles wide at Beirut and Tripoli, where most of the present research was carried out, but with a width of one mile in most other areas except in the extreme north. Nader (1965:20) says that "it has become 'fashionable1 for I residents in Beirut and other urban areas to spend summers in the ‘ mountains, usually in their village of origin." This according to i jFisher (1950:378) has important social and cultural consequences. 'Prothro (1961:6, 7) states that: I Another feature of the Lebanese landscape which has { affected the culture is the deep gorges with steep cliffs found j along the lower levels of the mountains, where streams have cut j into the soft lime-stone. The history of all the area now called i Lebanon has been influenced by the geological peculiarities of j the mountain from which the nation's name was adopted. s For thousands of years the mountains have been places of refuge for minority groups which constitute the population of Lebanon. This has had far-reaching effects on the balance of power in almost every l ‘sphere of life. History If one should compile a list of the conquerors of Lebanon, he i would come up with almost an outline of history. Kitti (1957:19) notes ( that at the mouth of the Dog River, a few miles north of Beirut, there are nineteen different inscriptions etched into the rock by the con quering armies of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, Greece, Rome, France, England, etc. Other conquerors include the Hittites, Persians, Byzan- ' tines, Arabs, Crusaders, Mongols, and Turks. i One important factor that has affected Lebanon’s culture until today is the fact that through all these conquests, somehow Lebanon was 'able to maintain a good measure of autonomy— not wholly autonomous nor completely subjugated. It was in 1926 that the Republic of Lebanon was proclaimed, but it took fully 25 years before complete independence iwas actually achieved. Mention was made above of the importance of the mountainous geo graphy for the history of Lebanon. This unique feature of tiny Lebanon I has allowed wave after wave of refugees to flee to Lebanon for a haven land a refuge. The Maronites, Druzes, Shiites, Ismailites, Nusayris, Armenians, and modern-day Palestinians are examples. This is why important segments of the Lebanese press defended Lebanese Jews during i ithe highest anti-Israel agitation in the area. An agreement was reached among Lebanon's leaders as to its i minorities and their composition giving a very delicate balance of ipower in the nation's affairs. According to Prothro (1961:10) "Her East-West orientations were handled by agreeing that Lebanon would be ;an Arab, but not a Moslem state, and would not be a part of any larger Arab state. Thus Lebanon became the only nominally Christian state in i 51 the Arab League— or in all of Asia." Demography There are several important features of Lebanon to be considered in relation to its uniqueness as a cross-cultural research target. [First, I shall deal with the urban-rural composition of the population. ; The sample which we drew from Lebanon was from Beirut, Tripoli and the nearby suburbs. According to several social scientists who have worked iin the area, this becomes in fact an urban sample. Prothro (1961:5), Ifor example, states that "the Beirut of today is closely linked with Mount Lebanon, and only persons from remote mountain villages would be thought of as 'country folk,' different from urban dwellers." He in ;fact declares that Lebanon stands out as a country as the "most urban iof the Arab states. The two large cities of Beirut and Tripoli, together with adjoining suburbs, account for nearly 40 percent of the [total population. The urban character of the country is further en hanced by the large number of villagers who are commuters." He goes i !on to say: ! In view of the small size of the country, and its extensive ; network of roads and highways, it is probably safe to conclude | that only in the remoter mountain villages, and in the villages of the Beqaa Valley is the culture genuinely rural (Prothro, | 1961:14). j In this section we will not venture into a description of the i [religious affiliation of Lebanon's population since there has been no [official census of Lebanon since 1932. It is feared by all groups that a census would reveal changes in the ratio of the religious groupings which rule Lebanon and would create tensions the nation cannot cope with. In order to understand this important factor in Lebanese life, a jconcise description of the situation by Ayoub (1965:11) will throw i slight on the situation: Lebanon is a nation of religious minorities, of which Sunni Moslems and Maronite Christians are the two largest. Each I community of believers retains a significant degree of political | autonomy, clearly affecting the institutions of the state as a governing body. For example, the law of personal status, covering such matters as marriage, divorce and inheritance, falls within i the jurisdiction of the religious community as a political entity. More directly, recruitment to legislative, executive, and other i offices of the central government, elected and appointed, is based on proportional representation according to religious affiliation. The policy does not rest upon a constitutional premise. It is a matter of agreement. Von Grunebaum (1962:137) calls attention to the fact that Islam has never developed a clear concept of a secular state. Accordingly, ! there is a lack of individual-state loyalty. This being the religion |of millions of people surrounding Lebanon as well as that of approxi- i imately half of the population of Lebanon itself, the influence of such ia condition is very far-reaching among Moslems and non-Moslems alike in j ^Lebanon. As Gulick (1965:51) says, "Sect is a primary unit of loyalty, 1 j identity, and social security, and it is a major factor in Lebanese politics and administration." While this may create many problems, for Ithe social scientists it is a unique "natural laboratory" for research, jor as Prothro (1961:4) puts it "a fascinating scene" for social study. I The Family i Since the present research has to do with the Lebanese family, this section will introduce the unique feature of the Lebanese family. Subsequent sections will deal with the inter-penetration of the family with every sphere of life as a leading component. 53 Despite the fact that Lebanon is now a modern, Western-oriented (democracy, the family has not undergone the social change that it has j : i in the West. And while the structure and function of the family in the j i I i jWest is still connected with other social institutions, in Lebanon this j inter-penetration is much more significant, much more intimate, and much stronger. There is, as Farsoun (1970:257) emphasizes, "a continued existence...of a particular form of kinship structure: the functionally extended family." This particular form "unlike the classical residentially extended family, is not residentially nucleated but never-the-less continues to perform most all the same functions and with the same basic structure " (Farsoun, 1970:258. Underscoring original). This, then, is the unique feature of the present family in Lebanon. Farsoun (1970:306) points out that "the rate of face-to-face contact is incredible by Western standards; it amounts to daily contact with significant kin such as parents, grandparents, as well as married jchildren, married siblings, and to a lesser extent, with nephews, (uncles, etc... If a second-degree kin is not a close friend, then (contact is on a weekly and monthly basis." This observation will be Itested in the Association Solidarity measures of the questionnaires, i jand the degree and kind of differential association between the three I (generations will be observed. i The kinship organization in the Middle East is patrilineal, patri- local, and preferred endogamy (Ayoub, 1965:12). This pattern is largely the same even in Lebanon. Gulick (1965:52) speaks of the extended family in Lebanon as "the most common maximum and effective kin group 'in both village and city, and the nuclear family is everywhere the Atypical household. In other words, modern urban growth has apparently not caused any breakdown of the family." The typical household in iLebanon, then, is the nuclear family. But it is within the extended family that the individual finds his locus of significance. Farsoun (1970:307) points out to the interdependence of the functionally extended family with other social institutions and aspects lof Lebanese life. He says: Even in the urban context the pivotal structural position and function of the functionally extended family, in interdependence with the economic, political, religious, welfare, and stratifica tion sphere, remain exceedingly important in contemporary Lebanon. Hence, the kinship dimension continues to be a major principle of social organization in this most apparently Western-like of Arab countries. Now we turn to the articulation of the role of the functionally ! extended family in Lebanon in the organization of Lebanese society. ■The Family and Religion In Lebanon, the family and the religious collectivity are the two major social structures in which the individual receives his identity, Ihis orientation, and to a very large extent explicit direction and jguidance as to how he is to function in the larger society. The impor tance of a person's religion becomes apparent when we recognize that any jpublic office of any importance that an individual may aspire to might |be either accessible to him or barred from him depending on his jreligious confession and not his universalistic abilities. It is also important to note the mutual supportive roles between i jfamily and religion.' "Religious values...tend to uphold and reinforce the sentiments towards the traditional kinship system (Farsoun, 1970: 55 : 295). Salisbury (1964:398-406) reminds us that Catholic parochial education stresses traditional familistic values. And in this respect, it is important to remember also that in Lebanon education is a meeting jpoint for family and religion in as much as education is primarily a ; denominationally-owned and operated system. All the sects in Lebanon run their own schools for their own children. According to Al- Jumhuriyyah, Tasmim (1965:13) over 85% of the primary students in Beirut attend religious private schools run by Moslems and Christians. These schools tend to reinforce the sectarian values of their consti tuencies. Thus the family supports the school; the school supports the family. "...Functional interdependence between confessionalism and extended jfamily...is greatly responsible for the perpetuation of both structures jin Lebanon" (Farsoun, 1970:297). "Other formal points of contact between the 'churches' and the family system also contribute to soli darity of extended family organization. Birth, baptism or confirmation; religious holidarys, etc. are all significant occasions for which the I extended family and other kin gather" (Farsoun, 1970:296). We shall isee later how the alliance between the religious and the kinship sys- |terns have a very far-reaching influence on the life of Lebanon. One jean only begin to feel such influence when one considers that in the I area of contraception, for example, the Catholic Church is against any use of mechanical or chemical instruments, while Islam permits it (Yakun, 1965:217-219). The Family and Jurisprudance Islamic law is the law of the Quran, and the Sunna. Its influence_. . . jon life in countries with. Moslem identities can be understood only in Sthe light of the distinction between this type of law and say, for iexample, Western law. Western law is secular and man-made. Moslem Shari'a Law is divine and accepted as such. As a result of this belief 'all family relations come under the jurisdiction of religious courts, e.g. marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, etc. And while in predominantly Moslem countries there has been a reformation along this line, in Lebanon because of the need of asserting their identity, religious courts have remained in power. Farsoun (1970:288) tells what happened in the countries surrounding Lebanon, and in Lebanon which is supposed to be more modern and Western-like: In 1958, the Egyptian government decreed all Shari-a courts under the jurisdiction of the Egyptian civil court system. Unlike Egypt, Lebanon has not put the religious law courts under the civil court system. Attempts to do so reached a climax in 1951, when the syndicate of lawyers went on strike in order to force such a government change of policy... Pressure from the 1 clerics and the confessional 'communities' was strong enough to defeat the lawyers' strategy. j Egypt is not the only Moslem nation that has instituted reforms iin the personal status laws. Syria and Tunisia are two other examples. ;Even though there is no original "Gospel Shari'a" comparable to |Quranic Shari'a, yet the Lebanese government was forced years ago to 'guarantee for the Christian sects their own church courts in the areas 1 jof family relations. I was a member of one such church court, and at |times it was difficult to accept what I felt was an artificial role ithat is better played by trained professionals. Another area of assistance that comes indirectly to the extended family is from the fact that Lebanese income tax laws, like Western laws, consider both the level of earnings and the number of dependents a person has. This, then, becomes a real bonanza for the extended |family. J I Still another benefit that comes to the extended family is a [direct function of Quranic teachings. This has to do with support of [family members. This economic support is not only for parents in need |or dependent children, but it includes all relatives "who are potential heirs." This obligation should result in a differential showing in that i sphere between the Lebanese family and other families from other cul tures. The Family and Polity In order to understand why "family ties are strongly involved in politics" and are "highly relevant to the social life and activities of ;the people," (Williams and Williams, 1965:60,61) and why an antiquated system, measured by modern standards, is still operating in Lebanese [politics, one needs to understand that the ghost of the Ottoman Empire [that blanketed the area for hundreds of years continues to work in modern clothes. The Ottoman Empire was an agrarian feudal system. j ["The feudal lord was a warrior and tax farmer appointed politically. |(he) ’spoke1 for his 'community' or fief" (Farsoun, 1970:274). The I modern Lebanese "feudal lord" is called a "za'eem," or spelled dif ferently, a "za'im." But before we enter a defnition and a discussion of the functions of this modern lord, here is a brief description of political leadership in Lebanon: Political leadership for the most part in Lebanon remains largely an affair of aristocratic and feudal extended-families, is inheritable, and along with economic patronage and influence j structures, it operates effectively within the context of the | confessional group or millet in alliance with the formal religious j i organization (Farsoun, 1970:279). j j j : After Hottinger (1966), Farsoun defines the za'eem in the following terms (1970:275): "A za'im is the descendent of the old feudal lords... whose power is now based on vast land holdings or extensive business and a strategic government position, mediating for a 'community' (millet lor conffessional group), and performing some of the traditional social 'functions of the feudal lord. The modern za'im is a leader who 'looks iout' for the interests of his client group by political, economic and social (including welfare) means for political loyalty and support." Lipset (1963) calls attention to the fact that even in the United States voting behavior and party membership are highly influenced by a person's kinship ties. But in Lebanon it will be seen shortly that a person's total political activities are mediated through his kinship inetwork and chanelled through their za'im. j In order to operate effectively, the za'eem is in need of some ‘ rudimentary party system for an organization. This he finds in his j jkinship network. His direct interaction is with the heads of extended j |families. These in turn serve as communication channels between the za'eem and the individual member of the family, whose socialization |has included a strong positive valence towards the za'eem. Politics, i I then, in Lebanon is both "personalized and paternalistic" and the "primary political function of the lineage is to conduct relations for, and act as a buffer between, the individual and the interlocking power structure of large landowners and government officialdom" (Williams and Williams, 1965:60). I Looking at the za'eem from the vertex of the structural pyramid, i how does the government look upon him? Farsoun (3.970:276) sums it well jwhen he says that ! For the government the za'im and especially the za1 im-deputy is a most important intermediary... His people trust him. This I makes it possible for the government to reach the people through him in order to influence their behavior, get support and/or | commitment for action... The za’im is important for the people | since he is their means of communication with the government and ! the channel of services and favors from it. Structurally, the za'im is at the focal point of relations between the established j government and the confessional, territorial and ethnic groupings, as well as between the religio-political communities (millets). I Naturally, the za'eem of a certain group would be of the same Ireligious persuasion as the group and a member of its community. There exists an alliance usually between the community za'eem and its ireligious leader. This alliance is one of the most powerful keys of ipower in Lebanese politics. It is again through the za'eem’s rudimen tary party system, i.e. the extended family, that both he and the religious leader find the grass-roots of support. It is also the ; state's expectations that the za'eem in coalition with the religious jleader will influence their constituency to accept whatever policies heed to be implimented. | If we are to diagram the structure of political dynamics of jLebanon, the line of communication would not be from the state to the i Icitizen directly, nor would it be from the state to the citizen through I jthe citizen's political party. Rather the line would be state-za’eem- : extended family-citizen. Hence the importance of the family as an linformal political organization through which the dynamics of politics are formed and reformed. I .... [ 60 | Western Political System Lebanese Political System i State State State i l l i or Party Za'eem 111 1 I Citizen Citizen Family I I i Citizen An important aspect of the "office of a za'eem is that it does not necessarily depend upon a person's qualifications. It is usually ian extended-family matter that is inheritable. The son of a za'eem has ;a high probability of being the next za'eem. The extended family through very delicate and intricate mechanisms sets the stage for the ;envolvement of its za'eem. So that one might say that it is really Ikinship that makes kingship. Not only does the family produce the Iza'eem and then depend on him for all kinds of government favors, but :it is also the family that exerts social control upon its individual members to be politically loyal to the family. ; Social scientists have remarked that the individual citizen is being more and more freed from the extended family net and roped into a direct state-citizen relationship in Lebanon. But as Farsoun (1970: ! |285) concludes "until such time when extended familial, clan, and j isectarian loyalties disappear, displaced by loyalty to the nation- I istate, Lebanon will remain a 'traditional' society organized primarily in vertical rather than horizontal terms, despite the appearance ^currently of some of these 'modern' attributes." It is very clear :that the interrelationships between the citizen, the family, the za'eem, 61 land the state through the present political setup go a long ways in re-inforcing the circularity of the political system, reinforcing the ^extended family and its influence on the individual, and finally re inforcing sectarian-confessional groupings. iThe Family and Welfare There is a new welfare system in Lebanon known as government wel fare. This was instituted as part of the general program towards modernization. However, we need to remember that the family in Lebanon is still part of a lineage which has traditionally been playing the role of "providing aid and protection and able co muster much support for active resistance to this authority (of the state)" (Pitts, 1964: 109). One of the functions of the family is still a welfare function, iand the individual member still looks to his extended family for his Isurvival and well-being. It is clear (Al-Jumhuriyyah Al-Lubnaniyyah, 1965a) that practically all welfare organization in Lebanon are still ^either familial or religious, and these two are very intricately lallied together as we have already seen. i The Moslem Shari'a enjoins one to support his kin when in need. ! |"The only security in old age, in retirement, in sickness, and in i Isocial and natural catastrophe remains predominantly the kin group. ! And the closer the degree of relationship, the more assured is this | IsecurityV (Farsoun, 1970:289). In his survey, Churchill (1954:509) (found about 15% of the households had either a father or a mother iliving in. Another 15% had other miscellaneous family members. 55% iof those who are living in with relatives are unmarried and 67% of them are females. These are actually on family welfare, though rarely .... 62 i I |though.t of in those terms. j Sisters and aunts who have little chance for personal economic autonomy, live with kin, helping the house-work. These are important members of the household, contributing, i among other things, a "baby-sitting" function...expressive func- i tions rather than disciplinarian functions...(helping) in the daily chores, sewing, etc. (and being) a second mother to the i children (Farsoun, 1970:292). Farsoun goes on to tell us that "values and proverbs asserting ithe 'goodness' and the 'necessity' of taking care of the old and unable (the welfare functions), are constantly articulated while shame, gossip, i and even familial ostracism are heaped upon those who do not contribute. In a politically and economically unstable society 'the children and relatives are the only security' (an Arab saying)." The idea of the use of proverbs is also corroborated by Rustow (1960:442) who says that "Qur'anic quotations and couplets from classical epics or from icontemporary nationalist poetry are on the lips of even those without formal education." ; The Family and the Economy With the possible exception of Israel and a few oil-rich sheikh- idoms, Lebanon has the highest per capita income in Asia (see Sayigh, |1955:10; Persen, 1958:277; and Meyer, 1959:4, 5). The Lebanese, proud idescendants of the Phoenecians, have always been aggressive economical- |ly, and this is probably why Lebanon as a whole is the "most advanced i I itoward Westernization and modernization among all the Arab countries" j i(Patai, 1956b:22). Prothro claims that the rate of development is phenomenal even by Western standards (Prothro, 1961:11). Probably the greatest recent growth is found in the tourist industry (see Persen, 1958:289). Antonius (1938) and Matthews and .. f 63 ;Akrawi (1949) call attention to other international activities which have enormous cultural influence though small economic impact; namely, 1 Lebanon's medical and educational facilities. The typical role"of the Lebanese, however, is probably that of | "middleman." Middleman mostly between East and West. American and :European manufactured products flow Eastward, while Arab oil flows Westward. Sayigh (1955:12) says "This is no accident; it is the pro duct of the country's poverty in natural endowments forcing an energetic and ambitious population to take the role of middleman for which its country's location and its temperament and tradition are suited." Prothro (1961:145) says that "Lebanese businessmen see the Lebanese as poor but clever, with an enterprising mercantile mentality." What is the role played by the family in the Lebanese economy? To the casual observer the family is not an outstanding feature of Lebanese business life. But upon closer investigation, one is very jdeeply impressed that here again the family plays a fundamental role, iAs one reviews social structures, technologically advanced societies jseem to have a separation between kin structures and economic structures jand under-developed societies have the structures mixed— the more under- I developed the more mixed. Lebanon seems to lie half-way between these two types. ! In a personal interview with the director-general of the Beirut :Chamber of Commerce, Farsoun (1970:263) learned that "most of the I ipartnerships and corporations of urban Lebanon are partnerships of siblings, cousins, or other extended kin, and that even the corporation^ are most often nothing more than legal protection for wholly family- 64 owned or extended kin-owned establishments." According to Meyer, ;Sayigh, Khalaf and Shwayri, retail stores and commercial enterprises are mostly owned by families. While nepotism is frowned at in the West, it seems to be the norm in Lebanese economic life. Presidents of large firms choose all their key personnel from among their own relatives. Hagen (1957:198) says: : Where one can neither trust a stranger or an acquaintance as a business associate, nor persuade him to lend one money, then the extended family may be a necessary source of capital and a necessary bond between business associates. Its abolition would not modernize the society; in the circumstances it would merely paralyze large-scale relationships. Large banks and airlines are staffed with relatives. Even ethnic hospitals tend to favor nepotistic practices to insure homogenous religious solidarity among their employees. Farsoun (1970:265) says ithat "suspicion of the outsider and trust of the family in-group are strong social-cultural patterns that have consequences on the economic structure. Patrimonial establishments, even those cast in corporate Iform, are quite uneasy about placing strangers in pivotal positions, especially when a trusted kin has the necessary skills." Here is jwhere the extended family as a capital resource comes into p^ay. Young men and young women are sent abroad and financed by their family I jfirm and sometimes even told what specialties to take. This talent jretums to the family establishement as not only trusted but also I educated and trained. In fact It has been observed that "those extended families that are most cohesive or solidary are the ones that ipool their resources for greater economic and commercial power and success" (Farsoun, 1970:267). It is noted that those in control of the f 65 large establishments, however, are those members of the family that ihave the more universalistic-achievement characteristics and not the t •ascriptive-nepotistic privileges alone. Williams and Williams (1965:63) say that "every emigrant is in ifantasy, if not in reality, an economic beachhead abroad, a potential source of money, goods and land. For Lebanon as a whole, 231 million pounds is derived from merchandise exports; the income from emigrants' remittances is 92 million pounds per year, almost 40 per cent as high as export income." The new emigrant is usually financed by his family in Lebanon and received by some relative abroad who sets him up in business and helps him economically until he becomes a success and ihimself a source of help to the folks back home. (Village) wealth lias been generated by the capital imput of villagers who have emigrated to West Africa and South j America, principally, while, retaining close bonds with kinsmen within the village. They have accumulated capital to enhance • their status in Lebanon... (Ayoub, 1965:12). ! This supported by other social scientists and even extended to i jinclude the influence of emigrants on urban as well as rural Lebanon. I ; Many of the more successful emigres not only buy village S lands, etc., but they also start urban enterprises of all sorts ! including industrial ones...Sources of income for the family I from other than employment included 18.53% from relatives and ! 11.16% from remittances from overseas (Churchill, 1954:57). | "These figures do not include overseas capital imput strictly for I •business activity or enterprise. Hence the real figure could be much 'more than 11.16%... In addition, the son's increased earning power is good security for the old age of the parents particularly, and other ‘ close kin" (Farsoun, 1970:272). i ! 66 The interdependence between the family and the economy is very I 1 clear from the forgoing presentation. Ownership of business, joy- ifinding for next of kin, capital lending and financing, education, iemigration are but a few of the important family functions in the Lebanese economy. While modernization, specialization, and Westerni- fzation moves at a rapid rate, the function of the family in the economy jis not catching up with the rapid social change. In fact, many tend to believe that the Lebanese have developed a unique family-economy system that may very well be at the base of their prosperity. A story goes the rounds in Lebanon that an economic expert was called from Europe to study the Lebanese economy and make suggestions. After three months of investigation, he is supposed to have said: With your ;lack of natural resources, and with the apparent way you run your balance of trade (imports exceed exports by about 3 to 1) you should have been all dead one hundred years ago. My recommendation: stay ! las you are lest any' change should set you backwards. jConcHiusion I As elsewhere in the Middle East, it is true in Lebanon that the jLebanese "on n'a d'existence que par sa famille et pour sa famille" i according to Weulersse (1946 ;216). Several social scientists agree that the family is the "keystone" of Arab society, the "basic unit" of jits social structure(see Tannous, 1942; Gulick, 1953; V. Ayoub, 1955; letc.). Prothro (1961:17) says that "most nuclear families have a I separate household, but there is a definite tendency for the father to choose a dwelling place near his own father and brothers. Thus members of an extended family often live in close proximity." Hence, 'we have, following other investigators, used the ;:term "functionally [extended family" to describe the present family structure in the Lebanon. Williams and Williams returned to Lebanon fifteen years after [their first study to conduct further research. They expected the •influence of the family to have dwindled during the decade and a half they were gone, especially considering the very rapid rate of moderni zation in Lebanon. They found this not to be so. "In general," they report, "and in line with a marked increase in population during the last fifteen years, the tendency has been one of expansion of both extended families and lineages" (Williams and Williams, 1965:60). 1 Gulick (1955:166) has called the "in-group" identification of the Lebanese people "a series of concentric spheres with the individual [at the center." In this chapter we have seen how that the individual finds his identity and direction in childhood as well as in adulthood ^within his kin group. The extended family to which he belongs may not ■be nucleated, but is functionally extended. Through it his voice, i [influence, and power are transmitted to the larger society. We have ialso reviewed briefly the interpenetration of the family system in jLebanon with the religious system, with the political system, with the [welfare system, with the economic system, with emigration, and with i (education. With Prothro (1961:52) and with Grace Saaty (1955) we tend [to agree that "the family occupies a central place in almost every aspect of Lebanese life, and concern for the family is one of the •central values in the culture of Christians and Moslems alike." Funda mentally, therefore, the family in Lebanon is different than the family 1 68 i |in other technologically advanced societies. I Summary Reasons for the Choice of Lebanon In summary, there are four major reasons for the choice of Lebanon As the arena for this research: (1) "Functionally Extended Family" ! | In a modern, Westernized society, the family in Lebanon still plays ithe most important role in all aspects of secular and religious life. I jTherefore, it is expected that the association between family solidarity and mental health should be pronounced, at least more pronounced than ;in societies where the family may not be as cohesive. (2) Religious Composition i Lebanon's evenly-divided population between Christians and Moham- Imedans affords a maximum degree of variation in attitudes towards the family between these two world religions not available anywhere else ;(see Gulick, 1965:1). It is expected that Christians will show more j jfamily solidarity than Mohammedans. If this be the case, then the jempirically interesting question will be, how does that influence the j differential association between family vertical solidarity and psycho logical well-being? ! | (3) Best Research Country of Arab World | ! More social scientific research has been done in Lebanon than in ! iany other Middle Eastern Arab country; thus, available statistics i jafford functional comparisons, which in most other local areas would be lacking. Since this is a different kind of study than has been done ■before in the area, to the best of the author's knowledge, the compari- i sons will not lie in the areas of family solidarity and psychological I 69 ] well-being as they will in the area of the structural-demographic variables. (4) Investigator’s Lebanese Background | Being bicultural, with Lebanese background, the author is not only l ■specifically interested in the structure and function of the Lebanese ; "functionally extended family," but because of his socialization in ! jboth Lebanon and the West, he may be able to bring different perspec- ! jtives to bear on the analysis. As Neugarten and Bengtson (1968:27) say: "When research teams are composed of persons who have themselves ilived in the societies under study, more confident interpretations can ibe made." I I I j Chapter 3 ! I RESEARCH DESIGN | In Chapter 1 the background of the concept solidarity was reviewed both on the macro-social and the micro-social levels. That led to a discussion of horizontal and vertical family solidarity, horizontal being solidarity between spouses or siblings, and vertical being soli darity of intergenerational family members. It was stated that this Investigation concerns itself with vertical family solidarity across ;three generations. The design of the research is to investigate the relationships between background factors and perception of family I solidarity; between background factors and indices of mental health; I ^between perception of family solidarity and mental health; and finally, !the influence of background factors upon the relationship between j family solidarity and mental health. A secondary aim of the research is to test Homans1 human interaction theory. | In Chapter 2 four major reasons were discussed to explain the choice of Lebanon as the society in which to carry out this research. The geography, history, and demography of the country were briefly reviewed as a background that shows why in a modern, Westernized society i 70 ! 71 j ■the family is still termed as "functionally extended," and why it inter- j penetrates so deeply with the nation's religions, jurisprudance, polity, ! welfare, and economy. S In this chapter on research design, several tasks will be accom plished. First, the variables of the study, both independent and dependent, will be delineated. Second, the sample will be discussed as well as the methods of collecting the data. Third, the instruments used for this investigation will be presented and described. Fifth, and last, the significance of the research will be placed in perspective. The Variables In the first chapter we extablished the importance of solidarity 'to any social system including the family. We are reminded by Parsons {1968:40) that "family solidarity is the primordial basis of social solidarity." He declares: "Following Durkheim, I should say that one of, to me the four, essential conditions of the adequate functioning of a social system is the solidarity of its members..." A fundamental question that arises is, What are the variables that might affect jfamily solidarity? j Once the correlates of high and low cohesive families have been established, a major linkage will be investigated between family verti cal solidarity and psychological well-being. This is the second major question the research is trying to answer, namely, Is there a relation ship between family vertical solidarity and mental health? The general hypothesis is that there is a positive correlation between family vertical solidarity and mental health, as measured by Bradburn's scales of psychological well-being. I ...... . . - - - - - — . . . 72 ! In Chapter 1 the main proposition of the research and the various ihypotheses to be tested were delineated. It is, therefore, unnecessary jto repeat them in this chapter, but rather it is necessary to move into Ithe methodology including sample selection, instrumentation, and 'scaling. I The Sample Aldous (1967:235) says that "sociologists can now quite fairly be said to have recognized the importance of kinship in a modern industrial ;society." Sussman (1968:398) claims that "a three-generational family system of living grandparents, parents and children is today very common. There is also a growing number of four-generation family sys tems." Aldous (1965:463) does not quite agree as to the ease with which one can tap such a sample of three-generational family members. |She writes about her sample: I Thus the sample should consist of grandparents, parents and the latter's adult children, a hard sample to obtain given the ! geographic mobility of the United States population and the I length of the life span. Fortunately for intergenerational research, it was possible recently to obtain such a unique | sample...(underscording supplied). ! Theoretically, it should be easy to obtain such a sample. According !to Litman (1969:33) "Due to great life expectancy made possible in | jlarge part by the miracles of medical science, the prospect of finding j jthird generation and even fourth generation family lines intact— or I with at least one of the spouses living in the senior generation is less and less uncommon." Practically, however, it is not as easy as it sounds. Multigenerational family lineage, i.e. grandparents, parents, adult children, and their children, where necessary, provide r 73 an exceptional design for generational continuity and similarity studies. But such samples are very difficult to locate as Hill and |Aldous note, and as our own experience has proven. | | What was the design for collecting the data in Lebanon, and how !was it done? The general design of securing the sample called for ■respondents to be members of the same family across three generations. ■A purposive sample was followed aiming at families that have the poten tial of yielding six members, two in each generation, and that fit one of the following kinship descent diagrams: (a) Descent through the male line: A = O GF GM A s O D A (b) Descent through the female line: A = O GF GM A A 6= A M I b D It is important to find out whether family solidarity of a family structure of the type (a) is any different than it is for type. (b). ! 74 jln subsequent analyses this should be investigated more fully. In this study, will be used to designate the grandparental Igeneration; G2 to designate the parental generation; and G3 to designate the adult children's generation. An intact family of 6 members across 3 generations could be either (1) grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, son, daughter through the male line (as seen in diagram "a"); or (2 ) grandfather, grandmother, father, mother, son, daughter through 1 the female line (as seen in diagram "b"). An effort was made to secure 50 families. Sixty families having the required characteristics were initially contacted in Lebanon so that complete data were obtained from at least fifty. | The families were chosen in a purposive sampling through the help of local city mayors with the idea that they represent a cross-section :of the population as regards such variables as sex, religion, and SES. Translation and Comparability of Languages The research instruments were translated from the original English | to Arabic under the direct supervision of the author who is very well jacquainted with both languages. The Arabic translation was re-trans- jlated into English, and corrections were then made. Several pre-tests i I jwere made to insure face and construct validity. Eight interviewers I 1 were trained so that all the data was gathered through the help of ! these trained men and women, many of whom were social science students I land graduates, who were either recommended by the president of the Lebanese Sociological Association, or well-known to the author personal ly. A small grant was received by the author from a private foundation, and the writer headed this team in Lebanon in the summer of 1970. I 75 Measuring Instruments ! In this section we shall discuss the instruments used in this research. These are (1) Family Solidarity, and (2) Mental Health. The jmajor instrument, specifically developed for this study, is that of jFamily Solidarity. Family Solidarity i The first step in developing this scale was to discover some of Ithe specific nominal definitions of the concept as advanced by various social scientists. In the literature, there are many definitions of ■the concept, and only the most important will be presented here. Vol taire once said: "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms." This command is a good scientific principle. Nominal Definitions of Solidarity 1. Back (1951:9): The field of "forces which are acting on mem- ibers to stay in the group." j 2. Bossard and Boll (1950:519): "We use the term 'family inte gration' to mean the welding or unification of its diverse elements jinto a complex whole or harmonious relationship. i j Bossard and Boll (1963:279): "The more one examines the [assemblage of our material, the more one comes to see ritual as a jrelatively reliable index of family integration." | j 3. Cartwright and Zander (1960:70): "A strong feeling of we-ness; jeveryone is friendly or where loyalty to fellow-members is high; mem- jbers all work together for a common goal; the willingness to endure ipain or frustration for the group; a cohesive group as one which its [members will defend against external criticism or attack; the degree to Iwhich the members share the same norms." | 4. Cleland (1955:252): "The extent of shared activities." 5. Deutsch and Krauss (1965:55): "Intuitively, cohesiveness refers to the forces that bind the parts of a group together and that, thus, resist disruptive influences." 6 . Festinger (1967:419): "Cohesiveness of a group is here : 76 jdefined as the resultant of all the forces acting on the members to jremain in the group. These forces may depend on the attractiveness or junattractiveness of either the prestige of the group, members in the group, or the activities in which the group engages." ! i i i 7. Fiedler and Meuwese (1965:390): "A group is defined to be icohesive if one or both of the following conditions are present in the group: the members feel attracted to the group, the members are adjust-; ed to the group and free of interpersonal tension." 8 . Freedman (1970:194): "A group of this kind would have high morale, strong motivation, and strong pressures against conflicts that could interfere with performance. This quality of the group is called its cohesiveness. The more the members are attracted to one another land to the group and the more they share the group's goals, the greater the group's cohesivenss." 9. Gross and Martin (1952:546): "Sticking togetherness; resistance of a group to disruptive forces." 10. Hamblin (1958:67-76): "The degree to which units of a social system are oriented toward optimizing rewards for other units of the system." 11. Hoult (1969:67, 166): "...Is usually used to stress the articulation— the fitting together— of the separate parts of a social unit... Normative integration often distinguished from functional inte gration, the former denoting value agreement, the latter mechanical efficiency." 12. Mills (1967:21): "(a) Capacity to differentiate into sub parts while maintaining collective unity; (b) capacity to export resources without becoming impoverished and to send emissaries without losing their loyalty." 13. Nye and Rushing 0-969:134): "Integration refers to the linkages between individual family members and the linkage of the individual member of the family as a whole." | 14. Parsons (1966:40): "Motivational readiness to accept their common belongingness as members of a collective system and to trust each other to fulfill mutual expectations attached to membership in their respective roles." I 15. Rogers and Sebald (1962:27): "The degree to which a family is oriented toward optimizing rewards and satisfactions for other family members." | 16. Scott (1965:87): "From the group's perspective, the mainte nance of member allegiance may be seen as the establishment of group cohesiveness; from an individual member's perspective, it involves his I 77 Ifeeling of loyalty to, or alienation from, the group." | 17. Smith (1969:171): "Integration refers to the degree of co ordination of needs, means, and goals, and to the resiliency of this Organization under the pressures it encounters." j 18. Thibaut and Kelley (1967:114): "Cohesiveness has been defined as an increasing function of the attractiveness of the group to its members; that is, cohesiveness will be greater to the degree that rewards are experienced in belonging to the group." 19. Turner and Killian (1957:20): "Essential basis for group cohesion is a normative order, or consensus as to the behavior that is expected of the group members by each other." 20. Wilkening (1954:30): "The degree to which the family func tions as a unit in attaining common goals with the interest of the individual members being considered." Recapitulating these definitions in briefer form, we have the following general categories: 1. The field of "forces which are acting on members to stay in |the group." (Back, Festinger, Freedman, Fiedler and Meuwese, Thibaut land Kelley, and Scott) 2. "Sticking togetherness; common belongingness" (Bossard and |Boll, Gross and Martin, and Parsons) 3. "Resistance of a group to disruptive forces; to conflict" !(Freedman, Deutsch and Krauss, Gross and Martin) I 4. Orientation "towards optimizing rewards for other units of i jthe system" (Hamblin) I 5. The aim of attaining "common goals." (Cartwright and Zander, jSmith, Wilkening) 6 . "The extent of shared activities." (Cleland) 7. "Linkages between individual family members." (Nye and Rushing) 8 . "Linkages of the individual member to the family as a whole." j(Nye and Rushing) j 9. "Trust each other to fulfill mutual expectation" of respective roles. (Parsons) 10. "High morale, strong motivation." (Freedman) | Anyone that reviews the various definitions and works on the concept of integration will share Handel's (1967:3) conclusion: The nature of family cohesion or integration is thus a central topic, and the reader will not take long to discover that no simple unidimensional scale or index is adequate to tell us : what we need to know to understand such phenomena... The phenomena push us, at least at this necessarily early stage, toward the conceiving of kinds of integraion. In this study the multi-dimensionality of family cohesion is recognized and measures were created to tap the main dimensions. Some of these basic nominal definitions will be operationalized in several scales so that through triangulation we might reach the best means of measuring vertical family solidarity, its correlates and consequences. Operational Definitions of Family Solidarity | The first and most important instruments to be operationalized is jthat of family vertical solidarity. Different scientists have used jdifferent approaches and combinations of dimensions to measure the jconcept. Harper (1968:1) notes the following "measures of solidarity: ;Helping patterns (Sussman, Albrecht, MacDonald); Lineage type (Sweetser, i Aldous and Hill); Mobility patterns of offspring (Litwak); Interaction styles, power relations within tri-generational households (Scott, Knox.) Few have examined comparatively the impact of propinquity of residence... There seems to be consensus on the validity of visiting |and helping patterns as measures of intergenerational solidarity." j Harper comes to the following conclusion for his study: i Intergenerational solidarity in this report is defined as the extent to which the respondents engage in visiting, advice- ; giving and helping patterns. Measures of solidarity: (1) ! frequency of visitation with parents, (2 ) regularity of services I performed for parents, and (3) advice given to parents on dif- j ferent problems (Harper, 1968:3). Deutsch and Krauss (1965:56) point out that "various measures of group 'cohesiveness' have been employed in experimental investigations: (desire to remain in the group, the ratio of 'we' remarks to 'I' remarks during group discussions, ratings of friendliness, evaluations of the group and its product, acceptance of each other's idea, in-group socio metric choice versus out-group sociometric choice." In Larson's study (1967:3) consensus among family members is taken as "the major conceptual focus" for a major part of the study "since |it appears to be one of the most relevant conditions in terms of jinfluence upon the outcome of the socialization process." Nye and Rushing (1969:135) say that their "search of the litera ture indicates that at least six distinct dimensions of group or family i (integration have been studied: 1. Associational integration: The range of interaction in common iactivities. Associational integration refers simply to the frequency with which group members are in contact and interact. (Defined as the ;degree to which group members interact in common activities.) I 2. Affectual integration: The degree of positive affect indivi- jduals express for each other. Concern here is with those sentiments which have significance for each group member's self-expressions of love, respect, appreciation, and recognition for each other. (Defined in terms of mutual positive sentiment among group members.) 3. Consensual integration: The degree of consensus among group members on beliefs and values. This has sometimes been called com municative integration. (Defined as the degree to which group members ; 80 ;agree in their values.) I 4. Functional integration; The degree to which group members jexchange services. That is, the degree of interdependence among group ^members. The opposite of functional integration is the self-sufficiency |and autonomy of a group. 5. Normative integration: This dimension concerns the group's control over individual members. In general, it usually refers to the [degree to which members conform to group norms. 6 . Goal integration: The extent to which individual members subordinate their interests and goals to those of the group as a whole, in family research, this concept is often referred to as familism. "To our knowledge, only some of these have been used in research on family integration. Certainly all have not been employed in a single study. Too often in family research as in social research generally, the multidimensional character of a concept is not recog nized. " Jansen (1952:727-733) produced an 8 -category, 40-item scale of solidarity. Categories included agreement, cooperation, concern, enjoy ment, affection, esteem, interest, and confidence. Using an N of 284, Jansen found that solidarity was highest for families with one or no ichildren and equalitarian households. [ ' Landecker's (1951:332-340) "types of integration and their i measurement" are as follows: i j 1. The Cultural: that is, consistency among the standards of ja culture. j 2. The Normative: or conformity of the conduct of the group to cultural standards. 3. The Communicative: or exchange of meanings throughout the group. 1 81 I I ! 4. The Functional: or interdependence among group members j |through the division of labor. ! Here Landecker is working on a macro-level of analysis. But i |combining the ideas from the major definitions of the concept integra tion and the various types of integration as used in the literature, one is impressed how well they fit into Homans' (1950) frame of refe rence for basic group life and interaction. i | Based on Homans' general orientation, it would seem that the three most fundamental dimensions of family integration should deal with: (1) interaction, (2) sentiment, and (3) norms. This is buttressed by Streib (1965:469, 470) where he says: Since situation (Thomas: the subjective definition which a person places on events) is an anlytical concept, we cannot expect that a person participating in it knows clearly how he is performing a role in a particular situation. Therefore, this ; study asked about specific areas of feeling, sentiment, and behavior, in the hope that these data could be fitted together I to give a more complete description of the situation, the roles, and the performance of the roles (underscoring supplied). i Nye and Rushing (1969:137) suggest that "items entering the iinstruments to measure family integration must be designed to measure ithese basic concepts: activities, interaction, values, and sentiments" | |(underscoring supplied). In measuring human integration, I feel that i jthree levels of integration should be tapped to get the whole picture, I namely: (1) Associational integration (which takes into consideration ^activities and interaction); (2) Affectual integration (which covers sentiments, feelings, and affect); and Consensual integration (which deals with the actors’ consensus on values and norms. As Bert Adams ;(1964:5) wrote: "Values, affection, and interaction are related in a i 82 i ! general postulate of interaction theory." He further states (1964:63) jthat "similarity of attitudes, strong emotional attachment, and frequent ;interaction have been assumed by Homans and other interaction theorists to be closely associated." It seems that interpersonal integration is j i i ; j best measured by taking these three dimensions into consideration. : From the theoretical background presented in this chapter, the following three levels of integration will be used to arrive at an index of family vertical solidarity: (1) Associational Solidarity: Activity Level A scale has been designed to measure associational solidarity which includes: (a) intergenerational face-to-face communication (e.g. "talk over things that are important to you"); (b) intergenerational ;media communication (e.g. "telephoning", "writing letters";) and (c) intergenerational common activities (e.g. "commercial and other recrea tion such as movies, picnics, swimming, hunting, etc."). The frequency iof interaction is measured and ranges from "very frequent" to "never." (2) Affectual Solidarity: Sentiment Level A scale has been designed to measure the following facts of inter- |generational affectual solidarity: (a) expressions of love, (b) f respect, (c) appreciation, (d) recognition, (e) acceptance, (f) under standing, (g) trust, and (h) fairness. (3) Consensual Solidarity: Value Level A scale has been designed to measure agreement of views between jgenerations within the same family along society’s five major institu tions, namely: (a) the economy, (b) the polity, (c) the family, (d) the school, and (e) religion. This scale is constructed so that actual ks well as perceived similarities or differences between generations can be detected. This scale then could serve a double purpose: (a) a j i consensual solidarity instrument, and (b) a "generation gap" index, i.e. i if lack of consensus is defined as a "gap", or the antecedent of a gap, I between generations. In this study, there is no intent, of course, to use the scale as a measure of "generation gap," but what is being said here is that it could possibly be used as such if it is defined in that manner. In this study, then, family solidarity shall refer to the harmo- i nious relationships and interaction between family members in the associational, consensual, and affectual spheres of life. It is important to note that the design to be complete asked questions of each generation that concern its "integrative" measures with the other generations. Therefore, G^ was asked about his relations with G2 and G3 ; while G2 was asked about his relations with G^ and G3 ; and finally, G3 was asked about his relations with G^ and G2 . Psychological Well-being or Mental Health I Out of several attempts at measuring "mental health," it appeared that Bradburn's (1965 and 1969) formulation and operationalization is the most adequate for this study. Bradburn's research centered on the i i nature of mental health, and its relation to behavior. When he opera tionalized the concept, he used several dimensions. In this study, three of these dimensions will be used, two of which, (a) and (c), were said by him (1965:56; 1969:110) to have been the most important measures of psychological well-being. The three dimensions are: (a) The Affect Balance Scale with its two sub-scales, the Positive F . ; 84 i | land the Negative Affect Scales; I ! (b) The Worry Extensity Scale; and ; (c) The Avowed Happiness Scale. I ! Bradburn (1969:110) concluded that the worry "measures were J jrelated only to negative affect." Negative affect and positive affect I |are the two statistically independent sub-scales of the Affect Balance jScale. Both sub-scales are correlated to Avowed Happiness, the first j linversely, the second positively. The third scale being used, Avowed Happiness, is positively correlated to both Positive Affect and Affect Balance Scale. It is negatively correlated to Negative Affect so that as avowed happiness goes up, positive affect goes up and negative affect goes down (Bradburn, 1965:19). ; There has been no attempt to combine all these three separate iscales or even to conclude that they are definitive. The Affect Balance ! Scale, composed of the Positive Affect and the Negative Affect Scales, was chosen in this research as the one summary measure for further |correlations because of its high association with the other measures |of psychological well-being. | Bradburn reports a test-retest reliability of .78 for these scales. Validity was shown by the affect balance scale being associated (through the gamma statistic) with other indicators of less-than-good mental health, such as worry (.44), having felt close to a nervous breakdown | (.52), anxiety (.51), and the psychosomatic symptoms checklist (.35) (Bradburn, 1969). Advantages of the Affect Balance Scale (ABS) The Affect Balance Scale has three distinct advantages making it j"a good indicator of an individual's current level of psychological well-being" (Bradburn, 1969:67). These advantages are detailed by Bradburn (1969:69, 70) as follows: (1) Because the ABS is obtained by the combination of responses ; to several different items, it probably would be less susceptible to distorting influences than is the case with "obvious" questions such as the self-rating of overall happiness. By relying on a number of items rather than a single one, we would hope that various errors of measure ment would cancel each other out and leave us with a more "valid" measure. (2) ...It enables us to make finer discriminations among indivi duals distinguishing when necessary as many as nine points along the scale, compared with only three points using the self-reports of happiness... The use of a scale that permits finer discrimination shoulc enable us to have greater confidence in our conclusions than might be the case when observed covariation depends strongly on a small number of cases at one end of the distribution. (3) ...It gives us a richer conceptual framework for investiga ting the correlates of psychological well-being... Many types of ex periences relate only to one type of affective experience and influence :the sense of well-being only through one side of the ABS. In these cases, we shall be concerned with the measure for that one type of ^affect, either positive or negative. Where experiences are related to ^both positive and negative affect, we shall use the ABS as the best measure of the relationship between these experiences and psychological iwell-being. I Scaling The large number of variables used in this research were divided [into three general calsses: (1) Respondent's Background, (2) Family jSolidarity, and (3) Psychological Well-being. Within each of these ^general classes, scales, summary measures, and dichotomous categories | jwere developed. Some variables were eliminated for the entire sample i Isince they were not relevant to the study (e.g. consanguine spouse), ; and other items were eliminated from some sub-samples since they did not apply (e.g. marital status for G-^ and G2 O Following is a summary of the scaling techniques used and the | 86 ^development of the summary measures for the three classes of variables: I I (A) Background i I (1) Religion: In the original questionnnaire (see Appendix), there were four religious types: (a) Muslim, (b) Druz, (c) Maronite, and (d) Greek Orthodox. The respondents were supplied with a residual [ Icategory if they preferred not to declare their religion or if they had none. Of the 294 in the sample, only 5 filled this category. Since there were only 18 Druz and 32 Greek Orthodox, and since the Druz are Mohammedans like the Muslims, and the Orthodox are Chris tians like the Maronites, t two categories of religious affiliation were created: (a) Mohammedan, and (b) Christian. (2) Number of Sibs: This was a simple addition of the number of brothers and the number of sisters for a respondent. (3) Number of Children: This equalled the number of sons plus the number of daughters of a respondent. No attempt was made to separate istep children from biological offspring. This procedure was standard ized for both spouses. I (4) Family Size: The number of sibs was added to the number of children to reach a total for family size. Grandchildren were not I i included. I I (5) Sib Position: This variable was based on a three-item scale: I — — — — — — — — — ! j(a) Oldest, (b) Middle, and (c) Youngest. This information was based ■Ln turn on self-report of ages and sibs. ! (6 ) Socio-economic Status: This variable was based entirely on income. It would really be more accurate to say "Income Status." But we will continue using SES and defining it as "Income Level." .... SES was based on the self-reported income for and G2 . In the lease of Gg, it was based upon the respondent's income if he indicated i that he was 75% or more financially independent. If he indicated that he was less than 75% independent of financial support from his parents, then his SES was based on his father's income (G9). The following i ; ! categories of income were used (LL = Lebanese Lira): (1) LL. 1,200 or ! | less; (b) LL. 1,201 to LL. 4,000; (c) LL. 4,001 to LL. 9,000; (d) LL. I 1 9,001 to LL. 14,000; and (e) LL. 14,001 or more. Later in the analysis, ;it was found that this scale was too large and empty categories of income were produced. As a result, the scale was collapsed into three 'scales: (a) LL. 4,000 or less; (b) LL. 4,001 to LL. 14,000; and (c) iLL. 14,001 and more. These categories, then, represent the Lower Income Level, the Middle Income Level, and the Upper Income Level (see Chapter 4). (7) Education: Since less than 4% of the sample (N = 6 ) were Attending technical schools, this number was included with those Attending college. The resultant Education categories are: (a) Grade ■School, (b) Junior High, (c) High School, and (d) College and/or jUniversity. I j Number of Sibs, Number of Children, Family Size, and Sib Position, lare variables that will not affect the major analyses of this study j jbut are being included in another study currently underway. i | j ( B ) Family Solidarity 1 Family Solidarity was measured with the following three global items: (1). Association!: "Taking everything into consideration, how bften do you do things with your____________? (father, son, etc.) (2) Consensual: "In general, how similar are your views about lifej ;to those of your____________? (grandfather, mother, etc.) ' (3) Affectual: "All in all, how close do you feel to your_______ 1 ! i ___________? (child, father, etc.) Depending upon which generation received the questionnaire, the following family members were included in each question: For G^: Child (generalized); grandchild (generalized); for G2 : father, mother, son, and daughter; and for Gg: father, mother, grandfather, and grand mother. Responses to each item were of the following type: Very Often 6 5 4 3 2 1 Never Considering the number of family members included in each item, ;there are actually 12 responses for the general category of Global Family Solidarity for both G2 and Gg (three questions times four relatives). In the case of G^, there are only 6 responses (three questions times two generalized relationships). These 12 responses can be placed in a matrix such as the one on !page 89. This is an example for G2 . For Gg, the family members are jdifferent. In the case of G^, however, not only are the family members jdifferent, but since only two generalized family members are included, jthe matrix would be only a six-cell matrix instead of the twelve shown. I j In reviewing the intercorrelations and considering the general i 'theory to be tested, it was decided that as a summary measure of family solidarity, the means in the three areas of family solidarity would be used in the analysis since the other family member means are generation- I specific. These three means were based upon the number of responses j 89 Family Member Solidarity Parents Children Associational Father Mother Son Daughter Mean Associ. Consensual Father Mother Son Daughter Mean Consen. Affectual Father Mother Son Daughter Mean Affec. Mean Solida rity with Father Mean Solida rity with Mother Mean Solida rity with Son Mean Solida rity with Daughter Total Mean Solidarity with Parents Total Mean Solidarity with Children and not the actual number of items. Then, finally, in order that a summary measure of individual perception of family solidarity could be used, the three specific measures (associational, consensual, and affectual) were summed. After carefully studying the distributions, it was also decided that a six-point scale as shown on page 8 8 was too large and should be collapsed to a four-point scale. The associational and consensual items, because of lack of skewness, were collapsed as follows: scale point 6 became 4; 4 and 5 became 3; 2 and 3 became 2; and 1 stayed 1. (6=4; 4 and 5 = 3; 2 and 3 = 2; 1 = 1). The distribution of the affectual items, as discussed elsewhere, were relatively more skewed towards the high end of the scale. To I 90 prevent empty cells in later cross tabulation analysis, the following jscheme was used: 6 = 4; 5 = 3; 3 and 4=2; and 1 and 2=1. This Itechnique proved superior since it increased the number of cases in the lowest category. On the basis of these collapsed item responses, means were taken to generate the three mean family solidarity scores. These means were ithen summed to create the Total Family Solidarity Score. The range of the mean scores were from 1 to 4 in the solidarity sub-types, and the range of the Total Family Solidarity score was from 3 to 14. In later cross-tab analysis, these scores were dichotomized High Solidarity vs. Low Solidarity as follows: The mean scores were divided into high and low categories based on the theoretical mean of 2.5 on the 4-point collapsed scale. The total hcore was divided on the theoretical mean of 7.5. However, as can be expected, some individuals had scores that fell exactly on the mean. It was decided that their scores should be considered as "low" in order to better balance the distribution. This was also a conservative approach. The same technique was used in both the three sub-solidarity i mean scores and the total solidarity mean scores. Long and Short Forms I I In the original pretest of the solidarity scale, 40 junior college | students were used as subjects. (Since then the instrument has been j iadministered to over 400 members of three-generation American families.) Both the long form (a scale comprised of 24 Associational items, 53 Consensual items, and 28 Affectual items— a total of 105 items) and the I global form (a 1 2 -item short scale used in the present research) were ! 91 administered. The correlation (r) between the long form and the iglobal form was .87. This means that the global form, the short form, explained 76% of the variance of the long form, and vice versa. ! Preliminary analyses in terms of internal consistency show the Association items in the long form to correlate with each other at about .40, the Affectual items at about .60, and the Consensual items I at .45. The three components intercorrelate at .36. 1 Taking the data from Lebanon and making a check on one of the jlong scales, namely, the Affectual solidarity scale, and its global counterpart, it was found that they correlate at .70. In view of this, and because analyzing each of the long scales is a separate study by itself (a study now being carried out), it was felt justifiable to use the short form in the present analysis. Therefore, the Global Family Solidarity items were used in analyzing the data. An extensive analysis of the reliability of the scales is underway at present also. This will take several months to complete. But as was suggested above, preliminary analysis of one scale suggests that jthe Global Family Solidarity scale shows a high correlation with the I jlong form. It is important to note, then, that these scales have not yet been empirically validated, and that validity here is only content i and face validity. ICC) Psychological Well-being i I (1) Affect Balance Scale: This consists of ten statements of j emotion as to whether the respondent, during the past month, felt lonely or remote, on top of the world, bored, depressed, restless, pleased about accomplishments, and so on (see the entire text in the Appendix). jThe Affect Balance Scale was scored exactly as Bradburn had scaled it 1(1969:67). There are three steps in computing the Affect Balance Scale (a) Combining the points of lowest frequency on the two affect j scales— positive and negative; (b) Subtracting each individual's score on the negative affect ;scale from his score on the positive affect scale. This yielded a distribution of scores running from -4 to +4; and (c) Adding a constant of +5 to each sum, for computational purposes, giving a scale with values from +1 to +9. (2) The Worry Extensity Scale: The Worry Extensity Scale is composed of 1 2 questions as to whether the respondent worried during the past "few weeks" about debts, sexual problems, health, growing old, world situation, neighborhood events, moving ahead in the world, some imember of the family, and so forth (see Appendix for the full scale items). Each "yes" response, i.e. the respondent had indicated that he ;had worried about a particular item, was scored as 1. If the respon- ident had indicated "no", then this was scored as 0. The summary measure was the sum of the twelve items, giving a range of 0 to 1 2 . i | (3) Avowed Happiness: This scale consisted of six questions the j llast two of which were addressed only to those who were married since jthey dealt with marital happiness and satisfaction in the parental i role. The first four questions dealt with whether the respondent felt ;he was very happy, pretty happy, and not too happy; how was his life today as compared with five years ago (happier then, not as happy then, about the same); whether he wants his life to continue much the same i 93 iway, change in some parts, and change in many parts; and whether he was i doing pretty well or not too well in getting the things he wants from j -life. In this study, the Avowed Happiness score was calculated on the ifirst four items of an original 6 -item scale. The last two had to be jexcluded since they did not Apply to the great majority of in our isample. These last two items deal with marital happiness, and most of |G 3 were single. The Happiness score, then, was the sum of the four ifirst items of the scale. Each item response had a range of from 1 to 3 with the exception of the last item which had a range of from 1 to 2. This provided a range of 4 to 11 for the happiness score. In later analysis, the Affect Balance Scale was mainly used for -correlations as the measure of psychological well-being. In some analyses, this score was dichotomized into "high" and "low" using the I theoretical mean of 4.5 as the cutting point. Again those falling on the mean score were considered in the "low" category to be consistent with what was done with the solidarity scores when they were dichoto mized. j I In a dissertation in progress at the University of Southern Cali fornia, Sharon Moriwaki states that in her pilot study she administered jthe ABS, the Positive, and the Negative Affect scales on a sample of elderly people (ages 60 and over). The sample size was 27: 19 of whom were "normal," and 8 were psychiatric out-patients. The scale differ entiated significantly between the two "known groups" at p ^.005. She also correlated Bradburn's ABS and Positive Affect scale with Rosow's C1967) "Morale Scale" and got a Pearsonian r_ of .58 and . 8 8 respectively I 94 j |Correlating Bradburn's ABS and Negative Affect scale with a revised j iSrole scale (by Manis et al., 1963), she got an v_ of .59 and .45 ; respectively. I Significance of the Research In her work on "the consequences of intergenerational continuity" IJoan Aldous (1965:468) says that the research was designed to help ‘"determine the relative contribution of extended family relations and continuities over the generations (and) to how well the individual gets along on the job and within his nuclear family." In closing his article on "The Generation Gap," Bengtson (1970: 28, 29) raises questions in four areas in which generational knowledge needs to be further built. The first area deals with the nature and extent of differences between generational cohorts. The second area Ideals with the "dearth of knowledge concerning the within-family idifferences between generations." Bengtson then says: ! One might ask: To what degree do parents and children share a similar perspective of intergenerational interaction; is the | definition of the situation shared across generational lines? ! What are perceived as major sources of disagreement and discussion; why is solidarity higher in some families than in others?... | | Antecedents or correlates of high or low generational similarity | and high or low cross-generational solidarity await more systematic: ! investigation. | This study follows in .the tradition of Aldous and Hill. It also follows the suggestions of Sussman and Bengtson for areas of future |research. It was designed to investigate intergenerational family I ;solidarity in an attempt to answer some of the basic questions raised in Chapter 1. i The present research provides the testing of instruments for the ^measurement of Family Vertical Solidarity across generations. It also iprovides some assessment of the differential influence of demographic and structural variables on family integration. It is hoped that the 'central question of the research: To what extent is family solidarity ; related to the mental health of the family, though answered in part, jis a beginning contribution in this field in which very little has been done. Summary In this chapter on research design, the method of drawing the jsample (purposive sampling) was discussed. Through the help of local Icity mayors, a sample was chosen to fit certain characteristics such as religion, sex, generation, SES, etc. The translation and comparabi lity of the languages was given considerable attention. The instrument was originally drawn up in the United States in English, then trans lated into Arabic for use in Lebanon, re-translated into English for a double check on translation, and then approved for administration. In discussing the measuring instruments used, both the instruments i i f or Family Vertical Solidarity, and those for Psychological Well-being, or mental health were reviewed. First, nominal definitions were given i Icalling widely on.the literature. Then different types of family soli- j |darity were delineated before the operational definitions were stated. | For measuring mental health, Bradburn's measures of psychological well-being were considered. Three of his scales were chosen including bhe Affect Balance Scale (ABS), the Worry Extensity Scale, and the Avowed Happiness Scale. The ABS was chosen as the single measure of I psychological well-being for the analysis of the data, even though the (other two scales are referred to often. The ABS is composed of two i |sub-scales that are independent, namely, the Positive Affect, and the i ] (Negative Affect scales. i The section on scaling described how background variables were 'dealt with. Religion was dichotomized into Mohammedans and Christians. :SES in this study is defined as Income Level, with three levels used. There are three generations involved, (the old generation), G£ (the imiddle generation), and G^ (the young generation). Family solidarity measures were tested in a pilot study. There were two forms used simultaneously, as in collecting the data from Lebanon. The two forms were the long form and the short global form. Because the long form is a subject for a separate study, and because lof the relatively high correlations between the long and the short forms, the decision was made that it was justifiable to use the global short form as the data from Lebanon is analyzed in this dissertation. Tests of validity and reliability are underway, and therefore face ivalidity of the instruments is presented. i Collapsing of categories and dichotomization for certain analyses i I lof the data is also discussed. The 6 -point answer scales for the | (various solidarity items were found too spread, and therefore, they | were collapsed into a 4-point scale. Theoretical means were used as jthe dividing points for dichotomies, for certain statistical operations. ;To be on the conservative side, those falling exactly on the mean were (thrown to the "low" end of the dichotomy. This also gave a better balance of the distributions in the cells. i The measures used for psychological well-being from Bradburn were 97 discussed showing how the scaling was done. The ABS was scaled exactly j jthe way Bradburn scaled it. The last two items of the Avowed Happiness Lcale were dropped for Gg because it dealt with marital happiness and ■the great majority of the young generation in this sample is single. | Lastly, the significance of the research was discussed in the context of the general picture of family research. Not much has been done in the field of intergenerational family solidarity. This iresearch then, may contribute to the area of understanding family relationships especially along vertical lines: grandparents, parents, and adult children. Chap ter 4 DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE In this chapter both the descriptive and the associational features of the data will be presented. In Chapter 5, an analysis of the back ground factors related to solidarity and mental health will be present ed. And in Chapter 6 , the relations between solidarity and mental health will be reviewed with a special section examining Homans' theory of human interaction. The present chapter is important in giving an overview of the sample with which we are dealing. We need to know the number of sub jects by sex, by generation, by religion, and by economic groups (SES). These are the basic variables with which subsequent analysis will be mainly concerned. It is also important to learn how the population looks with respect to the measures of psychological well-being in order to bring this to bear in future analysis in the next two chapters. In this chapter, three kinds of variables will be examined: (1) the background variables including the most important four1— sex, gene ration, religion, and SES-— , (2) Family Vertical Solidarity variables, and (3) psychological well-being, or mental health variables. Follow 98 ing is a recapitulation of these variables that will be dealt with in this chap ter: The Background Variables All background variables have been placed in four major categories (A) Gensex— i.e. (1) Generation (G-^ = grandparents; G2 = parents; and G3 = adult children) and (2) Gensex Designations, with 1 for grand father, 2 for grandmother, 3 for father, 4 for mother, 5 for son, and 6 for daughter. (3) Lineage, as determined by the consanguinal ties of the middle generation to both G^ and G3 . (4) Sex, and ( . 5 ) Age. (B) Religion. This group (as presented in Table 2) includes all four religions plus a totalling of the two major groupings, i.e. Moham medans and Christians which will be used in the analysis. Secondly, data will be reviewed regarding the "importance of religion", and thirdly, "church/mosque attendance." (C) Family. In this category there are two variables: (1) family size (measured by number of children, sibs, and parents and/or grand parents in all three generations), and (2 ) geographic distance from parental home (from the family of orientation). (D) SES. Four parts consitute this category: (1) income, (2) education, (3) financial dependence (for G-^ and G3 subjects), and (4) employment status. For the analysis, however, SES is being represented by income only. Family Solidarity Variables Family Vertical Solidarity has been operationalized by three measures: (1) Associational, (2) Consensual, and (3) Affectual soli darity. Also a Total Global Family Solidarity score is used in the 100 analysis. Mental Health Variables Using the Bradburn formulation of psychological well-being, the following scales were used to measure an individual's mental health: (1) Affect Balance Scale, (2) Positive Affect Scale, (3) Negative Affect Scale, (4) Worry Extensity Scale, and (5) Avowed Happiness Scale. Page 101 presents a general modal linking background variables to family solidarity and mental health. The main thesis of this research is a positive correlation between family solidarity and mental health. This will be presented and discussed with all specifications in Chapter 6 , while Chapter 5 presents the relationships of background variables to both family solidarity and mental health. In this chapter, then, a description as regards (A) Background Variables, (B) Family Solidarity, and (C) Mental Health will be presented. (A) Background Variables (1) Sex Lineage: Measured by consanguinal relations between gene ration two and the grandparental generation, , there are twenty-two (22) male lineages and twenty-seven (27) female lineages. (2) N Distribution and Age: In the 49 complete three-generational families, there are 294 subjects of whom 153 are males and 141 are females. There are only 49 complete three-generational families due to errors in collecting the data and to cases where information on any one of the six-member three-generational family is missing or incorrect. Sixty such families had been anticipated at the beginning of the research with the eventual hope of retaining 50 "clean" families. The distribution of the sample totally 294 subjects is found in Table 1 Model Linking Background Variables to Family Solidarity and Mental Health BACKGROUND FAMILY SOLIDARITY MENTAL HEALTH Sex 4 High Female Low Low Male Religion I Christian 4 High Mohammedan Low Low Generation Generation-1 High 4 High | Generation-2 Generation-3 - S > | - Low | SES: Income High. --------------High - 4 High Medium with their mean, age by both generation and sex. The age range for G^ males was 60 to 95; for females, 53 - 90; for G2 males, 37 - 70; for G2 females, 34 - 59; for G3 males 15 - 31; and for G3 females, 14 - 31. The total mean age for males was 48.4 and for females 44.0. The mean age of the total population was 46.3. (3) Religious Affiliation Religion is one of the central variables in this study. There are four categories of data on religion which are relevant to the analysis: (a) Subjects dichotomized into Mohammedans and Christians. This will be the only religious affiliation data used. (b) Subjects by their sect affiliation, namely, Muslim, Druz, Maronite, and Greek Orthodox. There is a residual category of "other" which was checked by five sub jects. These are the "undeclared" subjects on religious affiliation, (c) Importance of religion. (d) Church/mosque attendance. In the sample there are 143 Mohammedans and 146 Christians. Dividing the sample into the four major sub-categories, there are 125 Muslims, 18 Druz, 107 Maronites, and 39 Greek Orthodox, plus the five undeclared (see Table 2). Even though the analysis was conducted on Mohammedans and Christians, yet the within-religion variability, especially for the Druz, was of such magnitude that further research should pay special attention to this phenomenon. (4) Importance of Religion; Importance of religion and church/ mosque attendance were not specifically analyzed or controlled for in this study. But as is shown in Tables 3 and 4, religion is indeed a very central thing in this sample of Lebanese. This reinforces the choice of religion as one of the main variables to be investigated. 103 Table 1 Mean Age and Number of Subjects by Generation and Sex Generation-1 Generation-2 Generation-3 Totsil Sex X Age N X Age N X Age N X Age N Male 79.6 49 49.5 49 19.7 55 48.4 153 Female 67.9 49 42.1 49 18.9 43 44.0 141 Total 73.8 98 45.8 98 19.3 98 46.3 294 Table 2 Religion of Subjects by Generation & Sex Generation-1 Generation- 2 Generat:ion-3 ( - 3 O ft n * il Sex Male i ’ emale Male Female Male 1'emale Male Female Muslim 2 1 2 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 0 63 62 Druz 3 3 3 3 4 2 1 0 8 TOTAL MOHAMMEDAN 24 24 23 24 26 2 2 73 70 Maronite 18 18 18 17 2 2 14 58 49 Orthodox 7 7 7 7 5 6 19 13 TOTAL GHRISTTAN 25 25 25 24 27 2 0 77 69 Undeclared 0 0 1 1 ■2 1 3 2 Total 49 49 49 49 55 43 153 141 104 From Table 3 it is also clear in this Lebanese sample that religious importance decreases as one moves from the older generation to the younger. (5) Church/Mosque Attendance: Church and Mosque attendance also shows that religious participation varies inversely with age. From the older generation to the younger, attendance drops off. There is also a sex difference. One thing, however, needs to be kept in mind as one looks at the differences between the sexes: The Muslim females do not usually go to the mosque for their prayers, rather they pray at home. This is part of the religious custom of Islam. Thirty-two subjects did not answer the question on church/mosque attendance as revealed in Table 4. Typical comments from Muslim ladies: "I pray at home and do not go to the mosque because of our traditions" (Questionnaire No. 303). "I, being a woman, do not go to the mosque; I pray daily at home all five calls to prayer" (Questionnaire No. 326). (6 ) Family Size: The mean family size as measured by the number of children in the family is very similar between generation one and generation two. The respective means are 5.6 and 5.5. The respective modes are 5.0 and 4.0; the medians, 5.6 and 5.0; and the standard deviation, 2.5 and 2.2. Family size was used as a variable to check the effect of differential size on family solidarity and on mental well-being. (7) Geographic Distance from Other Generation: In Chapter 2, it was pointed out that the Lebanese family can be best described as "functionally extended." This was to distinguish it from the residen- 105 Table 3 Importance of Religion by Sex and Generation in Percentages Generation-1 Generation-2 Generation-3 % Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Very Important 75.5 85.7 38.3 58.3 20.4 27.9 51.0 Important 20.5 1 2 . 2 46.8 29.2 49.6 48.8 33.1 Slightly Imp. 4.1 2 . 0 6.4 10.4 18.5 18.6 1 0 . 0 Not Imp. at All 0 . 0 0 . 0 8.5 2 . 1 18.5 4.7 5.9 Total N ■49 49 47 48 54 45 1 0 0 . 0 No Comment 4 Grand Total 294 Table 4 Church/Mosque Attendance by Sex and Generation in Percentages Generation-1 Generation-2 Generation-3 Total Male Female Male Female Male Female N At Least Once a Week 56.8 50.0 50.0 35.7 17.6 27.0 103 Only on Holi days 20.5 7.1 23.9 21.4 27.5 27.0 56 At Least Once a Month 4.5 9.5 13.0 9.5 15.7 8 . 1 27 Never 18.2 33.3 13.0 33.3 39.2 37.8 76 Total N 44 42 46 42 51 37 262 No Answer 32 Grand Total 294 jtially extended family. In choosing the sample, the distance of j jresidences of members of the same family was not considered a factor that would dictate choice. Therefore, we can assume that distance from hom was a random element. And yet, there are 87 subjects living with their parents, 81 of whom are members of the third generation, and 129 lliving within 5 kilometers. Sixty-four of these are members of the i isecond generation. Of the entire sample, 90.8 percent of the respondents seem to live within 2.5 miles of their parents. It is recognized that Lebanon is a small country. But there is something at work here that is clearly a function of the extended family bond. Propinquity of close relatives is a strong element of the Lebanese family structure. This propinquity contributes functionally to the activities of the family members in all aspects of life. (8 ) SES: Income: Farsoun (1970:302) presents data about the socio-economic status of the population in Lebanon. He quotes the findings of an official agency, IKFED, as follows: | 9% destitute or miserable (11. 1,200 per annum), 40% poor (LL. 2,500 per annum), 30% near average (LL. 5,000 per annum), S . | 14% better off (LL. 15,000 per annum), and 4% wealthy (above LL. 15,000 per annum). Farsoun also notes that "most people who can be classified as middle class live generally in the urban centers and the suburbs around ! ihe urban centers." The income profile of the sample by generation and sex is found in i Table 5. Only 22.1% of the third generation reported anything about I 107 j | Table 5 i Income of Subjects by Generation ! and Sex Generation-1 Generation-2 Generation-3 Total % Male Female Male Female Male Female LL' ^ 1 , 2 0 0 8 4 4 7 1 1 1 35 17.9 LL. 1,201- 4,000 14 9 13 3 13 5 57 29.2 LL. 4,001- 9.000 14 9 16 1 2 3 5 59 30.2 LL. 9,001- 14,000 3 4 7 6 0 0 2 0 1 0 . 2 LL. ^14,000 4 2 9 4 1 4 24 12.3 Total 43 28 49 32 28 15 125 99.8 No Response 6 2 1 0 17 27 28 99 Grand Total 294 Table 6 Education by Generation and Sex Generation-1 Generation-2 Generation-3 Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Elementary 28 26 32 34 18 2 0 158 Secondary 2 0 7 4 27 18 58 College & U. 1 2 5 4 9 5 26 Total 31 28 44 42 54 43 242 No Response 18 2 1 5 7 1 0 52 Grand Total 294 I 108 I |their income, hence the presence of 99 subjects with no report. Of all I three generations who did report their income, 17.9% would have to be iclassified as "desitute or miserable" on the IRFED scale. 12.3% had iincome equal to or above LL. 14,000 which would qualify them as "wealthy" on the IRFED scale. The IRFED data shows that 48% of the population is near average land above, and 49% in the poor and destitute categories. This sample, by comparison, shows 47% below average, 40% average, or middle cate gory, and 1 2 % above average, or "wealthy." (9) Education: Table 6 presents the education data for the sample by generation and sex. Most of the 52 subjects that did not answer the question on education are from G^. If we can assume that, because of social desirability, people who do not have a formal educa tion are more likely not to answer questions on their education, we would have an explanation as to why the 52 did not answer this question, jOnly 1 2 subjects who belong to G2 did not answer the question, and [probably the same reasoning that applies to G-^ applies to them. All G3 |respondents but one answered the question. | The educational picture of the sample corresponds to what one I [would predict. As one moves from the oldest generation to the youngest; jmore people have formal education, and more people have higher educa tion. There is a tendency also for females to have less education than imales in all three generations. i Table 6 also shows that for both G2 and G3 there are more females ;than males who have only elementary education. Looking at the secon dary and college education categories, however, we find more males. : 109 I This seems to indicate that fewer males stop with elementary education and more of them go on to secondary and college attainments. ! | (10) Financial Dependence; Tables 7 and 8 show the sample as far ;as financial dependence and employment are concerned. On the subject of financial dependence on parents, the middle generation, as expected, was almost totally independent of their parents. Also as anticipated, most of the third generation was financially dependent on their parents. Table 7 shows the breakdown. (11) Employment; Most of the 42 subjects that did not answer the question on employment are females. Since the rate of employment for females in Lebanon is much lower than that for males, it is understand able that females would not even bother to answer the question. As expected, unemployment is highest in both G^ and Gg, and the lowest in Gg. The employment curve is clearly a U-shaped curve. : In an intercorrelational matrix of twenty background variables, it was found that the greater the age, the greater the importance of religion and the greater the religious attendance. This relationship was found also true as far as education is concerned. Females were i higher than males in their assessment of the importance of religion; married people were higher than single people; and people with large families were higher than people with small families. | Younger people were more educated than older people, and males j were more educated than females. It was also found that the greater the income of the parents, the higher the education of the child. Also the higher the income of the parents, the higher the income of the child. 110 Table 7 Financial Dependence on Parents by Generation and Sex Generation-2 Generation-3 Total Male Female Male Female 100% Dependence 0 0 27 23 50 Principally Dependent 0 0 4 3 7 50/50 Dependent 0 0 9 5 14 Principally Independent 5 3 6 2 16 100% Independent 36 39 8 8 91 Total 41 42 54 41 178 No Report 8 7 1 2 18 Grand Total 49 49 55 43 196 Table 8 Employment by Generation and Sex Generation-1 Generation-2 Generation-3 Total Male Female Male Female Male Female Unemployed 29 36 2 23 15 2 2 127 Unemployed— Look ing for a Job 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 Part-time Employ ment 9 2 8 2 15 8 44 Full-time Employ ment 8 2 34 1 2 16 6 78 Total 46 40 44 38 47 37 252 Ho Report 3 9 5 1 1 8 6 42 Grand Total 49 49 49 49 1 55 43 294 I (B) Family Solidarity i In measuring family solidarity, this study has relied on the i perceived family solidarity by the individual member in any of the ; three generations. What we have, then, is the individual’s perception of his family I solidarity. In subsequent analyses, it will be important to look into ! dyadic differences of perception of solidarity. Also a "family perception" of family solidarity would be an important level of analysis. The frequencies for both the Associational and the Consensual solidarity items showed distributions close to normal, with means, skewness, kurtosis, and standard deviations clearly within the ex pected ranges. However, this cannot be said of the distribution of the Affectual items. Probably because of strong social desirability, 1 the frequencies here were skewed, especially with the older genera- ; tion. Most people checked the first or second point indicating very ; strong affection to everybody in the family. Therefore, the Affectual i solidarity measure is weaker than both the Associational and the ; Consensual. ! Tables 9 - 16 on the following pages show correlations between ] i various summary measures of solidarity and in all three generations, j The tables are presented consecutively beginning with generation one | through generation two, and ending with generation three, the young. ! One of the minor questions posed by the research (see Chapter 2) I is in connection with how a family member tends to view solidarity ! between himself and the rest of the 6 -member inter-generational family 112 Table 9 Mean Family Solidarity by Solidarity Type (Pearson's Correlations) Generation 1 : Mean Mean Mean i Associational Consensual Affectual Total | Mean , Associational .35* .03 .77* I Mean I Consensual -.02 .70* I Mean Affectual .45* : Note: Correlational coefficients with * are significant at the .001 level. For G^j the perceived solidarity between 0>2 an^ G3 ; E. = *38* Table 10 Mean Family Solidarity by Solidarity Type and by Generation (Pearson's Correlations) Generation 1 Mean Mean Mean Associational Consensual Affectual Total Mean Generation-2 .6 6 * .51* .44* .85* Mean Generation-3 .58* .63* .30* .81* ! Note: All correlational coefficients with * are significant at the .001 level. 113 : to which he belongs. Does he tend to group certain members I together and view them jointly? The hypothesis says that there is no relationship between how he views one member and how he views anoth- I er> Another question the research raised is, Which types of family ; solidarity, or which types of solidarity is a stronger predictor of a person's perception of his total solidarity with other family mem- : bers across three generations? Again the hypothesis predicts no difference between the sub-types. It is apparent from Table 9 that Associational solidarity and Consensual solidarity are both better predictors of the relationship of Gj to both G2 and G3 . Affectual solidarity as a sub-type is quite : insignificant. Because of the skewness of the distribution and the heavy loading on the extreme pole of "very close," the Affectual solidarity scale for G^ becomes almost a constant, helping little if any in explaining the solidarity relationships. Even when one looks at the total means as presented in correlational form in Table 10, ; one finds Affectual solidarity relatively low. For the older generation, perceived solidarity between G„ and G3 j I has a correlation of .38. So, for G^ the prediction that there is no 1 relationship between how he views one member and how he views another cannot be substantiated. Also the prediction that there is no dif- | ference in the sub-types of solidarity as predictor variables cannot be accepted, either. Moving now to the middle generation, it is readily noticed that in I Table 11 the picture is about the same when it comes to solidarity types as it was for generation one. The Affectual is the weakest; the prediction of no relationship cannot be accepted. The correlations of the Affectual with the Associational and Consensual are not high and, therefore, not significant — being .16 and .28 respectively. The | correlation with the total, however, is somewhat more suggestive ! i (r. = .65) but is still lower than the Associational and Consensual. | Viewing Table 12 provides an answer to two questions: (1) Does a parent tend to view his father and his mother similarly? His son and his daughter similarly? and (2) Does a parent tend to view males across generations as a unit and females as a unit? From the Correla tions in this table, it is apparent that a parent does tend to view generational members in the same way (an jr of .55 for the Association between how he views his son and his daughter, and an r_ of .44 for his father and his mother). When it comes to viewing the sexes across generations as a unit, the answer to this question is in the affirmative also (with an r of .51 for a unified view of the males, his father and his son, and an jr of .49 for a unified view of the females, his mother and his daughter). This is further confirmed by a comparison of perception of soli darity across sex lines and across generation lines. The correlations drop to .32 for the relationship of female and G3 male, and to .33 for the relationship of G^ male and G3 female. There seems to be a clear tendency for a person in perceiving family solidarity to perceive his solidarity with his grandfather, for example, as similar to his solidarity with his grandmother— they are both in the same generation. Regarding family members across genera- 115 Table 11 Mean Family Solidarity by Solidarity Type (Pearson’s Correlations) Generation 2 Mean Mean Mean Associational Consensual Affectual Total Mean Associational .51* .16 .78* Mean Consensual .28 .79* Mean Affectual .65* Note: All correlational coefficients with * are significant at the . 0 0 1 level. Table 12 Mean Total Family Solidarity by Sex and Generation (Pearson's Correlations) Generation 2 Mean Generation 1 Mean Generation 3 Male Female Male Female Mean Generation 1-Male .44* .51* .33* Mean Generation-1-Female .32 .49* Mean Generation 3-Male .55* Mean Generation 3-Female Note: All correlational coefficients with * are significant at the .001 level. tions, the tendency is to perceive similarity of solidarity with members of the same sex, so that a father tends to perceive his soli- ! darity with his mother as similar to his solidarity with his daughter. In Table 13 an improvement is detected in the correlations of the Affectual solidarity. It is interesting to note, however, the relatively low correlations of the female both of generation one and generation three with affectual. These show perhaps that the Affectual solidarity of a parent with his mother or with his daughter does not contribute to his general solidarity with them, or that it does not necessarily predict the solidary relationships. Table 14 reveals that the young generation tends to assess soli darity with its two parents as a unit, and with its grandparents as a unit also, even more so than does generation two. The correlation coefficient for viewing the parents as one unit is .75, and that for viewing the grandparents together as one unit is .73. Notice also that the correlations drop significantly when their view of the same sex across generations is examined, but it is still of importance, for male at .40 and for female at .33. Two significant facts stand out from Table 16. First, for the young generation, Affectual solidarity and Consensual solidarity are better predictors of a person's solidarity with his father and his mother than Associational solidarity. Secondly, Associational solidarity and Consensual solidarity are better predictors of a person's solidarity with his grandfather and his grandmother than Affectual solidarity. This section yields two major findings: (1) that a member of the 117 Table 13 Intercorrelation of Sdlidarity by Generation and Sex for Generation-2 Mean Mean Mean Associational Consensual Affectual Total Mean Generation-1 Male .59* .67* .44* .75* Mean Generation-1 Female .62* .62* .40* .75* Mean Generation-3 Male .55* .55* .62* .78* Mean Generation-3 Female .63* .57* .40* .72* Note: All correlational coefficients with * are significant at the . 0 0 1 level. Table 14 Correlation of Global Solidarity by Generation and Sex for Generation-3 Mean Generation 2 Male Female Mean Generation 1 Male Female Mean Generation-2 Male Mean Generation-2 Female Mean Generation-1 Male Mean Generation-1 Female ,75* .40* .35* .26 .33* .73* Note: All correlational coefficients with * are significant at the .001 level. ! 118 j family tends to see his solidarity with other members in sets, i members of the same generation are seen together, and members of the ; same sex across generations are seen together. (2) Of the three solidarity sub-types, Affectual is the weakest in predicting one’s : perception of his solidarity to other members of the three-generation al family unit. 1 (C) Psychological Well-being In this section, a portrait of the psychological well-being of the sample will be presented in terms of the five measures: the : Affect Balance, Positive Affect, Negative Affect, Worry Extensity, and Avowed Happiness. Table 18 presents the intercorrelations of psycho logical well-being indices. Bradburn (1969:69) says that "although the degree of association i between the ABS and self-ratings of happiness is far from perfect, it ; is great enough for us to view the ABS as an indicator of the same I j underlying dimension of well-being." The clearest way to look at ! summary measures of the Affect Balance Scale for our sample is to I study the "means" column in the Affect Balance Table, Table 17 , j (1) Affect Balance Scale: In all three generations, the means | for the females are lower than the means for the males in the Affect i i Balance scores. This tendency is also reflected in both the Positive i i and the Negative Affect Scales. The females show lower mean scores i | of Positive Affect and higher mean scores of Negative Affect. More , will be said about this analysis in studying the Avowed Happiness Scale. i By generation-sex, the young males have the highest Affect Balance 119 Table 15 Intercorrelations of Global Soli darity for Generation 3 Mean Mean Mean Associational Consensual Affectual Total I Mean Associational .48* .21 .74* i ! ! Mean Consensual .36* .82* i | ; Mean Affectual .70* Note: All correlational coefficients with * are significant at the . 0 0 1 level. Table 16 i ! Intercorrelations of Solidarity by Generation and Sex for Generation 3 Mean Associational { Mean Generation-2 j Male .48* j Mean Generation-2 ! Female . 42* ! Mean Generation-1 Male .6 8 * Mean Generation-1 Female . 6 8 * Mean Mean Consensual Affectual Total .6 6 * .59* .77* .6 8 * .64* .77* .63* .52* .81* .59* .44* .76* Note: All correlational coefficients with * are significant at the .001 level. Table 17 Affect Balance Scores by Generation & Sex M M M ®3 tr N 49 49 49 49 55 43 Percent in Each Scale Category 4.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 4.1 12.0 4.1 6.1 7.3 4.9 6.1 12.2 16.3 10.2 5.5 14.6 12.2 12.2 10.2 24.5 10.9 7.3 34.7 30.6 16.3 22.4 25.5 39.0 16.3 10.2 18.4 16.3 20.0 24.4 4.1 2.0 16.3 8.2 18.2 2.4 2.0 6.1 10.2 4.1 9.1 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0 99 16.3 12.2 8.2 8.2 0.0 0.0 f i t o TO < D S 5.54 4.97 0) TO IS 5.0 5.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 c T3 O H 'H C O 4-> T 3 to C -H t O > JJ a ) C/3 O 1.50 1.71 1.77 1.50 1.75 1.54 to o •u .62 -.33 -1.07 -.43 -.38 .13 c o CO CD CD & C/3 -. 66 .13 -.15 .14 -.22 -.61 ;Note: All row percentages, 1-9 and 99, should equal 100%. j * 99-colum designates the percentages of those whose scores could not be computed because of the way in which they answered the Positive and/or Negative Affect Scale items. 1 ----------------------------------- 120 f 121 ! Scale means, while the old females have the lowest. A rank-order of i ’ I ; mental health by generation and sex, from highest to lowest, appears ! ! in Table 19. Table 18 Intercorrelation of Psychological Well-being Indiees Positive Negative Worry Avowed Affect Affect Extensity Happiness Affect Balance .62 - . 6 8 -.27 .20 Positive Affect .15 .11 .09 Negative Affect .43 -.16 Worry Extensity -.30 Note: Correlational Coefficients equal to or greater than .11 are significant at the .05 level. Table 19 Rankorder of Gensex on ABS Mean Scores Gensex Mean ABS GyMale 5.54 G2~Male 5.08 : G^-Female 4.82 G1-Male 4.71 G^-Female 4.66 G-| -Female 4.45 122 C2) Positive Affect: Since Positive Affect and Negative Affect are the two statistically independent sub-scales of the Affect Balance Scale, they will be presented here separately. First a look at the scores on the Positive Affect sub-scale as seen in Table 20. Without exception, in all five categories of the Positive Affect Scale, the young people, Gg, either male or female have the highest scores. In the sample, young females present themselves as the mo'st proud because someone had complimented them recently on something they had done. Young males get the highest scores in all four remain ing categories: the most excited 6 r interested in something, the most pleased about having accomplished something, felt most on top of the world, and that things were going their way. The females in all three generations say they felt less pleased about having accomplished something than the males. This was true also about their feelings regarding being "on top of the world." By generation, the most excited and interested, the most proud, the most pleased, and those feeling most on top of the world were the young people, and those feeling least were the oldest people. Gene ration two, the middle generation, came in the middle also in all these categories. Concerning the category of "things going your way," surprisingly all three generations were very close in their scores, but the middle generation as a generation had the highest scores, and the old generation the lowest. It is interesting to note that there is a tendency for males to say they had felt more excited and interested, more proud, more pleased, feeling more on top of the world, and that things are going 123 Table 20 Questionnaire Items Reflecting Positive Affect by Generation and Sex Rankordered in Percentages Excited Proud Pleased Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response g3-m 85.5 0 . 0 G3-F 53.5 2.3 g3-m 74.5 0 . 0 g3-f 76.7 0 . 0 g2-m 51.0 0 . 0 g3-f 67.4 2.3 g2-m 67.3 8 . 2 g3-m 47.3 0 . 0 g2-m 65.3 0 . 0 g2-f 59.2 2 . 0 g2-f 46.9 6 . 1 g2-f 57.1 0 . 0 Gx-F 46.9 2 . 0 Gi-F 28.6 2 . 0 Gi-M 55.1 4.1 Gj-M 38.8 6 . 1 Gj-M 24.5 2 . 0 g- j-f 46.9 2 . 0 Feeling on Top Things of the World Going your Way Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response g3-m 25.5 0 . 0 g3-m 47.3 0 . 0 g3-f 23.3 2.3 G1-F 42.9 2 . 0 g2-m 22.4 0 . 0 g2-m 42.9 0 . 0 G- j-M 20.4 8 . 2 g2-f 42.9 0 . 0 g2-f 16.3 2 . 0 Gj-M 40.8 4.1 Gjl-F 8 . 2 2 . 0 g3-f 37.2 0 . 0 Note: For the N Distrubution, please turn to Table 17. . 124 j their way than females of this sample. Table 21 reveals the rankorder of Positive Affect by Gensex. The | rankorder is a reversal of generations with generation 3 coming first, I generation 2 coming next, and generation 1 coming last. The males in ( : all three generations show the highest mean scores. The tendency, then is for the young generation to have the highest Positive Affect, and i by sex, for the males to score higher than females. ; Table 21 I j Rankorder of Generation-Sex ; on Positive Affect and Negative Affect Mean Scores Gensex Mean Positive Affect Gensex Mean Negative Affect g3-m 1.87 g3-f 2.07 g3-f 1.71 G1-F 1.57 g2-m 1.61 g2-f 1.55 g2-f 1.37 g2-m 1.53 G1-M 1.04 G1-M 1.33 G-j-F 1 . 0 2 g3-m 1.33 I (3) Negative Affect: The Negative Affect Scale is related to J the worry measures (Bradburn, 1969:110). It has five items, just like i the Positive Affect Scale, but they are statistically independent of the Positive Affect Scale items. The percentages are rankordered in Table 22. By generation-sex, the young females reported the highest scores on feeling restless, lonely bored, and upset by criticism. The only item on which they did not score highest was depression. G2 males scored the highest here. Young males scored lowest in loneliness and boredom. Old males scored lowest on being depressed, which, was rather surprising, and old females scored lowest on being upset by criticism, j The middle generation showed the lowest scores on being restless. This was equally true for the males as well as for the females. By generation, there is a ttendency for the young generation to score high on being restless, bored, and upset by criticism. Their scores occupy second place in loneliness and depression. Old people scored the highest for loneliness, and the middle generation the highest for being depressed. The middle generation, however, scored the lowest on restlessness, loneliness, and boredom. It occupied second place to G^ on being upset by criticism. In addition to scoring the highest on loneliness, the old gene ration occupied second place in the fields of boredom and restlessness. On the other hand, they scored lowest on depression, which was surprising, and lowest on being upset by criticism, which was not so surprising. Table 21 rankorderes Negative Affect mean scores by Gensex. While the rankorder of the Positive Affect mean scores was mainly a generational phenomenon, and secondly a sex phenomenon, the rankorder of the Negative Affect scores is mainly a sex phenomenon. The highest mean scores are all for females; the lowest three scores are all for males. 126 Table 22 Questionnaire Items Reflecting Negative Affect by Generation and Sex Rankordered in Percentages Restless Lonely Bored Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response g3-f 62.8 0 . 0 g3-f 41.9 0 . 0 g3-f 55.8 0 . 0 g3-m 47.3 0 . 0 G1-F 38.8 0 . 0 Gi-F 46.9 0 . 0 G-j-F 44.9 0 . 0 g2-m 32.7 0 . 0 g2-f 44.9 0 . 0 Gj-M 40.8 2 . 0 Gj-M 22.4 2 . 0 G^-M 42.9 2 . 0 g2-m 38.8 0 . 0 g2-f 20.4 2 . 0 g2-m 40.8 0 . 0 g2-f 38.8 0 . 0 g3-m 16.4 0 . 0 g3-m 34.5 0 . 0 Depressed Upset at Criticism Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response g2-m 28.6 2 . 0 g3-f 30.2 0 . 0 g2-F 24.5 0 . 0 g2-f 28.6 0 . 0 g3-f 23.3 0 . 0 g3-m 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 Gj-H 20.4 0 . 0 g2-m 14.3 0 . 0 g3-m 18.2 0 . 0 G.J-M 1 2 . 2 2 . 0 G.J-M 16.3 4.1 G -F 8 . 2 2 . 0 Note: For the N Distribution, Please Turn to Table 17. ! (4) Worry Extensity Seals: There are 12 areas tapped by the j Worry Extensity Scale ( s e e the Appendix), In this section Table 23 ; shows the percentages in rankorder form by generation-sex for each of the 1 2 areas of worry. In six areas of life males scored highest, and in six other ; areas females scored the highest. Males scored highest in the worry ; areas of money, debts, sex, people they have trouble with, neighbor hood events, and the world situation. Females scored the highest in I the worry areas of work, spouse, moving ahead, some member of the j family, health, and growing old. In the area of money, the middle generation, both males and females say they worry the most, the older generation, the least. In all three generations, males score higher than females in the : worry area of debt, with the middle generation again scoring the i highest, and the youngest generation the lowest. The same pattern follows for work with the middle generation i saying they worry most and the youngest generation, the least. The j oldest generation seems to feel they worry most about the spouse, while the younger generation the least. Perhaps the youngest gene- | i ration worries the least because few of them have spouses to worry I ! about. The female of seems to be the most concerned about moving i ahead with her counterpart in the least concerned. In all three i generations, the females score higher in the area of worry about i another member of the family than do the males. Predictably, in the ; area of sex worries, Gg scores the highest, with coming next, and 128 Table 23 Questionnaire Items Reflecting Specific Worries by Generation and Sex Rankordered in Percentages Money Debts Work Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response g2-m 65.3 0.0 g2-m 53.1 2.0 g2-f 40.8 4.1 g2-f 59.2 0.0 g2-f 40.8 0.0 g2-m 36.7 4.1 g3-f 48.8 0.0 G -M 1 22.4 0.0 g3-m 21.8 0.0 VM 45.4 1.9 g3-m 20.0 0.0 Gx-F 20.4 4.1 Gj-M 38.8 0.0 GrF 14.3 0.0 g1-m 18.4 2.0 Gr F 34.7 0.0 g3-f 14.0 0.0 g3-f 14.0 0.0 Spouse Moving Ahead Member of Family Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response G±-F 18.4 8.2 g3-f 41.9 2.3 Gl-F 59.2 2.0 g2-f 14.3 4.1 g2-m 32.7 4.1 g2-f 53.1 2.0 g3-f 11.6 0.0 g2-f 30.6 2.0 G] _-M 46.9 4.1 G1-M 10.2 2.0 g3-m 27.3 1.0 G3-F 46.5 0.0 g2-m 10.2 2.0 Gj-M 14.3 4.1 g2-m 44.9 0.0 g3-m 7.3 0.0 Gl-F 12.2 6.1 g3-m 43.6 0.0 (Continued) Table 23 (Continued) People You Have Sex Trouble With Health Gen- Sex Yes No | Respons< | Gen- 2 Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response g3-m 32.7 0.0 g3-m 30.9 0.0 Gl-F 67.3 0.0 g3-f 16.3 0.0 g 2-m 30.6 2.0 Gx-M 57.1 2.0 g2-m 12.2 4.1 G -F 2 28.6 0.0 g2-m 34.7 0.0 GrF 8.2 20.4 Gj-M 28.6 2.0 g3-f 27.9 0.0 Gj-M 6.1 18.4 g3-f 23.3 0.0 g2-f 26.5 0.0 g2-f 4.1 6.1 G -F 1 20.4 2.0 G3-M 11.1 0.0 Neighborhooc Events World Situation Growing Old Gen- Sex Yes I No . esponse Gen- Sex Yes No Response Gen- Sex Yes No Response g2-m 38.8 0.0 g2-m 67.3 2.0 GrF 51.0 0.0 G^-M 36.7 2.0 g2-f 61.2 2.0 Gj-M 42.9 2.0 g3-m 30.9 0.0 g3-m 60.0 0.0 g2-f 22.4 2.0 g2-f 28.6 0.0 G3-f 58.1 0.0 g2-m 14.3 6.1 G1-F 24.5 2.0 G- j-M 55.1 2.0 g3-f 9.3 0.0 g3-f 23.3 0.0 G1-F 42.9 6.1 g3-m 7.3 0.0 Note: For the N Distribution, Please Turn to Table 17. ! 130 | G^, the old folks, coming last. This is directly reversed in the ; area of health, with G^ scoring the highest, G^ coming next, and Gg coming last. In this worry area, too, the female of G^ scored the highest, and the irtale of G^ the lowest. In the worry area of growing old, G scored the highest, G came next, and Gg came in last, with 1 ^ ! the female in all three generations having higher scores than the ! males. The female says she worries less than the male in all three generations in the areas of "people you have trouble with", "neigh- ; borhood events", and "world situation." Generation two seems to be most concerned in the last two areas mentioned. The old generation says it worries the least in the areas of "people you have trouble with" and "world situation", and G^, the young people, seem to worry j the least in the area of "neighborhood events." The total Worry Extensity Scale as rankordered according to mean i scores in Table 24 presents a generational phenomenon. Mean worry j ! scores of the middle generation are the highest, followed by the old j generation, with the young generation having the lowest mean scores. ; There is a tendency for males to report higher worry scores than I ( | females. j j (5) Avowed Happiness: Six items are used to measure a subject’s i I avowed happiness, or perceived happiness. Social desirability plays j j an important role probably in answering questions that have to do with ; a person’s happiness. But the association of the Affect Balance i Scale with Avowed Happiness is quite high. From this we may conclude i that most people answer as closely as possible to their actual feelings. Table 24 Rankorder of Generation-Sex on Worry Extensity and Avowed Happiness Mean Scores Gensex Mean Worry Extensity Gensex Mean Avowed Happiness g2-m 4.40 Gi-F 9.29 g2-f 4.10 Gj-M 8.90 G1~M 3.77 g3-m 8.67 GrF 3.74 g3-f 8.35 g3-f 3.41 g2-m 8.35 g3-m 3.40 g2-f 8.26 The six items with their percentages by generation and sex are presented in Table 25. Table 24 rankordered avowed happiness using ofily the first four items because the great majority of the young adult generation is not married yet. First, a detailed analysis of the six-item Avowed Happiness scale will be presented, then a summary analysis of the rankordering found in Table 24. The first item of the scale has to do with present happiness. All three generations tend to report moderate happiness rather than either very happy or unhappy. The females of the old generation and the Males of the young generation tend to report "very happy" more than other respondents. The highest on "moderately happy" seem to be middle generation females, while the middle generation male seems to have the highest showing on the category of "unhappy." 132 Table 25 Avowed Happiness by Generation and Sex in Percentages Gensex Very Happy 1______ Moderately Happy i Unhappy ! Happier 4 or 5 Years Ago Happier Now No Change 1 Keep Life As Is Change in Some Aspects Change in Most Aspects M 28.6 59.2 12.2 40.8 16.3 42.9 38.8 46.9 12.2 G 1 F 34.7 53.1 12.2 40.8 18.4 40.8 44.9 42.9 12.2 M 12.2 67.3 18.4 38.8 24.5 34.7 112.2 53.1 32.7 R- . 2 F 14.3 73.5 10.2 28.6 24.5 44.9 8.2 77.6 12.2 M 34.5 50.9 14.5 38.2 32.7 21.9 10.9 50.9 38.2 Go F 20.9 62.8 13.9 39.5 27.9 30.2 11.6 55.8 30.2 Would You Change Your Life Rewards of Life Happiness of Marriage Happiness of Parenthood Gensex Getting Them Not Getting Them Very Happy Moderately Happy Unhappy Very Satisfactory Moderately Satisfactory Unsatisfac tory M Gi 61.2 34.7 55.1 40.8 2.0 53.1 44.9 0.0 'i F 73.5 26.5 51.0 42.9 6.1 55.1 44.9 0.0 M G2 59.2 36.7 63.3 32.7 2.0 57.1 40.8 0L0 “ F 59.2 38.8 53.1 40.8 4.1 44.9 49.0 4.1 M 72.7 23.6 10.9 3.6 0.0 7.3 1.8 3.6 3 F 53.8 41.9 20.9 18.6 0.0 20.9 11.6 0.0 Note: Where total row percentages of each cell do not add up to 100%, it is an indication that some subjects did not answer the question. See Table 17 for N Distribution. ! 133 | In Gg, about 25% of males and 25% of the females say they are i happier now than they were four or five years ago, with more females i ! than males saying there is no change in their happiness status over : the past five years. In Gg, more males are happier now than females; ; more females claim there is no change in their happiness status over the past five years; and more males say they were happier five years ago than they are now. Item No. 3 deals with a person's desire to change his life or to keep it as it is at present. In the old generation, more females than imales would keep their life as it is. In the middle generation, more males than females would keep their life as it is or would change it in most of its aspects. But in this generation, more females than ! males would change their life in some aspects only. In the young generation, more females than males would change their life in some aspects; more males would change in most aspects. By generation, the old generation would keep life as it is; the middle generation would | change it in some aspects; but the young generation would change it ; in most aspects. Gg emerges as a restless generation bent on change. | Item No. 4 had to do with whether or not a subject feels that he ; is getting the rewards of life. The old generation seems to feel most i that they are getting the rewards of life. The middle generation-feels I j the least that they are getting life's rewards. More females than -males in G^, and more males than females in Gg feel they are getting | the rewards of life, while in Gg, both males and females seem to feel j the same in both areas. Since an insignificant number of Gg were married, they will not i be included in analyzing items 5 and 6 which deal with marital happi- I ness and parental satisfaction. The analysis of items 5 and 6, then, j is limited to and G2 . The fifth item deals with "marital happiness." By generation, I more G^ than G^ are very happy, but more G^ than G2 are moderately ; 1 happy. There is little difference in those who marked the "unhappy" category by generation, but more G^ seem to be unhappy than G2 > The middle generation males seem to have the highest percentage of being very happily married. Also, there are more females than males in both G^ and G2 who seem to be unhappily married. The sixth and last item is about "Satisfaction in Parenthood." There seems to be little difference in satisfaction by generation. 1 But by sex, middle generation males have the highest percentage of seeing their parenthood roles as "very satisfactory." The only sub jects who checked the "unsatisfactory" category were middle generation ; females— a small 4.1%. All in all, the sample feels that their i parenthood experiences have been either very satisfactory or moderatelj | satisfactory with the modal category being "very satisfactory." ! Disregarding the last two items that deal with marital happiness and parental satisfaction, Table 24 presents a rankorder of Avowed ! i Happiness mean scores by generation and sex showing the highest mean ! scores for the old generation and the lowest for the middle genera- ; tion. With the exception of the old generation, males have higher 1 avowed happiness mean scores than females. Section Summary: The five measures of psychological well-being can be considered as different views of the same vista. What kind of j picture do they together create? Examining Tables 19, 21, and 24, the I following picture emerges: The young generation has the highest mean i | scores on positive affect, the middle scores on happiness, and the lowest scores on worry. The middle generation has the highest scores : on worry, the middle scores on positive affect and negative affect, anc the lowest scores on avowed happiness. The old generation has the ; highest scores on happiness, the middle scores on worry, and the ; lowest scores on positive affect. The males have the highest scores on affect balance, positive affect, and worry extensity. While the females have the highest : scores on negative affect and the lowest scores on affect balance. Summary In this chapter a description of the sample was presented : covering background variables and mental health. An individual's : perception of his family solidarity was examined along with the relative importance of the solidarity sub-types in influencing that perception. The sample consisted of 49 complete, 6-member, 3-generational j families totalling 294 subjects of whom 153 were males and 141 j females. There were 146 Christians and 143 Mohammedans, each religion i I being approximately equally represented. | j Compared to IRFED data, this sample shows 47% below the average ; in income, 40% average, or middle category, and 12% above average, or : "wealthy." Educationally, 158 had only elementary school education, ; 58 had secondary school education, and 26 college or university ; education. At the time of the interviewing, 127 were unemployed, 44 | had part-time employment, and 77 were fully employed. Generationally, i | there were 98 subjects in each generation. By income, religion, sex, and generation, the distribution was satisfactory according to the i research design. The data show that members of the same generation tend to be ! viewed similarly of another generation, for example, a youth tended t : to perceive the same amount of solidarity between himself and his ; I grandfather, on the one hand, and himself and his grandmother, on the other. It was also found that the same-sex intergenerational members of the family are viewed together as a unit, so that a member of the middle generation tended to view his solidarity with his mother as somewhat similar to his solidarity with his daughter. There was a difference in the capacity of the solidarity sub- ; types (Affectual, Consensual, and Associational) to predict a person's perception of family solidarity. For example, the highest correlations i were between Associational and Consensual solidarity. | In the area of psychological well-being, males had higher Affect ; Balance scores than females; the young generation had higher mean | Positive Affect scores than the middle generation, which in turn had j higher scores than the old generation. Here again males scored higher | than females. The highest group was young males; the lowest, grand- i mothers. On the Negative Affect Scale, the females scored higher than I f the males, with the young generation scoring higher than the middle which in turn scored higher than the old. In the area of Worry Extensity, the middle generation scored ; highest in the areas of debts and work, the young generation in the area of sex, the old generation in the areas of health and growing old. The old generation preferred, it seems, to keep life as it is, the middle generation would change it in some aspects, but the young generation would change it in most aspects. The middle generation scored higher than the old in being very happily married and the females were higher in marital unhappiness in both G^ and G2 . The young generation has the highest mean scores on positive affect, the middle scores on happiness, and the lowest scores on worry. The middle generation has the highest scores on worry, the middle scores on positive affect and negative affect, and the lowest scores on happiness. The old generation has the highest scores on happiness, the middle scores on worry, and the lowest scores on positive affect. The males have the highest scores on affect balance, positive affect, and worry; while the females have the highest scores on negative affect and the lowest scores on affect balance. This chapter has paved the way for the analysis of the relation ships of background variables to both solidarity and mental health, also to the relationship of solidarity and mental health. This analysis is found in the next two chapters. | Chapter 5 i j i ! BACKGROUND FACTORS, SOLIDARITY,AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING | i | The Relation of Background Variables to Solidarity Before the general proposition of the study is examined, i.e. ; the direct relationship between family solidarity and mental health, I it is necessary to specify how the four major background variables I (sex, generation, religion, and SES) are related to both solidarity | and mental health. This is the function of the present chapter. ! In the first half of the chapter, the following question is | answered; How is an individual's background related to his perception ! of Family Vertical Solidarity? The background variables are restricted to the following: (1) Sex, (2) Generation, (3) Religion, and (4) SES: Income. Combinations of these variables will be used and i | attention will be given to a subject's position in the three-genera- i tional family, his Gensex. Lastly, multiple regression analysis will be utilized to determine which background variables have the strongest ! explanatory power of an individual's perception of family solidarity. I : Here more than the four background variables indicted above will be ] | considered. 138 The section is divided into three parts: Part I deals with the I general relationship of sex, generation, religion, and SES to Family Solidarity using percentages. Part II combines background variables as follows: (a) Generation and Religion, (b) Gensex, (c) Sex and Age, (d) Generation and SES, (e) Education and Solidarity Types, (f) Religion, Sex, and Generation. Part II will use mean scores. Part III presents the regression of Family Solidarity by Type and Total on background variables by generation, using multiple regression analysis. Part I: Solidarity and Background— Variables Taken Singly Family solidarity as opperationalized in this research taps the respondent's perception of his solidarity to family members of two other generations. In the case of the older people, it is their per ception of family solidarity with their children and their grand children. In the case of the middle generation, G2 , it is the per ception of their solidarity with their parents and their own children. And in the case of the young adult generation, G-j, it is their perceived solidarity with their parents and their grandparents. Table 26 shows the relationship of sex, generation, religion, and SES to perception of three-generational family vertical solidarity. (Please refer to the section on scaling in Chapter 3 to review methods used in dichotomizing between "high" and "low" solidarity groups.) In brief, the theoretical mean of the distribution was used as the divid ing line for the dichotomy. Respondents whose scores fell on the mean were placed with the "low" category to give a balanced distri bution and to be on the theoretical conservative side. Table 26 clearly shows that the associations between background 140 Table 26 Association of Family Tri-Generational Solidarity with Sex, Genera tion, Religion, & SES in Percentages Solid, Low irity High N X2 jevel o Sig. Gamma Sex Male 28.9 71.1 152 3.19 .10 .26 Female 19.3 80.7 140 Generation G-l 23.5 76.5 98 2.59 N.S. -.11 G-2 19.8 80.2 96 G-3 29.6 70.4 98 Religion Mohammedan 27.3 72.7 143 1.06 N.S. .16 Christian 21.4 78.6 145 SES Upper 24.3 75.7 111 .02 N.S. .01 Middle 24.2 75.8 120 Lower 23.4 76.6 47 Note: For further specifications of each variable, Tables S-l to S-30 can be obtained from the Author. ! variables and family solidarity are not substantial. But the impor- 1 tant issue to consider in this exploratory study is not so much the ! magnitude of the differences as the general direction and the absolute i ; differences. In other words, the differences may not be highly sig nificant, but the fact that they remain consistantly in the same direction may be. Subsequent research with refined instruments and 1 better samples will probably clarify the differences and show their true significance. According to Table 26, 71% of the males and 81% of the females are high on Solidarity, i.e. higher than the theoretical mean. The ; general conclusion is that females' perception of family solidarity is higher than that of males. This supports Hypothesis 1: If male, : then lower solidarity than female. The Table also reveals that 80% of the middle generation, 77% of the old generation, and 70% of the young generation perceive their family solidarity as high. Hypothesis 2 states that: If G^, then higher solidarity than Gq and/or G^. The i hypothesis is not supported in that G£ has by a slight margin the : highest perceived family solidarity of all three generations. 79% of the Christians and 73% of the Mohammedans perceived high i ; solidarity in their family relationships. Hypothesis 3 states that: ! If Christian, then higher solidarity than Mohammedan. There is a very [ | slight indication that this hypothesis may be supported. Finally, the ! Table shows no difference in social class, or income groups, as far , as this sample's perception of their family solidarity is concerned. Hypothesis 4 states that: There is no relationship between SES and perception of solidarity. The hypothesis is supported. The Table also reveals that, in general, whether taken by sex, generation, religion, and social class, this sample's perception of their family solidarity favors high solidarity in the ratio of 3:1. This would clearly indicate that the instruments developed for this study to measure family solidarity showed that the Lebanese sample i I tended to be high on family solidarity and was not sensitive enough to show a wider distribution. Consequently, in subsequent research, the ins truments will need to be refined in order to better differen tiate between subjects. On the other hand, it is expected that, on theoretical grounds, family solidarity in Lebanon will tend to be generally high. Part II: Solidarity and Background— Variables in Combination (a) Generation and Religion: The mean family solidarity by solidarity type, religion and generation is presented in Table 27. It is apparent that the differences in general are not of a high enough magnitude to be of great significance. And since the sample was not a random sample, no test of means was done on these scores. Only the simple direction of the differences will be considered in an absolute way. Christians are slightly higher in their perception of both Asso- ciational and Consensual solidarity than Mohammedans in all three gene rations. By contrast, Mohammedans are slightly higher than Christians in all three generations in their perception of Affectual solidarity. Looking at the total solidarity column, we discover that Christians of the old and middle generations are higher than their fellow Moham medans, but that for the young generation, the Mohammedans are higher. Table 27 Mean Family Solidarity by Solidarity Type Religion, and Generation Religion Associational Solidarity Consensual Solidarity Affectual Solidarity Total Solidarity 1 I G1 G2 G3 T G1 . G2 G3 T Gl. g2 G3 T G1 G2 G3 T r! G2 G3 T lohammedan 2.35 2.53 2.48 2.33 2.82 2.37 3.71 3.57 3.60 8.40 8.92 8.40 48 47 48 143 Christian 2.91 2.85 2.64 2.58 2.97 2.43 3.46 3.33 3.06 8.95 9.15 8.13 50 48 47 145 Jther 3.75 2.58 3.25 2.50 3.75 2.75 10.75 7.83 1 3 4 Total 2.64 2.71 2.56 2.63 2.46 2.90 2.40 2.58 3.58 3.45 3.31 3.45 8.68 9.06 8.27 8.67 98 96 98 292 i 144 j ! ; In a country where theoretically the Mohammedans and the Christians are equal in power and prestige Qe.g. in the apportionment of seats ' | in Parliament, in appointments of government positions, in the strength ; of the armed melitia, etc.) the true of the matter has been that for ! years the Christians have been the more powerful in every way until recently. The great pan-Arab movement sparked and fueled by Gamal Bdul Nasser has without a doubt infused a new spirit among the Moham medan youth. There is a general feeling of solidarity both inside thej 1 family and inside the community among the Mohammedans. Divorce is j i frowned upon now, and a new sense of family has been developed. This ; new infusion of hope and optimism, coupled with a new sense of pride, may well explain the Mohammedan's youth perception of high family : solidarity. Hypothesis 5 states that: If Christian and in G^, G?, and/or Gg, then higher solidarity than Mohammedan in Gi , Gp, and/or G^. This hypothesis is two-thirds supported, in that G^ and G2 show this ! pattern. The one third that is not supported is in Gg where the | Mohammedans scored higher than the Christians. | Looking at the means for the three generations but within the i same religion, a very interesting pattern is clearly seen. Among the ! Mohammedans and in all types of solidarity including the total, the | young generation occupies second place among the three generations | I in their perception of solidarity. But among the Christians, the ; young people without exception occupy third place among the three : generations. For the entire sample, Mohammedans and Christians : combined, the third generation shows the lowest solidarity scores. 145 Table 28 Mean Solidarity Scores by Solidarity Types and Gensex Gensex Associational Solidarity Consensual Solidarity Af fectual Solidarity Total Solidarity Grandfather 2.531 2.490 3.459 8.480 Grandmother 2.745 2.429 3.704 8.878 Father 2.592 2.892 3.413 8.898 Mo ther 2.821 2.905 3.486 9.212 Son 2.527 2.409 3.232 8.168 Daughter 2.603 2.384 3.419 8.405 Total 2.634 2.583 3.448 8.666 Note: N = 240 (b) Solidarity by Gensex: Hypothesis 6 states that: If mother, grandmother, or daughter, then higher solidarity than father, grand father. or son. In Table 28, it is clear that the mother, as would be expected, emerges as having the highest scores in her perception of total solidarity across three generations. She also has the highest scores in the sub-types of Associational and Consensual solidarity. In the Affectual, she is surpassed only by the grandmother. Looking at the sub-types of solidarity, one finds the females scoring the highest in Associational in the following order: mother, grandmother, and daughter. In the Consensual, father and mother are the highest. And in the Affectual, grandfather and grandmother join the mother in having the highest scores. The females do a lot of visiting and associating together; they thus perceive high Associational solidarity. On the other hand, the father and mother who have to look up to the old generation and their relationship with them, and down to their children and their inter action with them, seem to be the highest in their consciousness of Consensual solidarity. And as one might expect in general terms, those whose scores were the highest on their perception of Affectual solidarity were the grandfather, the grandmother, and the mother. (c) Sex and Age: When sex and age are combined together in studying an individual's perception of family solidarity, an inter esting pattern is readily seen. Taking the two highest means (Table 29) in each male and female column, one finds all the top means segregated not so much by sex but rather by age groups. Forty years of age seems to mark something of a divide. Of 16 Table 29 Mean Family Solidarity by Sex and Age Group Age Group Assc Male sciatioi Female lal Total Cons Male sensual Female Total Af Male fectual Female Total Male Total Female Total ^ 20 2.694 2.667 2.682 2.438 2.383 2.413 3.319 3.400 3.356 8.451 8.450 8.451 20 - 30 2.184 2.493 2.304 2.263 2.375 2.306 3.066 3.458 3.218 7.513 8.326 7.828 31 - 40 2.500 2.829 2.784 2.667 2.667 2.667 3.556 3.306 3.341 8.722 8.803 8.792 41 - 50 2.724 2.769 2.746 2.994 3.019 3.006 3.385 3.605 3.491 9.103 9.392 9.243 51 - 60 2.333 2.792 2.524 2.911 2.675 2.813 3.179 3.767 3.424 8.423 9.233 8.760 61 - 70 2.803 2.833 2.821 2.789 2.400 2.551 3.579 3.700 3.653 9.171 8.933 9.026 71 - 80 2.600 2.938 2.717 2.267 2.563 2.370 3.333 3.563 3.413 8.200 9.063 8.500 > 81 2.206 1.750 2.119 2.353 2.375 2.357 3.647 3.750 3.667 8.206 7.875 8.143 Total 2.634 2.583 3.448 8.666 148 possible 2-highest means, all sixteen fall above the age of forty. This would suggest that older people of both sexes perceive higher solidarity than younger people. It also suggests that of the two variables, age is a better predictor of an individual’s perception of his family solidarity than is sex. Hypothesis 7 states that: If old, male or female, then higher solidarity than young, male or female. This data support the predic tion. It must be that older people perceive unity and family inte gration to a higher degree than younger people, because of their differential "developmental state" in family relations (see Bengtson and Kuypers, 1970). It may either be threatening to them not to, or they may actually overlook signs of weakness in a family’s cohesive ness . (d) Generation and SES: Income Levels Table 30 presents the relationship of both generation and income (SES) combined and its effect on the individual’s perception of family tri-g enera tional solidarity. Hypothesis 8 posits no relationship between generation and SES combined and solidarity. In general this hypothesis is supported. From the Table it would look as if the upper-income group perceives highest solidarity in the Affectual sub-type, while the lower and the middle income categories score the highest in the Associational and Consensual solidarity types. For Total solidarity, the highest per ception for and G^ is found among the middle-income class, while the highest perception for G£ is in the lower-income class. It is not easy to explain this phenomenon. One can merely Table 30 Mean Family Solidarity by Generation and Socio-Economic Status (Income Level) Associational Consensual Affectual Total N SES— Income G1 G2 G3 T G1 G2 G3 T G1 G2 G3 T G1 G2 G3 T G1 G2 G3 T ^:LL. 1,200 2.71 3.08 2.46 2.60 3.12 2.25 3.40 3.39 2.92 8.71 9.58 7.63 29 08 12 49 LL. 1,201- 4,000 2.74 1.40 2.45 2.46 2.86 2.60 3.59 3.49 3.40 8.80 8.75 8.45 27 25 10 62 LL. 4,001- 9,000 2.59 2.87 2.60 2.36 2.92 2.30 3.75 3.40 3.30 8.70 9.19 8.19 28 45 32 105 LL. 9,001- 14,000 2.83 2.72 2.58 2.75 3.42 3.28 8.83 8.75 06 00 09 15 LL. 14,001 and Above 2.06 2.57 2.47 2.19 2.80 2.41 3.75 3.54 3.58 8.00 8.91 8.46 08 18 21 47 Total 2.64 2.71 2.54 2.63 2.46 2.90 2.40 2.60 3.58 3.45 3.32 3.46 8.68 9.06 8.27 8.68 98 96 84 278 • S ' VO ; is o j at this point describe it by saying that perhaps Association and I Consensus are more important for the lower and middle-income classes I I than they are for the upper-income group, while Affectual solidarity ; seems to be most important for the upper category. Perhaps also j Association and Consensus are more taken forgranted in higher income groups. (e) Education: Table 31 shows the types of solidarity as well as total solidarity by the amount of education of the subject. The i Table seems to reveal a curvilinear relationship between education and : perception of family solidarity. Hypothesis 9, dealing with education, states that: If college j and/or university educated, then lower solidarity than if lower educated. How does this hypothesis stand? Taking the two highest means in each category as well as the ; total, it seems that of eight possible scores, seven belong to the : Junior High and the High School categories. It would seem that the | lowest and the highest educated people perceive lower family soli darity while those who are in the middle of the educational scale seem to perceive higher family solidarity. | Why is this so? One possible explanation is that those who are | most educated are more independent of their families and thus do not j even perceive them as highly solidary. On the other hand, looking ; at the other end of the scale, the lowest educated may be so alienated that they too, are not "family people" so to speak. This would leave the middle category who might be the best adjusted and the most i integrated in their family systems thus viewing the highest family 151 Table 31 Mean Solidarity by Solidarity Types & Education Education Associational Solidarity Consensual Solidarity Affectual Solidarity Total Solidarity Grade School 2.582 2.510 3.448 8.540 Junior High 2.801 2.835 3.464 9.100 High School 2.746 2.553 3.345 8.643 College & U. 2.433 2.433 3.365 8.231 Total 2.645 2.571 3.418 8.634 Note: N = 240 I solidarity of all. In general, then, Hypothesis 9 is supported, but needs to be modified to include also the least-educated class and thus present a curvilinear relationship. (f) Generation, Sex, and Religion: There are quite a few logical combinations of background variables. But only one triple combination will be used, that of generation, sex, and religion as seen in Table 32. This Table presents the triple combination for total solidarity. Without exception, females have higher mean scores than males in all three generations and for both religions. In G^ Christian males and females have higher scores than Mohammedan males and females. The exact relationship holds true also for the total population. However in Gg the reverse is true. And for Gg the Christian females have higher scores than the Mohammedan females, and the Mohammedan males have higher scores than the Christian males, though the difference is very slight. Table 32, then, supports the finding that in the young genera tion, the Mohammedans perceive higher family solidarity. The Table also supports the finding that in general, females perceive higher family solidarity than males. To examine other types of family solidarity with this same triple combination of background variables, Tables BS-1 to BS-3 (obtainable from the Author) were constructed. There are interesting variations, such as in Affectual solidarity, Mohammedan males and females in all three generations have higher solidarity mean scores Table 32 Mean Family Solidarity by Generation, Sex, and Religion (Total Solidarity) Religion Genera Male ition-1 Female Gener Male ation-2 Female Gener< Male ation-3 Female Tol Male :al Female Total Popula tion Mohammedan 8.13 8.67 8.88 8.96 8.28 8.63 8.42 8.76 8.58 Christian 8.82 9.08 8.84 9.47 8.12 8.14 8.58 8.94 8.75 Total 8.48 8.88 8.86 9.21 8.20 8.40 8.50 8.85 8.67 N Distribution 49 49 47 48 53 42 149 139 288 Note: For further specifications Tables BS-1 to BS-3 may be obtained from the Author. M Ul 154 than their Christian counterparts. Part III: Multiple Regression Analysis This analysis presents a regression of family solidarity on background variables by generation. As can be seen from Table 33 to 35, the multiple regression coefficients (R) are not very high. The highest variance explained in the three tables was 29% for the third generation, in the Associational solidarity, with an R of .54. This confirms the general finding that while some of the background variables are correlated with solidarity, the association is not very strong. Looking at Tables 33 to 35, and using Total Solidarity as a cri terion for comparing the three generations, it seems that age is the best predictor of perception of family solidarity for G^. Age is followed in order of importance by (a) religious attendance, (b) religion, (c) family size, and (d) sex. For G2 , the best predictor variable seems to be family size. This is followed by (a) religious attendance, (b) education, (c) sex, and (d) SES. For the young generation, the best predictor variable appears to be age. This is followed by (a) religious importance, (b) sib position, (c) SES, (d) distance from parents, (e) family size, and (f) sex. It should be noted also that other background variables were included in the multiple regression analysis in order to examine if they might have stronger correlations with solidarity than the major four of the study, namely, sex, generation, religion, and SES. Reli gion made the best showing of the four major variables. As antici- 155 Table 33 Multiple Regression of Family Solidarity and Back ground Variables for Generation 1 Solidarity R R2 r Beta Affectual Solidarity Importance of Religion... .25 .06 .25 .12 Age..................... .30 .09 .20 .21 Religion................ .32 .10 -.20 -.14 Family Size............. .33 .11 .04 .07 SES..................... .34 .11 .17 .09 Religious Attendance.... .34 .17' .00 .07 Age..................... .34 .12 -.03 .04 Consensual Solidarity Religion................ .17 .03 .17 .09 Family Size ............ .21 .04 -.11 -.16 Religious Attendance.... .23 .05 .14 .09 Age..................... .25 .06 -.10 -.12 SES..................... .26 .07 -.14 -.10 Sex..................... .27 .07 -.04 -.08 Associational Solidarity Religion................ .34 .11 .34 .28 Age..................... .41 .17 -.27 -.22 Family Size............. .42 .17 -.04 -.10 Religious Attendance.... .43 .18 .19 .12 Sex..................... .43 .19 .13 .05 SES..................... .43 .19 -.15 .02 Importance of Religion... .43 .19 -.09 -.02 Total Solidarity Age..................... .21 .05 -.21 -.17 Religious Attendance.... .28 .08 .18 .13 Religion................ .30 .09 .20 .16 Family Size............. .32 .10 -.06 -.10 Sex..................... .33 .11 .14 .08 Importance of Religion... .33 .11 .04 .06 Table 34 Multiple Regression of Family Solidarity and Back ground Variables for Generation 2 Solidarity R R2 r Beta Affectual Solidarity Importance of Religion... .34 . 1 1 .34 . 2 1 Education............... .36 .13 .18 .14 Family Size............. .38 .14 -.16 -.09 SES.................... . .38 .15 .04 .07 Age..................... .38 .15 .07 .06 Sex..................... .39 .15 .05 .04 Religious Attendance.... .39 .15 - . 0 1 - . 0 2 Consensual Solidarity Family Size............. .27 .07 -.27 -.29 Religious Attendance.... .30 .09 .09 .19 Education............... .31 .09 .09 .14 SES..................... .32 . 1 0 -.09 -.08 Importance of Religion... .33 . 1 1 - . 0 1 - . 1 1 Sex..................... .34 . 1 1 . 0 1 .14 Age..................... .35 . 1 2 .03 . 1 0 Associational Solidarity Family Size............. .35 . 1 2 -.35 -.37 Religious Attendance.... .40 .16 .14 .30 Sex..................... .44 . 2 0 .15 . 2 2 Education............... . 46 . 2 1 . 0 1 .17 Importance of Religion... .48 .23 . 0 2 - . 1 2 Age..................... .48 .23 -.17 -.06 SES..................... .48 .23 -.04 -.03 Total!Solidarity Family Size............. .35 . 1 2 -.35 -.35 Religious Attendance.... .38 .15 . 1 0 . 2 1 Education............... .41 .17 .17 . 2 1 Sex..................... .44 . 2 0 . 1 0 .19 SES..................... .45 . 2 0 -.04 -.08 Age..................... .45 . 2 0 -.04 .04 Importance of Religion... .45 . 2 0 .15 .03 Table 35 Multiple Regression of Family Solidarity and Back ground Variables for Generation 3 Solidarity R R2 r Beta Affectual Solidarity Religion............... .27 .07 -.27 - . 2 0 Sib Position........... .33 . 1 1 - . 2 0 -.28 SES.................... .39 .15 .26 .18 Education.............. .44 .19 -vl2 -.13 Marital Status ........ .45 . 2 1 -.18 -.40 Financial Dependence.... .48 .23 - . 1 1 - . 2 2 Religious Attendance.... .49 .24 -.04 - . 1 2 Family Size............ .49 .25 .08 -.18 Importance of Religion.. .51 .26 .19 .09 Sex.................... .51 .26 .13 - . 0 2 Distance from Parents... .51 .26 -.04 - . 0 2 Age.................... .51 .26 -.04 . 0 2 Associational Solidarity Age.................... .37 .13 -.37 .58 Distance from Parents... .44 .19 . 1 1 .26 Sib Position........... .46 . 2 2 - . 2 1 -.15 Importance of Religion.. .49 .24 .14 .23 Family Size............ .51 .26 - . 1 0 .24 Education.............. .52 .27 . 0 2 . 1 1 Sex.................... .53 .28 .06 -.09 Religion............... .53 .28 .05 .13 Religious Attendance.... .54 .29 . 0 0 - . 1 0 Marital Status......... .54 .29 .14 .06 SES.................... .54 .29 . 0 2 .04 Consensual Solidarity Importance of Religion.. . 2 1 .05 . 2 1 .19 Age.................... .29 .08 -.19 -.27 Sib Position........... .33 . 1 1 -.17 - . 2 2 Religious Attendance.... .36 .13 .16 .13 SES.................... .37 .14 .06 . 1 2 Sex.................... .39 .15 - = » 0 2 -.13 Family Size............ .40 .16 . 0 0 .18 Distance from Parents... .41 .17 . 0 1 . 1 0 (Continued) Table 35 (Continued) Multiple Regression of Family Solidarity and Back ground Variables for Generation 3 Solidarity R R2 r Beta Consensual Solidarity (Continued) Marital Status.......... .41 .17 . 1 1 . 1 0 Religion................ .42 .17 .04 .07 Total Solidarity Age..................... .26 .07 -.26 -.36 Importance of Religion... .36 .13 .24 .23 Sib Position............ .43 .19 -.25 -.28 SES..................... .46 . 2 2 .15 .15 Distance from Parents.... .48 .23 .03 .14 Family Size............. .49 .24 - . 0 1 . 1 1 Sex..................... .50 .25 .08 - . 1 1 Religious Attendance.... .50 .25 .05 .06 Marital Status.......... .50 .25 .03 . 1 1 Financial Dependence.... .50 .25 -.15 -.09 i | pated, SES, was a weak variable in contributing to the relationship. I ! Age made a good showing, and this is not surprising because it is ! | associated with generation, one of the main variables of the: study. j Other variables that can be investigated according to the regression analysis are: For G^, family size; for G2 , education; and for Gg, ; sib position. Summary In this section data were presented as regards the question, How I is an individual’s background related to his perception of family vertical solidarity? To determine the answer, the section was divided ; into three parts. In the first part, the four variables of sex, : generation, religion, and SES were examined. For sex, females per ceived higher solidarity than males. For generation, the middle . generation showed the highest scores. By religion, Christians sur- ; passed the Mohammedans. No discrimination was possible by SES. ’ In Part II, background variables were used in combination. It 1 seems that old and middle generation Christians are higher in their ; perception of solidarity than old and middle generation Mohammedans. | The reverse is true of the third or young generation. The females ! score the highest in Associational solidarity, the middle generation | parents on Consensual solidarity, and the grandparents with the middle generation mother on Affectual solidarity. Of the two variables of sex and age, it seems that age is the ' better predictor of an individual’s perception of family solidarity. ' By SES, Associational and Consensual solidarity seem to be in the ; province of the lower and middle classes, and Affectual in the realm ! 160 ! ; of the upper class. When education is considered, the least and the j j i most educated people perceive low family solidarity, while the middle | I | group perceive high solidarity. Taking generation, sex, and religion ] : i combined, the finding is that the old generation, both male and female Christians, surpass their Mohammedan counterparts in perception 1 of solidarity. For the young generation, however, the exact reverse ■ is true. And for the middle generation, Christian females have highhr | scores than Mohammedan females, but Mohammedan males are higher than Christian males. ■ In Part III, and through regression analysis, the best predictor variables were isolated for all three generations. In generation I one, and taking only total solidarity, the four highest background variables in predicting solidarity, or the four highest in associa tion with solidarity are: age, religious attendance, religion, and : family size. For the middle generation, the four highest are: family ; size, religious attendance, education, and sex. And for the young I generation, they are: age, importance of religion, sib position, and < SES. This means that in subsequent research, other variables than | sex, generation, religion and SES should be considered. It also means I j that for different generations, different variables are more meaning- i ful. I i On the whole, however, the analysis shows the importance of (1) I j ; generation and other variables related to it, e.g. family size, age, etc., (2) sex, (3) religion, and other variables related to it, e.g. ; importance of religion, religious attendance, and (4) SES, though in ! a weak way. This supports^, then, the importance of the major four j .................................. | 161 | I variables in their association with family vertical.'solidarity. I i ! j I The Relation of Background Variables to Mental Health [ In this second half of the chapter, the question to be answered is: ; How is a subject's background, namely, (1) sex, (2) generation, (3) I religion, and (4) socio-economic status, related to the various I measures of mental health or psychological well-being. These variables taken singly and in combination will be used, , and a person's education and his position by generation and sex (gen- ' sex) in the 6 -member family structure across three generations will be considered briefly. Percentages, means, and multiple regression analysis will be utilized. The section is divided into three parts: Part I deals with the general relationship of sex, generation, religion and SES of an indi- j vidual to the measures of his mental health. Part I will use per centages in the analysis. Part II combines background variables as : follows: (a) generation and religion, (b) gensex, (c) sex and age, j (d) generation and SES— income, (e) education and solidarity types, I j and (f) religion, sex, and generation. Part II will use mean scores. | Using multiple regression analysis, Part III will seek to discover j which variables are best predictors of an individual's psychological ! well-being. Part I: Mental Health and Background— Variables Taken Singly Table 36 shows the relationship of sex, generation, religion, and i SES to the measures of psychological well-being. (Please refer to the section on scaling in Chapter 3 regarding dichotomization) In 162 Table 36 Association of Affect Balance Scale with Sex, Generation, Reli gion and SES in Percentages Sold Low .darity High N x2 Level of Sig. Gamma Sex Male 30.1 69.9 153 3.02 . 1 0 - . 2 2 Female 40.4 .59.6 141 Generation G-l 37.8 62.2 98 4.87 . 1 0 .16 G-2 40.8 59.2 98 G-3 26.5 73.5 98 Religion Mohammedan 33.6 66.4 143 .37 N.S. -.09 Christian 37.7 62.3 146 SES Upper 38.4 61.6 1 1 2 1.42 N.S. . 0 2 Middle 32.2 67.8 1 2 1 Lower 40.4 59.6 47 Note: For further specifications of each variable, Tables M-l to M-30 can be obtained from the Author. ! ; 163 i I brief, the theoretical mean of the distribution was used as the divid- ! ing line for the dichotomy. Respondents whose scores fell on the mean ; were placed with the "low" category to give a balanced distribution and to be on the theoretical conservative side. As in the case of the relationships of background variables to the perception of family solidarity, this Table clearly shows that the j levels of association between background variables and mental health ; are not substantial either. But again the important issue to consider in this exploratory study is not so much the magnitude of the dif ferences as their general direction. The differences may not be highly significant, but the fact that they remain consistantly in the same direction may be. According to Table 36, 60% of the females and 70% of the males are high on mental health. Hypothesis 10 states that: If male then higher psychological well-being (PWB) than female. Table 36 suggests | some support for the hypothesis. ! Hypothesis 11 states that: If G-p then higher PWB than G2 and/or ! G^. This is predicting that since H£ states that G-^ will have I i higher solidarity than G£ and/or G^, and since the central postulate [ of the study predicts a positive relationship between family solidarity | and mental health or PWB, it follows that the old generation will | i have higher scores of PWB than the other two generations. What can one read from Table 36. The hypothesis cannot be supported by the data. 74% of the young, j 62% of the old, and 59% of the middle generation scored high on mental j . health. Therefore, the young generation turned out to have: the highest scores on mental health. Hypothesis 12 states that: If Christian, then Higher PWB than Mohammedan. The data are inconclusive. For 6 6 % of the Mohammedans and 62% of the Christians scored high on mental health. It is not possible to say that the hypothesis was supported with only a 4% dif ference in the mean score. Table 36 also reveals that the strongest relationship of the four variables to mental health is seen between sex and mental health, a Gamma of .22. It also shows that in general, whether taken by sex, generation, religion, or social class, people’s psychological well being is generally high with the ratio of high to low being 2 : 1 . Hypothesis 13 predicted No relationship between SES and PWB. A quick glance at the Table confirms this hypothesis. There may be something going here for the second or middle category, but the dif ferences between the means of the upper-income to the lower-income groups is very low. Part II: Mental Health and Background— Variables in Combination The mean mental health by religion and generation is presented in Table 37. It is apparent that the differences in general are not high enough to be of great significance, as the case was with soli darity. And since the sample was not a random sample, no test of means was done on these scores. Only the simple direction of the differences will be considered in an absolute fashion. (a) Generation and Religion: Old generation and middle genera tion Christians are higher than their Mohammedan counterparts in Affect Balance, but the young Mohammedans are higher than the young Table 37 Mean Mental Health by Generation and Religion Reli gion Affect Balanc< a Posi.tive Affec.t NegcLtive Affec:t Won:y Extensi ty Avow<2d Ha]jpine:3S G 1 G 2 G3 T G 1 G 2 G3 T G 1 G 2 G3 T G 1 G 2 G3 T G 1 G 2 G3 T Moham medan 4.42 4.87 5.21 1.06 1.53 1.83 1.65 1 . 6 6 1.65 3.77 4.24 3.33 8.92 8.15 8.35 Chris tian 4.74 4.96 5.02 1 . 0 0 1.39 1.67 1.26 1.43 1 . 6 6 3.74 4.21 3.44 9.26 8.50 8.70 Other 6.50 6.67 3.00 3.33 1.50 1.67 5.50 3.61 7.50 8.67 Total 4.58 4.95 5.17 4.90 1.03 1.50 1.80 1.44 1.45 1.54 1.65 1.55 3.75 4.25 3.40 3.80 9.09 8.31 8.53 8.64 I Note: For the N Distribution, Please See Table 27. 166 i ! Christians. In Positive Affect, all three Mohammedan generations are j higher than the Christians. In Negative Affect the old and middle ; Mohammedan generations are also higher than their Christian counter- : parts, with the young being the same in both religions. The Moham medans seem to have more affect or at least to exhibit more affect than the Christians. The happiness index shows the Christians surpass ing the Mohammedans in all three generations. Since we are taking the ; Affect Balance Score (ABS) as the main measure of psychological well being, we must limit our comments to this measure. Looking at the Affect Balance column again, one notices that the young generation is higher for both religions than either the old or the middle generations. But why are the Mohammedan youth higher than the Christian youth in their Affect Balance? The answer may again lie in the fact that the Mohammedan young people have a new surge of well-being that has come from a new identity as a result of the pan-Arab movement. They see more hope in life now, and in many ways challenge the unspoken right of the Christian to be superior in Lebanon. Much is said about equality of the two religions in Lebanon. But for the last several years there is a strong suspicion that the Mohammedans have over-taken the Christians not only in absolute numbers, but also in power and influence. Could this account for the brighter world that a young Mohammedan sees himself in? Hypothesis 14 states that: If Christian and in G^, G?, or G^, then higher PWB than Mohammedan in G^, G^, or Gq. This hypothesis is only two-thirds supported. The one third that is not supported is in G3 where the Mohammedans scored higher than Christians. i Table 38 I Mean Mental Health by j its Different Mea- i sures and Gensex I Mental Health Gensex Affect Balance Positive Affect Negative Affect Worry Extensity Avowed Happiness Grandfather 4.714 1.041 1.327 3.771 8.898 Grandmother 4.449 1 . 0 2 0 1.571 3.735 9.286 Father 5.082 1.612 1.531 4.404 8.347 Mother 4.816 1.367 1.551 4.102 8.265 Son 5.545 1.873 1.327 3.396 8.673 Daughter 4.659 1.707 2.070 3.405 8.349 Total 4.897 1.438 1.548 3.802 8.643 N = 292 292 294 288 294 (b) Mental Health and Gensex: Talcing the two highest mean scores i in each measure of psychological well-being, we notice that the high- j i est scores for Affect Balance are for father and son. In the fre quency description section of the study we also noted that the males were higher in psychological well-being than the females. This is further corroborated by looking at the Negative Affect column where j the grandmother, and the daughter have the highest score, with the j i daughter having a significantly higher score than the rest. Interest-J I ingly enough, the grandparents have the highest scores on Avowed Happiness. Why should the males be the highest in mental health and the women be the lowest? Why should the grandparents score the highest on the Happiness index? And why should the father and the mother have the highest Worry scores? Hypothesis 15 states that: If daughter, mother, or grandmother, then lower PWB than son, father, or grandfather. The data are found in Table 38 and do support the hypothesis. What is the possible explanation? The male has scored higher in psychological well-being because of his ability to fulfill his masculine roles as traditionally pre scribed. The female, on the other hand, seems to be frustrated in her life because she is not as emancipated in reality as she is in theory. It is still very much a man's world even though lip-service is paid to women's equality.' Of the three generations, it is not difficult to find the parents; who form the middle generation, reporting they worry the most.After Table 39 Mean Mental Health by Sex and Age Groups Affect Balance Positive Affect Negative Affect Worry Extensity Avowed Happiness Age Group Male Femalei T Male Female T Male Female T Male Female T Male Female T ^ 2 0 5.750 4.643 5.266 1.861 1.750 1.813 1 . 1 1 1 2.133 1.576 3.088 3.400 3.234 8.611 8.067 8.364 21 - 30 5.368 4.667 5.097 2.053 1.500 1.839 1.684 1.833 1.742 3.889 3.273 3.655 8.737 8.917 8.806 31 - 40 5.000 5.050 5.043 0.667 1.500 1.391 0.667 1.450 1.348 5.333 4.200 4.348 8.333 8.550 8.522 41 - 50 4.897 4.667 4.786 1.621 1.370 1.500 1.724 1.704 1.714 4.552 4.148 4.357 8.345 8 . 1 1 1 8.232 51 - 60 4.667 4.700 4.680 1.400 1 . 1 0 0 1.280 1.733 1.400 1.600 3.786 5.000 4.292 8.133 9.100 8.520 61 - 70 5.737 4.533 5.000 1.526 1.167 1.306 0.789 1.633 1.306 4.278 3.500 3.792 9.421 9.333 9.367 71 - 80 4.200 4.250 4.217 1 . 0 0 0 0.625 0.870 1.800 1.375 1.652 4.267 3.625 4.043 8.533 8.875 8.652 ri 81 4.529 3.750 4.381 0.765 0.500 0.714 1.235 1.750 1.333 3.000 2.250 2.857 8.824 9.500 8.952 Total 4.897 1.438 1.548 3.802 8.643 • 170 all, they are very much in the battle of life being caught up between many forces and possible role conflicts. They have to look after their own children. At the same time, they have to meet society's prescribed expectations towards their older generation, their own parents. At the same time, they are seeking self-fulfillment them selves . In a culture that still very much reveres the old and sincerely respects them greatly, the old folks are more content than would be the case in societies where there is disengagement of the elderly from most societal involvement. In Lebanon the grandparents are very much involved not only with their own children, but also with their grand children. This is not felt to be an imposition by either generation. As a result, lacking the worries of responsibility that G2 faces, and completely fulfilled in .their grandparental role-performance, they do show the highest scores of all three generations on Avowed Happi ness. (c) Sex and Age: In looking at the relationship of family solidarity and sex combined with age, we found that it was age and not sex that was the better predictor of a person's perception of his family solidarity. Taking the two highest mean scores of Table 39, however, the reverse is true. Males 20 years or younger and 61 years or older have the highest scores on Affect Balance, our main measure of psychological well-being. Males thirty or younger have the two highest mean scores of Positive Affect. To complete the picture, females thirty years old or younger have the highest scores of Nega tive Affect. Table 40 Mean Mental Health by Generation and Socio-Economic Status (Income Level) Affect Balance Positive Affect Negative Affect Worry Extensity Avowed Happiness SES— Income G 1 G 2 G3 T G 1 G 2 G3 T G 1 g2 G3 T G 1 G 2 G3 T G 1 G 2 G3 T — LL. 1 , 2 0 0 4.31 4.13 5.83 1.03 1.13 2.08 1.72 2 . 0 0 1.25 4.41 3.75 3.25 8.35 8 . 0 0 8.67 LL. 1 ,2 0 1 - 4,000 5.19 4.92 5.00 1.04 1.39 1.90 0.85 1.46 1.90 3.39 4.46 4.30 9.78 8.50 9.40 IX. ' 4,001- 9,000 4.54 5.11 5.19 0.96 1.39 1.81 1.43 1.28 1.63 3.64 4.09 3.53 9.11 8.44 8.25 LL. 9,001- 14,000 3.83 4.88 0.83 1.38 0.63 1.67 2.67 2.56 L0.17 9.33 >:LL. 14,001 4.25 4.94 4.62 1.38 2.06 1.67 2.13 2 . 1 1 2.05 3.75 4.59 3.38 8.63 7.83 8.14 Total 4.58 4.95 5.09 4.86 1.03 1.49 1.78 1.41 1.45 1.54 1.71 1.56 3.75 4.25 3.44 3.83 9.09 8.31 8.54 8.65 N = 98 98 82 278 98 98 82 278 98 98 84 280 97 96 82 275 98 98 84 280 I Of ten possible scores, the males have eight of the highest and | ; I : the females only two. So, one can say that the better predictor of j i mental health is not a person's age, but his sex in this Lebanese j ' sample. Why should this be? It must be again that sex roles and ; fulfillment are the crucial variables for a Lebanese at any point of ; the life cycle whether young, middle aged, or old. Table 39 seems i to support such a contention. Hypothesis 16 predicts that: If old, male or female, then higher PWB than young, male or female. This hypothesis is not supported at all, rather the opposite is found to be true. It is not age, but sex that is a better predictor of psychological well-being. (d) Generation and SES: Income Level: Table 40 portrays the effect of generation and a person's socio-economic status, as measured by income, on his measure of psychological well-being. Lower class young people have the highest mean score of Affect Balance, and the lower class old people come next, with the middle class coming third. Yet when Positive and Negative Affect scores are considered, upper class people have the highest Negative Affect in all three generations and the highest Positive Affect in G^ and G£. It would appear from this Table that social class is a better predictor of a person's mental health than even his generational membership. When it comes to happiness, the lower class scores the highest in both G£ and G3 , and the middle class in G-^. The lower class scores the highest in both G^ and G3 on the Worry Extensity Scale, with upper class G2 joining the worry group. Hypothesis 17 posits no relationship between generation-SES and 173 Table 41 Mean Mental Health by its Dif ferent Measures and Education Mental Health Education Affect Balance Positive Affect Negative Affect Worry Extensit; Avowed r Happiness Grade School 4.737 1.254 1.518 3.973 8.781 Junior High 5.341 1.614 1.273 3.558 8.682 High School 5.196 2.018 1.845 3.357 8.534 College and University 4.500 1.308 1.808 3.640 7.807 Total 4.929 1.504 1.583 3.717 8.599 N = 240 240 242 237 242 174 psychological well-being. This hypothesis needs to be modified in as much as there seems to be a general tendency for lower-level income groups to score higher on Affect Balance and Avowed Happiness, while the higher-income category scores highest in both positive and nega tive affect. It is not easy to explain these findings except in very general terms. Could it be that lower class people are generally more con tented and thus they show two of the highest three happiness scores? On the other hand, they also show two of the highest three scores on the worry scale. It is also noteworthy that the upper class people have five of the six highest scores on the Positive and Negative Affect scores. Why is this true? Again it is difficult to make much sense of these findings. (e) Education and Mental Health: In studying the relationship of education on a person*s perception of his family solidarity, it was found that the lower the education, the higher the perception of family solidarity. In studying Table 41, which is a portrayal of the relationship of an individual's educational attainments to his psycho logical well-being, we find that the same relationship that held for perception of solidarity holds also for psychological well-being. Taking the two highest scores in each category, we find that those who have either Junior High or High School have the two top scores in Affect Balance as well as in Positive Affect. Those with Grade School and Junior High education have the two highest scores in Avowed Happiness. Significantly, two of the highest scores in Negative Affect and Worry Extensity are in the realm of those who have College and university education. Why is this so? The finding does support Hypothesis 18 which states that: If college or university educated, then lower psychological well-being than if lower education. But why? In Lebanon, the most successful people are not necessarily the most educated. The merchant class throughout history has been the most self-fulfilled since Phoenecian days. In fact, it must be a source of irritation to the educated not to be able to find the pres tige that they seek. Often they are unemployed, because what gets the best jobs is not necessarily a person’s educational attainments but rather the connections that his family has. Here again the functional aspect of the "functionally extended family" of Lebanon comes into play. Table 42 is only one of the many triple background variable combinations that can be presented. It shows the relationship of religion, sex, and generation combined to a person's measures of psychological well-being. Looking at the totals for all three generations, it is very clear again that the males in all three generations surpass the females in their scores of Affect Balance. (Tables BM-1 to BM-4, obtainable from the Author, present the same relationships of the three back ground variables to the other measures of psychological well-being, namely, Positive Affect, Negative Affect, Worry Extensity, and Avowed Happiness.) Examining the relationships by religion, however, while the total column for the Mohammedans and Christians both show the male scores higher than those of the female, yet by generation, the pattern Table 42 Mean Affect Balance Score by Generation, Sex, and Religion Religion Gener. Male a.tion- 1 Female Genera Male tion- 2 Female Genera Male ition-3 Female Total Male Female Total Popula tion Mohammedan 4.38 4.46 5.22 4.54 5.69 4.62 5.11 4.54 4.83 Christian 5.05 4.44 4.88 5.04 5.26 4.68 5.06 4.72 4.90 Total 4.71 4.45 5.04 4.79 5.47 4.65 5.87 4.63 4.87 N Distribution 49 49 48 48 53 40 150 137 287 Note: For further specifications Tables BM-1 to BM-4 may be obtained from the Author. 177 is quite varied. For example, in the old generation, Mohammedan females are higher than Mohammedan males, but Christian males are higher than Christian females. For the middle generation, the exact reverse is true: the Mohammedan male scores higher than the Mohammedan female, while the Christian female scores higher than the Christian male. But in the young generation, both Mohammedan and Christian males surpass the females. Looking now at the picture by religion and same-sex, the Christian male is higher than the Mohammedan male in G^, but in G2 and G3 the reverse is true. The pattern for the females is just the opposite. In G^ the Mohammedan female is higher than the Christian female, while the reverse is true for G£ and G3 . Part III: Multiple Regression Analysis Table 43 presents a regression of the Affect Balance Scale, as the chosen indicator of an individual's psychological well-being, on both a person's background variables and the three types of family solidarity in order to assess which variables are the best predictors of his measures of mental health. As seen from Table 43 the multiple regression coefficients (R) are not very high. The highest variance explained was 33% for the third generation. This is explaining one third of the variance only. The R . for financial dependence was .57. This would support the general finding that while some of the variables are correlated with both solidarity and mental health, the association is not very strong, i It is noteworthy that the correlations, and consequently the variance explained, for the young generation is the highest of all from among Table 43 Multiple Regression of Affect Balance Scores with Total Global Solidarity and Background Variables by Generation R R2 r Beta Generation-1 Consensual Solidarity.... .13 . 0 2 .13 .09 Age...................... .17 .03 -.13 -.19 Sex...................... .23 .05 -.08 - . 2 2 Affectual Solidarity..... .26 .07 . 1 0 .17 Religion................. .28 .08 . 1 0 .13 Religious Attendance..... .30 .09 . 0 0 - . 1 2 Family Size.............. .30 .09 .06 .06 Associational Solidarity.. .30 .09 . 1 1 .03 Generation-2 Affectual Solidarity..... .23 .05 .23 .05 Family Size.............. .34 . 1 2 . 2 1 .31 Religion................. .37 .14 .13 .14 Sex...................... .38 .15 -.07 - . 2 2 Religious Importance..... .39 .16 .13 .16 Age...................... .41 .16 . 0 2 - . 1 1 Religious Attendance..... .41 .17 . 0 2 - . 1 2 Education................ .42 .17 -.03 - . 1 0 Associational Solidarity.. .42 .18 . 0 0 .05 SES...................... .42 .18 .07 .06 Consensual Solidarity.... .43 .18 .04 .04 Generation-3 Consensual Solidarity.... .39 .15 .39 .32 Sex...................... .47 . 2 2 -.26 -.27 SES...................... .50 .25 - . 2 0 -.13 Affectual Solidarity..... .53 .28 . 2 2 . 2 0 (Continued) Table 43 (Continued) Multiple Regression of Affect Balance Scores with Total Global Solidarity and Background Variables by Generation R R2 r Beta Generation-3 (Continued) Religious Importance..... .54 .29 -.07 -.14 Religious Attendance..... .55 .30 . 1 1 .08 Age...................... .55 .30 -.16 .09 Distance from Parents.... .56 .31 . 0 1 . 1 1 Religion................. .56 .32 .13 .08 Education................ .57 .32 -.06 - . 1 1 Family Size.............. .57 .32 -.15 -.13 Marital Status............ .57 .33 . 1 1 - . 1 1 Sib Position............. .57 .33 - . 1 2 - . 0 2 Financial Dependence .... .57 .33 -.04 - . 0 2 180 all three generations, with the correlations for the old generation being the weakest of all For the old generation, Consensual solidarity was the best predictor of the psychological well-being scores. This was followed by: (a) age, (b) sex, (c) Affectual solidarity, (d) religion, and (e) religious attendance. For Generation two, the middle generation, Affectual solidarity was the best predictor of an individual's mental health. This was followed by: (a) family size, (b) religion, (c) sex, (d) religious importance, and (e) age. For Generation three, the young generation, Consensual solidarity was the best predictor of all variables. This was followed by: (a) sex, (b) SES, (c) Affectual solidarity, (d) religious importance, and (e) religious attendance. There were other variables that were rank-ordered by importance for all three generations, but only the top five were chosen for emphasis. A look at Table 43 will complete the picture for the one who might be more interested. This multiple regression analysis was carried out to discriminate between background variables and solidarity types as to which are the best predictors of the measure of psychological well-being. It is clear that solidarity types in all three generations come at the top of the list of strong predictors, with Consensual solidarity being the best for both generation one and generation three, while Affectual solidarity being the best for generation two. Summary In this section an answer was found for the question: How does 181 a person's background such as sex, generational membership, religious affiliation, and social class membership affect his psychological well-being as measured by the Affect Balance Scale? To determine the answer, the section was divided into three main parts. In the first part, the four variables (sex, generation, religion, and SES) were examined. By sex, the males are found to be higher than females in psychological well-being. By generation, the young generation was found to score the highest, the old genera tion, next, and the middle generation the lowest. By religion, Mohammedans have higher psychological well-being than Christians. And by SES, no special pattern is evident. In Part II, background variables were used in various combina tions. It seems that old generation and middle generation Christians are higher than their Mohammedan counterparts in Affec Balance Scores, but the young Mohammedans are higher than the young Christians. When Gensex is taken into consideration, it seems that the daughter and the grandmother have the highest scores of Negative Affect, but the father and son the highest scores of Affect Balance. The grandparents scored the highes on Happiness, and the parents of the middle genera tion scored the highest in Worry. In looking at the relationship of Family Solidarity and sex combined with age, we found that it was age and not sex that was the better predictor of a person's perception of his family solidarity. But this section shows that the better predictor of a person's mental health is not his age but rather his sex in this Lebanese sample. Lower class people and lower educated people seem to have the highest 182 scores of Affect Balance, with the upper class people and the higher educated people having the highest scores of Negative Affect and Worry Extensity. In Part III, multiple regression analysis was used to show the relative importance of background variables and types of family soli darity in explaining a person’s psychological well-being. This was done for all three generations. In all three generations, the soli darity variables were found to be better predictors than the back ground variables. For it was Consensual solidarity, for G^ it was Affectual solidarity, and for G^ it was Consensual solidarity again. In the next chapter the relationship between family solidarity and mental health is examined, and Homans' interaction theory is tested. Chapter 6 RELATIONS BETWEEN SOLIDARITY AND MENTAL HEALTH; SOLIDARITY AND HOMANS' INTERACTION THEORY Introduction This chapter is divided into two parts. First, relations between solidarity and mental health will be explored. This will be first done in terms of bivariate association, and then specification by certain background variables will be noted. In the second part of the chapter, Homans' interaction theory will be tested. This theory posits direct correlation between several elements which, according to Homans, are basic in human behavior. In this section, the degree of association between the elements of Association, Consensus, and Affect, as applied to the family as a small group, will be put to the test. Relations Between Solidarity and Mental Health The basic postulate of this research states that family vertical solidarity and psychological well-being are positively correlated. In Chapter 1, a rationale was presented for the assumption that the family is a buffer between the individual and the stresses and strains 183 184 that bombard him from extra-familial social systems. Is the postulate supported? (A) Solidarity and Mental Health: General Table 44 provides some support for the basic postulate suggesting a positive relationship between family solidarity and psychological well-being in the total sample (with all generations, both sexes of both religions combined). Though the magnitude of the correlation coefficients may not be very high, the direction of the relationship in all cases is according to prediction. Affect Balance and Avowed Happiness are positively correlated with Total Global Family Solidarity (r = .20 and .22 respectively) and with Positive Affect (r = .10), and negatively correlated with Nega tive Affect (r = -.16) and with Worry Extensity (r = -.22). Examining the sub-types of family solidarity and their relation ships to the various measures of psychological well-being, one finds that: (a) Affectual solidarity is correlated with Affect Balance (r = .16), Negative Affect (r = -.18), with Worry Extensity (r = -.12), and with Avowed Happiness (r = .16). Its strongest correlation is with Negative Affect, being inversely correlated with an r_ of -.18. It is not associated with Positive Affect. (b) Consensual solidarity is significantly related to four of the five measures of psychological well-being. As with Affectual soli darity it is not significantly correlated with Positive Affect. How ever, it is correlated with Affect Balance (r = .18), with Negative Affect (r = -.16), with Worry Extensity (r = -.13) and with Avowed Table 44 Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health — Total— Solidarity Affect Balance Positive Affect Negative Affect Extensity Happiness Affectual .16 . 0 2 -.18 - . 1 2 .16 Consensual .18 .09 -.16 -.13 .17 Associational .09 . 1 1 1 o -.06 .15 Total GFS* . 2 0 . 1 0 -.16 -.14 . 2 2 * Total Global Family Solidarity Note: N = 294 With an N of 294, _r achieves statistical significance at the .05 level when it reaches .11 or greater; and at the .01 level when it reaches .15 or greater. oo 186 Happiness (r = .17). (c) The over-all picture shows Associational solidarity not significantly correlated with Affect Balance, Negative Affect, or Worry. It is, however, correlated positively with Positive Affect (r = .11) and with Avowed Happiness (r = .15). Dichotomizing the two variables to examine in a different way the overall relationship between family solidarity and mental health (Table 45), again there is indication of a weak but definite relation ship. From this Table it can be seen that about 80% of those high on family vertical solidarity are also high on psychological well-being, and about 31% of those low on psychological well-being are also low on family solidarity. Table 45 Association of Family Solidarity (Total) and Mental Health (ABS) Mental Health Low High Low 31.4% 20.5% High 6 8 .6 % 79.5% N = 102 N = 190 = 3.67, Significant at the .06 level Gamma = .28 187 In summary, then, Family Vertical Solidarity has been found in this study to be weakly but consistently related to all five measures of psychological well-being. Every sign of correlation— all 20 of them— is in the expected direction, twelve in a positive direction, and eight in an inverse relationship.. f (B) Solidarity and Mental Health: Specifications A relevant question regarding the relationship between family solidarity and mental health concerns how antecedant variables affect the relationship. Specifically, Do males and females differ in showing up the relationship? Is the relationship stronger for one generation than for another? Is the relationship more pronounced for Christians than for Mohammedans? How is the relationship affected by social class? (1) Sex: Table 46 presents the correlation coefficients of family solidarity and mental health by sex. There is a tendency for the relationship between family solidarity and mental health to be higher for males than for females. Of the twenty correlations, the males are higher on 13 and the females higher on 7. There is not much difference if any in the relationship of Affect Balance and the various components of family solidarity, as well as total solidarity, between males and females. But in every case, for the males the relationship between Positive Affect and family soli darity, components and total, is higher than that for the females. Also in every case but one, the relationship between Happiness and family solidarity, components and total, is higher for the males than for the females. Table 46 Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health — by Sex— Affect Balance Positive Affect Negative Affect Won Extens -y sity Avo Happi wed ness Solidarity Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Affectual . 2 1 .15 . 1 0 -.07 -.17 -.24 -.17 -.06 .26 .03 Consensual .18 . 2 0 .13 . 0 2 - . 1 1 - . 2 1 -.13 - . 1 1 .13 . 2 1 Associational . 1 1 . 1 2 .15 .09 . 0 0 -.06 - . 1 1 . 0 2 .18 . 1 1 Total GFS* .23 . 2 2 .18 . 0 2 -.13 -.24 -.19 -.07 .26 .17 Note: * Total Global Family Solidarity N = 294 With an N of 294, _r achieves statistical significance at the .05 level when it reaches .11 or greater; and at the .01 level when it reaches .15 or greater. 188 189 Hypothesis 19 reads as follows: The correlation between soli darity and PWB for males will be higher than the correlation for fe males . The data provide weak but consistent support for the hypothe- ■ sis. For the males, then, high family solidarity tends to produce more positive affect, more happiness, and less worry. For the females, high family solidarity seems to produce slightly more negative affect, and possibly less happiness. The data thus support the logic of the research design. It was noted that in Lebanon the family still plays a very central role in all aspects of the social system, and the family still tends to be a patriarchal and male-dominated institution. Thus it makes sense that family solidarity and mental health are generally more highly related for male members of the society, of all generations, than for the females. There remains the question of why should family solidarity not be associated with mental well-being in females? A possible explanation is that while family solidarity does not restrict the male from going outside the family and exercising his freedom of action, family solidarity may tend to restrict the female so that she is more bound than the male. Females in general were found in this study to have lower levels of avowed happiness than males. Perhaps her social status and individual freedom of action have something to do with her low state of psychological well-being. (2) Generation: The next question is, Is there any difference in the relationship of family solidarity and mental health for the three generations? If there is a difference, for which generation 190 is the relationship the strongest and why? A look at Table 47 reveals that out of twenty possible correla tions between solidarity and psychological well-being, — the young generation— scores the highest on 14 and is tied with another gene ration on three more. In the correlations between Affect Balance and Solidarity, components and total, G^ is the highest in three, including the total, and about the same with G2 (r = .22 as compared with v_ = .23 for G2 ) on Affectual solidarity and Affect Balance. In the correlation of Positive Affect and Solidarity, G^ scores the highest in all areas except Associational solidarity. In the correlation of Worry Extensity and Solidarity, G^ scores the highest except in the area of Affectual solidarity. And in the correlations of Avowed Happiness and solida rity, G^ scores the highest except in Associational solidarity. So, all in all, the young generation seems to indicate a higher associa tion between family solidarity and individual psychological well being than any other generation. Hypothesis 20 states that: The correlation between solidarity and psychological well-being for G^ will be higher than the correla- tion for G0 and/or G„. This hypothesis is not supported by the data. In multiple regression analysis, the Affect Balance was regressed on all three types of family solidarity for each generation. Tables R-l to R-3, obtainable from the Author, show some important patterns. First, these data reveal that the correlation coefficients for G^ are consistantly and substantially higher than those for G^ or G2 . Secondly, as far as the relative explanatory power of the type of Table 47 Pearsonian Correlations between Types of Solidarity and Measures of Mental Health Affect Balance — by Ger Positive Affect leration— Negative Affect Worry .Extensity Avowed Happiness Solidarity G 1 G 2 G3 G 1 G 2 G3 G 1 G 2 G3 G 1 g2 G3 G 1 G 2 G3 Affectual . 1 0 .23 . 2 2 -.06 .05 .17 -.16 -.26 - . 1 0 - . 2 0 -.09 -.13 .19 .03 .23 Consensual .13 .04 .39 -.05 -.05 .31 -.19 1 o VO 00 iH 1 - . 1 2 - . 2 1 -.24 . 1 1 . 2 1 .33 Associational . 1 1 . 0 0 . 2 1 .17 .09 . 1 2 . 0 1 .08 -.14 .04 - . 1 1 -.17 . 2 2 .09 .15 Total GFS* .17 . 1 2 .37 .05 .04 .27 -.16 - . 1 1 a\ v — 1 f -.13 00 rH 1 -.24 .26 .14 .32 Note: * Total Global Family Solidarity N = 294 With an N of 294, _r achieves statistical significance at the .05 level when it reaches .11 or greater; and at the .01 level when it reaches .15 or greater. 191 192 solidarity, for Gg Consensual solidarity was the most powerful in all five categories or measures of psychological well-being, with Affectual ranking last or tying with the last. Table 48 recapitulates the multiple regression for the three generations but using only the Affect Balance Score with the three types of solidarity. The order of importance of the three types is not the same for G^, G2, and Gg. Even though the difference is not much yet the order is not the same for any two generations. However, it is very clear that the r/s are substantially higher for G3 than for either G^ or G2 . This regression analysis substantiates the fact that the relation ship between mental1 health and family solidarity is the highest for the young generation. Furthermore, that Consensus is a very important element in the relationship. What does this mean? For the most part, generation three is still young and dependent on the family. And in a society, such as Lebanon, where the family mediates between the micro-social system and society at large, the young person's psychological well-being is apparently enhanced if he perceives of his family as being solidary. As far as the importance of consensus is concerned, it is apparent that agreement on major issues and values with one's parents, for example, tends not only to produce a more solidary relationship, but also a more satisfying state of mental health. (3) Religion; Religion has been selected in this study to be one of the most important variables in this- analysis of solidarity Table 48 Multiple Regression, O-Order Pearsonian Correlations, and Beta Weights of Mental Health (ABS) on Solidarity by Solidari ty Type & Generation R R2 r Beta Generation-1 Consensual Solidarity.... .13 . 0 2 .13 . 1 0 Affectual Solidarity..... .17 .03 . 1 1 . 1 0 Associational Solidarity.. .18 .03 . 1 1 .07 Generation-2 Affectual Solidarity..... .23 .05 .23 .24 Associational Solidarity.. .23 .06 . 0 0 -.04 Consensual Solidarity.... .23 .06 .04 - . 0 1 Generation-3 Consensual Solidarity.... .40 .16 .40 .35 Associational Solidarity.. .41 .16 .23 .08 Affectual Solidarity..... .41 .17 .23 .04 194 and mental health. It will be very important, then, to find out if there is any difference by religion between Mohammedans and Christians in the correlations of family solidarity and mental health. To examine possible differences, Table 49 was constructed showing a correlational matrix between all measures of mental health used in this study and all types of family solidarity including the total. Out of twenty possible relationships, the Christians show a higher correlation coefficient than Mohammedans on 17. In Affect Balance, the Christians are higher in all solidarity measures, types and total, significantly in three of the four, and very significantly in two of the three. In Positive Affect, however, the Mohammedans are higher than the Christians in three of the four measures, with low significance in only one measure, Associational solidarity. In the .Negative Affect field, the Christians again show higher scores in all four fields, with significant differences in three, and very significant differences in two of the three. The Christians again show higher scores in all four measures of solidarity in the field of worries, all differences being low to moderately significant. In Avowed Happiness, the Christians once more show higher scores than the Mohammedans in all four measures of family solidarity, with very high significance in the Associational and Total. So, the association of Family Vertical Solidarity and Mental Health appears to be higher for the Christians than it is for the Mohammedans. Hypothesis 21 states: The correlation between solidarity and mental health for Christians will be higher than the correlation between Table 49 Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health Affect Balance — by Re Positive Affect ligion— Negative Affect Worry Extensity Avowed Happiness solidarity Moham medan Chris tian Moham medan Chris tian Moham medan Chris tian Moham medan Chris tian Moham medan Chris tian Effectual .06 .27 .03 .05 - . 1 0 -.31 -.08 -.15 .13 . 2 1 Consensual .13 . 2 1 . 1 0 .05 -.06 -.34 -.05 -.19 .13 .16 Associational .05 . 1 1 .17 .05 . 1 1 - . 1 0 .06 -.18 . 0 1 .26 Total GFS* . 1 1 .27 . 1 2 .07 - . 0 1 -.30 - . 0 2 -.24 . 1 1 .29 Note: * Total Global Family Solidarity N = 294 With an N of 294, _r achieves statistical significance at the .05 level when it reaches .11 or great; and at the .01 level when it reaches .15 or greater. 195 196 solidarity and mental health for Mohammedans. This hypothesis is then supported. But what is the explanation for this? Both Christians and Mohammedans value to some degree family soli darity. The Muslim religion extols the virtues of family. On the other hand, the same religion makes divorce relatively easy with little or no stigma attached to it. Is it possible that for the Christian the threat to family solidarity causes more distress than for the Mohammedan? I recognize that divorce is very indirectly related to something like family "vertical" solidarity. But divorce does dis rupt all family structure and relations, and therefore, it may be more traumatic for the so-to-speak "unaccustomed" Christian than for his brother the Mohammedan. If this explanation is correct, then we should expect that for the Christian, the association of family soli darity and psychological well-being should be higher than that for the Mohammedan. Table 49 supports this expectataion. (4) Socio-Economic Status; Income Level; The last important variable for specifying the relationship between family solidarity and mental health is socio-economic status (SES). Here it is more difficult to see a pattern in the relationships as was possible for generational differences or religious differences. Table 50 presents the correlational matrix of family solidarity and psychological well-being, specified by upper income level, middle income level, and lower income level. While one is tempted to see Affectual solidarity correlating the highest with mental health for middle and upper classes, and Consen sual solidarity tending to dip down to the lower class, with no clear Table 50 Pearsonian Correlations of Family Solidarity and Mental Health — by SES— Affect Balance Positive Affect Negative Affect Worry Extensity Avowed Happiness Solidarity U M L U M L U M L U M L U M L Effectual .08 .36 .18 -.06 .18 - . 0 1 -.16 -.29 -.24 -.14 -.14 -.26 .28 .04 . 2 1 Consensual .35 .04 . 2 2 . 1 1 . 0 0 .05 -.39 o f -.34 -.27 -.06 -.16 . 2 2 . 0 2 .18 Associational .15 .16 .03 .16 .13 .03 -.06 -.09 . 0 0 -.13 -.03 -.09 .15 .26 .17 Total GFS* .25 .28 . 2 0 .09 .16 .03 -.26 - . 2 1 - . 2 2 -.23 - . 1 1 -.23 .28 .18 .26 Note: * Total Global Family Solidarity N = 294 With an N of 294, _r achieves statistical significance at the .05 level when it reaches . 1 1 or greater; and at the . 0 1 level when it reaches .15 or greater. 197 198 pattern for Associational, yet there is no consistent pattern apparent from this Table. Looking at Total Solidarity and its correlation with Affect Balance, the middle class has the highest coefficient followed by the lower class and then the upper. The same pattern, though on a much weaker level, holds for Positive Affect. In the Negative Affect field, however, the highest is the lower class, followed by the upper class with the middle class coming last. This same pattern, though on a much stronger level, holds for Avowed Happiness. But in general, there is no definite pattern. Hypothesis 22 stated that: There will be no difference in the correlation between solidarity and psychological well-being for one class than for another. This hypothesis is supported. Summary In this section we attempted to examine the relationship of family solidarity and mental health specifying by (a) sex, (b) gene ration, (c) religion, and (d) SES. We found that (a) males, (b) members of Gg, and (c) Christians seem to have higher correlations between mental health and family solidarity. No distinct pattern was found for (d) SES. This would suggest that the highest associa tion of family vertical solidarity and psychological well-being would be found among a group of Lebanese who were young male Christians. It is important to note, in conclusion, that though the magnitude of the correlations and differences may not have been great, yet the consistent direction seems to be important and meaningful. These findings point to the importance of further research on the same line. 199 Solidarity and Homans * Human Interaction Theory In Chapter 1, Homans' theory linking Activity, Interaction, Sentiment, and Norms was presented. With respect to solidarity, the most relevant hypotheses were: (a) If the frequency of interaction between two or more persons increases, the degree of their linking will increase, and vice versa (Homans, 1950:112). (b) Persons who interact with one another frequently are more like one another in their activities than they are like other persons with whom they interact less frequently (p. 135). It was also noted that Homans, like Heiderf j .believes that cause and effect can work in either direction in the above generalizations. Thus Exchange Theory is intended to account for the persistence of solidary interaction once it has begun. In the theoretical formulation of Family Vertical Solidarity, we have recognized the basic three dimensions of Association, Affection, and Consensus, or similarity. These are basically the same elements in Homans' human behavior theory. The secondary postulate of this research states that: There will be a positive correlation between Association and Consensus, between Consensus and Affection, and between Association and Affection. In our sample, the individuals who perceive high Associational solidarity should also perceive high Consensual solidarity and should also perceive high Affectual solidarity. Since this order is reversible, the relationship should hold true in any direction. Testing Homans' theory with the data from Lebanon, it is readily noticed that in general the data support the theory. Table 51 shows associations with Gamma ranging from .47 to .64. Almost 70% of those Table 51 Association of the Three Types of Solidarity — Total— Association N = X2 = 34.50, Significant at the .001 level Gamma = .63 Association N = X^ = 13.67, Significant at the .001 level Gamma = .64 Consensus N = X2 = 6.30, Significant at the .01 level Gamma = .47 Affection Low High Low 73.7% 50.4% High 26.3% 49.6% 38 254 Affection Low High Low 78.9% 45.3% High 21.1% 54.7% 38 254 Consensus Low High Low 66.0% 30.9% High 34.0% 69.1% 156 136 201 scoring high on Association score high also on Consensus. Almost 80% of those scoring low on Association score low also on Affect. And about 74% of those scoring low on Consensus score low on Affect, too. Looking at Figure 1 it is noticed that the highest association of the three paired relationships is found between Consensus and Asso ciation with a X^_ of 34.50 and a Gamma of .63. The next strongest O relationship is found between Affect and Association wxth a X of 13. 67 and a Gamma of .64. The third strongest relationship is found between Consensus and Affect with a of 6.30 and a Gamma of .47. Homans emphasizes the integrative aspects as a result of inter action. Both from a theoretical standpoint, and from this empirical study, Homans seems to be correct. Social systems in behavior and integration is broadly covered by activity, consensus on goals and norms, and sometimes basic values, and lastly by sentiments or affect. These data cannot, of course, be used to measure the increments 1 that accrue over time from more or less association, more or less consensus, and more or less affect, as Homans intended his theory to apply. However, within the limitations of cross-sectional data, the theory seems to be substantiated. It is important, however, to determine whether or not specifi cation by other variables, such as sex, generation, religion, SES, etc would alter the relationship in any way. We would expect that in some instances the relationships might go up, and in others come down. The following findings, might be used instrumentally in building further specifications in Homans' theory of human behavior. Total Sample: (N = 294) Association By Sex: Consensus (?■*- • 01) Affection Figure-1 Association Consensus 'X*- ^‘3 Affection Figure-2 Male (N = 153) Association Consensus '**3 (n s ) Affection Figure-3 Female (N = 141 203 In the following section, then, the relationships between Associa tional, Consensual, and Affectual solidarity will be examined, control ling for (1) sex, (2) generation, (3) religion, and (4) SES. (1) Sex: Figures 2 and 3 seem to reveal a high correlation between Associational solidarity and Consensual solidarity, or between Association and Consensus, for both sexes. Gamma for the males is .62 and for the females .63, with X^ of 17.13 and 15.63 respectively. Of the males, 65% who were high on Consensus were also high on Associa tion; of the females, the percentage was higher: 74%. The relationship between Consensus and Affection was definitely 2 lower for both sexes with a X of 6.3 for males, and of .23 for females. The respective Gammas were .59 and .22. Of those high in Affection among the males, 50% were low in Consensus. Of the females who were low on Consensus, 89% were high on Affection, while of those who were high on Consensus, 93% were also high on Affection. The males showed a fairly high association between Affection and O Association. X was 2.86 with a Gamma of .42. But the females shows 2 a much higher correlation here, with X being 11.33 and Gamma .90. Additional analysis showed that of the males who are high on Associa tion, 90% were also high on Affection. Among the females, of those who are high on Association, 99% were also high on Affection. In summary, the relationship between Association and Consensus is about the same for males and females. The relationship between Association and Affection is significantly higher for the females than for the males. But the association between Consensus and Affec tion is higher for the males than for the females. By Generation: Association 204 Association Consensus (#'■£•') Affection Figure-4 (N = 98) Consensus 'X - 6'Hh (W >0.2^ Affection Figure-5 Association 98) v /C < 2 > Consensu Affection Figure- 6 G3 (N = 98) 205 (2) By Generation: Figures 4, 5, and 6 depict the profiles of the three generations. The correlations between Association and Consensus are quite high for both generations one and two, but quite low for generation three. were 15.10 for G^, 16.70 for G2 , but only 2.35 for G^. The respective Gammas are .75, .76, and .35. The correlations between Association and Affection show X^s of .58 for G^, 6 . 6 8 for G2 , and 6.00 for Gg. The respective Gammas were .38, .6 8 , and .84 respectively. The correlations between Consensus and Affection show X^s of .08 for G-p 6.44 for G2 , and 4.38 for G3 . The respective Gammas were .03, .65, and .80. In summary, the relationship between Association and Consensus is high and about the same for G^ and Gg, but quite low for G^; the relationship between Association and Affection is the strongest for Gg, moderate for G2 , but weak for G^; and the relationship between Consensus and Affection is again the strongest for Gg, moderate for G2 , and very weak for G^. (3) Religion: Figures 7 and 8 present the information for the Mohammedans and the Christians. The relationship between Association and Consensus shows X^s of 11.25 for the Mohammedans and 19.93 for the ; Christians with respective Gammas of .55 and .6 8 . The relationship between Association and Affection shows X^s Qf 3.75 for the Mohammedans and 12.18 for the Christians with respective Gammas of .77 and .69. The association between Consensus and Affection shows X^s Qf 1 .8 I for the Mohammedans and 3.95 for the Christians with respective Gammas of .56 and .46. In summary, the relationship of Association and Consensus is By Religion: 207 higher for the Christians than for the Mohammedans; the relationship of Association and Affect is slightly higher for the Mohammedans than for the Christians; and the relationship between Consensus and Affect is moderately higher for the Mohammedans than for the Christians. (4) Socio-Economic Status: Income Level: Figures 9, 10, and 1 1 depict the strength of the various paird relationships for the upper, middle, and lower income classes. X^s of 21.41 for the upper class, 6 '.' 85 for the middle, and 4.47 for the lower are shown for the relationship between Association and Consensus. The respective Gammas are .76, .48, and .63. The relationship between Association and Affection shows X^s of 3.35 for the upper, 5.75 for the middle, and . 8 8 for the lower. The relationship between Consensus and Affect shows X^s of 1.69, 1.44, and 1.02 for the three respective classes. In summary, the s trongest relationship between Association and Consensus is revealed in the upper class; the strongest relationship between Association and Affect is shown for the middle class; and all three classes have very weak association between Consensus and Affect. Summary Since Gamma is a PRE measure (proportional reduction of error), Figures 1 through 11 can be seen as showing the relative importance of the various paired relationships by total sample, sex, generation, religion, and SES. The most important relationship for the male seems to be Association-Consensus (.62); for the female, Association- Affection (.90). For G^, it is Association-Consensus (.75). This is also true for G2 (.76). But for Gg, it is Association-Affection (.84). By religion, the most important relationship for the Mohammedan is 208 By SES; Association i $ — y~. id__ ^ Consensus 'X1 = ^ • 5>~J Affection Figure-9 Association Upper (N = 24) % A " 7 1 " . \ V J \ '0 / ^ crA V * \ \ / -* h / - a\ n / ^ " V o A ) • Vf* ii * Consensus / X.Z= /•'^ Affection Figure-10 Middle (N = 79) Association Consensus 1.02. Affection Figure-11 Lower (N = 92) 209 Association-Affection (.77); for the Christian it is also Association- Affection (.69). For the upper class, it is Association-Consensus (.76); for the middle class, it is Association-Affection (.64); and for the lower class, it is Association-Affection. For the total population, it is a near-tie between Association- Consensus and Association-Affection with Gamma being .63 and .64 O respectively. However, judging by X , Association-Consensus is a stronger relationship. And in none of the specifications was the relationships between Consensus-Affection the strongest or the most important. In general, then, Homans' theory of human interaction is supported by the data of this study. It must be realized that this is only cross-sectional data. But it does show moderate to high association between Association, Consensus, and Affect— close concepts to Homans-' Activity, Interaction, Similarity, and Liking. Chapter Summary This chapter has two parts one dealing with the main postulate of the study, namely, the positive relationship between family soli darity and mental health, and the other dealing with Homans' inter action theory. The data reveal that eighty percent of those high on family solidarity are also high on psychological well-being. There fore, Family Vertical Solidarity has been found to be related to all five measures of psychological well-being. i Specifying by the four major background variables of the study, it was found that (a) males, (b) members of Gg, and (c) Christians seem to have higher correlations between mental health and family soli 210 darity. No distinct pattern was found for SES. The data would suggest that the highest association of Family Vertical Solidarity and Psycho logical Well-being would be found among a group of Lebanese who were young, male Christians. In testing Homans' interaction theory that Association, Consensus, and Affect are positively related, the data show that almost 70% of those scoring high on Association score high also on Consensus; almost 80% of those scoring low on Association score low also on Affect; and about 74% of those scoring low on Consensus score low on Affect, too. Specifying by sex, generational membership, religion, and SES there were certain variations, but in general the paired relationships showed marked association. A longitudinal study would show if it is true, as the theory predicts, that the more the association, the more the consensus, and the more the affect, and vice versa. But in this cross-sectional study, the data established the general association of the paired variables. Chapter 7 SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS This research set out to investigate the general relationship between family intergenerational solidarity and psychological well being. Intergeneration, or vertical, family solidarity was chosen over horizontal solidarity because, first, there is an abundance of research in family horizontal relationships (e.g. husband-wife), and relatively little research in family vertical relations (e.g. parent- child), and secondly, because of the importance of intergenerational ties in a society where kinship is very "functional." Lebanon was chosen for the arena of the research because the "functionally extended family" in Lebanon still plays a central role as it interpenetrates all other institutions in Lebanese society. Therefore, if family vertical solidarity is related to psychological well-being, as the theory predicts, then the relationship should be highlighted within this social system. Forty-nine, six-member, three-generational families were chosen in a purposive sampling technique to insure approximately equal sex, religious, generational, and social class representation. The total 211 212 sample was 294. Interview schedules were used with the aid of trained interviewers to gather the data. In this closing chapter, a summary of the major findings will be presented with its implications for the theory, the measuring instruments, and future research. Theory A structural-functional orientation underlies the theoretical framework of this research. The family is seen as a human group centered around the institutions of marriage and parenthood whose function it is to serve as a buffer between the individual and the extra-familial stresses and strains that impinge on him. Consequently, the major postulate of the study posits a direct and positive relation ship between family solidarity and mental health. But there are several conditions that need to be specified in examining the general relationship: (1) What is the relationship between demographic or respondent's background factors (such as sex, religion, generational membership, and social class) and the perception of family solidarity? (2) What is the relationship of background factors to indices of mental health? (3) How do background factors influence the relationship between perception of family solidarity and the state of mental well-being? Since the four basic specifying background variables are: sex, religion, generation, and social class, the basic hypotheses of the study will revolve around these variables. Concerning sex, it is hypothesized that in Lebanon females will manifest higher perceived family solidarity than males because they are more family oriented and tend to associate more with other members of the family. However, ; 213 due to other factors that Influence the female's psychological well being, such as her frustrations in a society that is still a man's patriarchal world, it is hypothesized that females will have lower scores in their measures of psychological well-being than males. Consequently, the correlation between solidarity and psychological well-being for males should be higher than the correlation for females. Regarding generational membership, it is hypothesized that perceived family solidarity will be highest for the old generation because presumably the family is the most important remaining institu tion for the elderly who have lost many of the achieved roles of life. In a patriarchal society where the elderly are greatly respected, they should also score highest on measures of psychological well-being. Consequently, it is hypothesized that the correlation between solidari ty and psychological well-being for the old generation will be higher than that for both the middle generation and the young generation. Because of considerably higher divorce rate and ensuing family disruptions among Mohammedans, it is hypothesized that Christians will have higher solidarity scores than Mohammedans. Since the major postulate of the study positively links perception of family solidarity to psychological well-being, Christians should show higher scores of psychological well-being than Mohammedans. It follows that the correlation between solidarity and psychological well-being for Chris tians should be higher than that for Mohammedans. Concerning socio-economic status, it is observed in Lebanon that the upper classes have very tightly-knit families similar to the lower classes. Therefore, it is hypothesized that there will be no clear 214 differences between the three SES classes in their perception of family solidarity. This lack of difference should also be manifest in measures of psychological well-being. Consequently, there should be no difference in the correlations between perceived family solidari ty and psychological well-being for one class or for another. The secondary postulate of the research deals with Homans' interaction theory. He posits a direct relationship between Associa tion, Consensus, and Affect. To what extent is this relationship upheld within the context of the family in Lebanon where the function of the family is so significant as it interpenetrates other institu tional spheres? It is hypothesized in this study that there will be a positive and direct relationship between Association, Consensus, and Affect. Variables Operationalized Three dimensions were used to measure family solidarity. These were Association solidarity (doing things together), Consensual solidarity (agreement on various issues), and Affectual solidarity (dealing with inter-member feelings within the family). Data collected covered 105 items representing the three areas of solidarity. However, a 1 2 -item global scale was devised also as a summary measure of the long 105-item form. Since the correlation of the long form and the short global form was quite high (r^ = .87), the global form was used i to simplify the analysis. The validity and reliability of the scales are being examined in an on-going project by the author. To operationalize the concept mental health, Bradburn's definition of mental health as "psychological well-being" was adopted. His 215 measures of Affect Balance Scale, Positive Affect, Negative Affect, Worry Extensity, and Avowed Happiness were adapted to measure the psychological well-being of the respondents in this study. Demographic Description Of the 49 complete six-member, three-generational families (294 subject) that provided data for this research, there were 153 males and 141 females. There were 98 subjects to each of the three generations. The sample was composed of 146 Christians, 143 Moham medans, and 5 undeclared. Using the indices of an official Lebanese Commission on Economics (IRFED), this sample was composed of 47% in the lower-income cate gories, 41% in the middle-income categories, and 12% in the upper- income groups. Educationally, 158 had only elementary school education 58 had secondary school education, and 26 college or university educa tion. At the time of the interviewing, 127 were unemployed (65 in G^; 25 in G2 ; and 37 in G3 ). 44 had part-time employment (11 in G-^; 10 in G2 ; and 23 in G3 ). And 78 were fully employed (10 in G^; 46 in G2 ; and 22 in G3 ). The mean age of the 98 young respondents was 19.3 years. Fifty of them were 1 0 0 % financially dependent on their parents, and only 16 were 100% independent. The rest were partially dependent. Of the 58 total respondents that reported secondary education, 45 were mem bers of G3 (27 males, 18 females); and of the 26 total respondents j that reported college or university education, 14 were members of G^, and 9 members of G2 * Per-cep tion of Family Solidarity A preliminary question of the research involved how family members perceived family solidarity. The data show that members of the same generation tend to be viewed as a unit by members of another generation so that a member of the third generation tended to perceive an equal amount of solidarity between his grandfather and his grand mother. It was also found that the same-sex intergenerational members of the family are viewed together as a unit, so that a member of the middle generation tended to view his solidarity with his mother as somewhat similar to his solidarity with his daughter. This informa tion may prove useful for future research in that fewer family members may need to be contacted to get the same picture of perceived family solidarity. There was a difference in the capacity of the solidarity sub- types (Affectual, Consensual, and Associational) to predict a person's perception of family solidarity. For example, the highest correla tions were between Associational and Consensual solidarity. Psychological Well-being Following are some of the most important findings suggested by the data from the five scales used to measure psychological well-being In all three generations, males had higher Affect Balance scores than females. In a higher-to-lower rankorder of the 6 -member families they ran as follows: son, father, mother, grandfather, daughter, and grandmother. The young generation had higher mean scores than the middle gene ration, which in turn had higher scores than the old generation. And 217 on all five items of the scale, the males scored higher than the females. The females were higher than the males in mean scores, with the young generation scoring higher than the middle which scored higher than the old. The old generation had highest scores on feeling lonely and the second generation highest on feeling depressed with the third generation highest on feeling restless. In terms of the Worry Extensity scale, the middle generation appeared to be worried most about debts and work. Regarding sexual worries, the young generation led the ground followed by the second and first generations. This order was exactly reversed for the areas of worries about health and worries about growing old. Females in all generations seem to be worrying more than males regarding some other family member, regarding sex, regarding health, and also regarding growing old. Males showed higher scores in general on the Avowed Happiness scale. Compared with five years ago, the old generation was happier then. Regarding whether they would keep life as it is, change it in some aspects, or change it in most aspects, the old generation would keep the status quo, the middle generation would change life in some of its aspects, but the young generation would change it in most of its aspects. On marital happiness, the middle generation scored higher on being very happily married than the old generation. The females were higher in marital unhappiness for both the old and the middle genera tions. But both the old and the middle generation scored about the 218 same In their satisfaction and happiness regarding the performance of their parental roles. In sum, the young generation had the highest mean scores on Positive Affect, the middle scores on Avowed Happiness, and the lowest scores on Worry Extensity. The middle generation had the highest scores on Worry Extensity, the middle scores on Positive Affect and on Negative Affect, and the lowest scores on Avowed Happiness. The old generation had the highest scores on Avowed Happiness, the middle, scores on Worry Extensity, and the lowest scores on Positive Affect. The males had the highest scores on Affect Balance, Positive Affect, and Worry Extensity; while the females had the highest scores on Negative Affect and the lowest scores on Affect Balance. The following sections will present the results of the analysis concerning the relationships of background variables to both solidarity and mental health. Background Factors and Solidarity There are nine hypotheses predicting relationships between back ground variables and perception of family solidarity. In this section these hypotheses will be stated and empirical findings will be presented regarding each. Hypothesis 1: If male, then lower solidarity than female. The hypothesis was supported. 81% of the females and 71% of the males perceived high family solidarity. Hypothesis 2: If G-p then higher solidarity than Gp and/or Gq. The hypothesis was not supported. 80% of G2 , the middle generation, 77% of the old generation, Gp and 70% of the young generation, G3 , 219 perceived high family solidarity. Hypothesis 3: If Christian, then higher solidarity than Moham medan. There is slight indication that this hypothesis may be support ed. 79% of Christians and 73% of Mohammedans perceived high solidari ty. Hypothesis 4: There is no relationship between SES and solidari ty. The hypothesis is supported. 76% of the upper income class, 76% of the middle income class, and 77% of the lower income class perceiv ed high solidarity. Hypothesis 5: If Christian and in G-p Gq, and/or G^, then higher solidarity than Mohammedan in G^, Go, and/or Gg. This hypothesis is partially supported, in that and G2 show the predicted pattern. But in G^, young Mohammedans scored higher than young Christians. Mohammedan mean solidarity scores were: G^, 8.40; G2 8.92; and G^, 8.44. The respective mean scores for Christians were: 8.95, 9.15, and 8.13 Hypothesis 6 : If mother, grandmother, or daughter, then higher solidarity than father, grandfather, or son. The hypothesis is supported. Mean solidarity scores were: daughter, 8.4; mother, 9.2; grandmother, 8.9; son, 8.2; father, 8.9; and grandfather, 8.5. Hypothesis 7: If old, male or female, then higher solidarity than young, male or female. The hypothesis is supported. (See Table 29 for the breakdown of means.) Hypothesis 8 : There is no relationship between generation and SES combined and solidarity. In general this hypothesis is supported. ; (See Table 30 for the breakdown of means.) 220 Hypothesis 9: If college and/or university educated, then lower solidarity than if lower educated. The hypothesis is partially supported. The data show that those highest and those lowest on the educational scale perceive lower family solidarity than those in the middle. Background Factors and Mental Health There are nine hypotheses predicting relationships between background variables and measures of psychological well-being. In this section both hypotheses and findings will be catalogued. Hypothesis 10: If male then higher psychological well-being (PWB) than female. The hypothesis is supported. The data show that 70% of the males and 60% of the females are high on mental health. Hypothesis 11: If G^, then higher PWB than Go and/or Gg. This hypothesis is not supported. 74% of Gg, the young, 62% of Gg, the old, and 59% of G2 , the middle generation, scored high on mental health. Therefore, Gg is the highest and not Gg. Hypothesis 12: If Christian, then higher PWB than Mohammedan. The data are inconclusive. 66% of Mohammedans and 62% of Christians scored high on mental health. Hypothesis 13: There is no relationship between SES and PWB. This hypothesis is supported. (See Table 36 for a percentage break down by SES.) Hypothesis 14: If Christian and in Gg, Go, or G2 then higher PWB than Mohammedan in Gg, G2 , or G^. This hypothesis is only partial ly supported. The mean Affect Balance scores were as follows: Moham medan Gg, 4.4; 4.9; and Gg, 5.2. Christian Gg, 4.7; G2 5.0; and 221 G^, 5.0. The one-third that is not supported is in Gg where the Mohammedans scored higher than the Christians. Hypothesis 15: If daughter, mother, or grandmother, then lower PWB than son, father, or grandfather. The hypothesis is supported. The data show that the mean Affect Balance scores are as follows: daughter, 4.7; mother, 4.8; grandmother, 4.5; son, 5.6; father, 5.1; and grandfather, 4.7. Hypothesis 16: If old, male or female, then higher PWB than young, male or female. This hypothesis is not supported. The opposite is found to be true. It is not age, but sex that is a better predictor of psychological well-being (see Table 39). Hypothesis 17: There is no relationship between generation-SES and psychological well-being. The hypothesis is not supported. The data (see Table 40) reveal a general tendency for lower-level income groups to score higher on both Affect Balance and Avowed Happiness, while higher-income category scores highest in both Positive and Negative Affect. If Affect Balance is used as the indicator of mental health, the hypothesis will have to be modified to read: If lower- income category, then higher PWB. Hypothesis 18: If college or university educated, then lower PWB than if lower educated. The hypothesis is supported. (See Table 41 for mean scores of different educational levels.) An incidental question of the research is, Which variables are better predictors of psychological well-being, background or solidarity types? The prediction was that the components or types of solidarity would be better predictors than any of the background variables 222 because of the central proposition of the theory that family solidarity is positively correlated with mental health. The prediction was supported. In all three generations, the solidarity variables were found to be better predictors than the background variables. By generations, for the old generation, it was Consensual solidarity, for the middle generation, it was Affectual solidarity; and for the young generation, it was Consensual solidarity again. The statistical tool used to come to this conclusion was multiple regression analysis (see Tables 33, 34, 35, and 43.) Solidarity and Mental Health The central postulate of the research is that: The greater the perception of family vertical solidarity, the greater the mental health or psychological well-being. The postulate received weak but consistent support. It was found that eighty percent of those high on family solidarity were also high on psychological well-being. Even though the magnitude of the correlation coefficients were not very high, yet every sign of the twenty correlations was in the expected direction. Therefore, Family Vertical Solidarity was related to all five measures of psychological well-being. There are four hypotheses regarding the effect of background variables on the relationship of family solidarity and mental health. These will be presented with the appropriate findings regarding each. Hypothesis 19: The correlation between solidarity and psycholo gical well-being for males will be higher than the correlation for females. The data support this hypothesis. Of the twenty correlations possible between family solidarity and psychological well-being the 223 males are higher than females on thirteen (See Table 46). Hypothesis 20: The correlation between solidarity and PWB for will be higher than the correlation for Gg and Gg. The data do not support this hypothesis. Gg emerges as showing the highest corre lations of the three generations. In multiple regression analysis, the correlation coefficients for Gg are consistantly and substantially higher than those for either G-^ or Gg. Hypothesis 21: The correlation between solidarity and mental health for Christians will be higher than the correlation between solidarity and mental health for Mohammedans. This hypothesis is supported. (See Table 49 for the data.) The correlation coefficients between Affect Balance and solidarity were as follows: Affectual .06 for Mohammedans, .27 for Christians; Consensual .13 for Mohammed ans, .21 for Christians; Associational .05 for Mohammedans, .11 for Christians; and Total Global Solidarity .11 for Mohammedans, .27 for Christians. Hypothesis 22: There will be no difference in the correlation between solidarity and psychological well-being for one class than for another. This hypothesis is supported (see Table 50). The data would suggest that the highest association of Family Vertical Solidarity and Psychological Well-being would be found among a group of Lebanese who were young, male Christians. It is important to note, in concluding this section, that though the magnitude of the correlations and differences may not have been great, yet the consis tent direction seems to be important and meaningful. In fact, these findings clearly point to the importance of further research. 224 Homans' Interaction Theory In Chapter 1, Homans’ theory linking activity, interaction, senti ment, and norms was presented. In the theoretical formulation of Family Vertical Solidarity, this study has recognized the basic three dimensions of Association (interaction-activity), Affection (sentiment) and Consensus (similarity). The secondary postulate of the research states that: Association, Consensus, and Affect will be positively related. Thus, in general, those who perceive high association should also perceive high consensus and high affect, and vice versa. The data supports the secondary postulate of this research. 70% of those scoring high on Association score high also on Consensus. 80% of those scoring low on Association score low also on Affect. And 74% of those scoring low on Consensus score low on Affect also. Specifying by sex, generational membership, religion, and SES, there were certain variations, but in general the paired relationships showed marked association. A longitudinal study would show if it is true, as the theory predicts, that the more the association, the more the consensus, and the more the affect, and vice versa. But in this cross-sectional data, general association of the paired variables was established, and the theory seems to be substantiated. Implications The implications of this research are manifold. They will be presented under three headings: (1) Measuring Instruments, (2) Theory, and (3) Future Research. (1) Measuring Instruments: Two sets of measuring instruments were used in this study. The first set, to measure family solidarity, 225 was constructed specifically for this study. The second set, to mea sure mental health was adopted from Bradburn with very little modifi cations . (a) Family Solidarity Measures: There were four scales that attempted to measure family solidarity: the Associational, the Con sensual, the Affectual, and the Global— which was a type of summary measure. There were 24 Associational items, 53 Consensual items, and 28 Affectual items— a total of 105 items. The Global measure had only 12 items. In the pilot project that tested the scales on 40 junior college students, the correlation (r) between the long form (105 items) and the short form (12 items) was .87. This means that in the pilot data, the global form explained 76% of the variance of the long form, and vice versa. No similar correlation was attempted for the entire Lebanese data between the long and the global forms. Only one sub-scale was tested as to its correlation with the short form, namely, the Affectual. The correlational coefficient was .70. It is apparent that for future research, the long form of 105 items should be abridged because a shorter form seems to accomplish the same purpose. Consequently, careful study should be made of the correlations between the long form and the short global form. It may turn out that the 12-item global form is not adequate, and that more items should be added to make it sufficient. Such analysis, including factor analysis, is being carried out currently by the author. The question of validity is an important one in developing and 226 and using measuring instruments. For this study, face validity was accepted as sufficient in an exploratory research. However, the validity of the family solidarity scales must be established. There are at least two methods that can be used to do that. An already validated scale that was developed for some other study and which in some way tests solidarity of small groups could be correlated with the family solidarity scale. Another way of validating the scale would be to administer it to two groups of families that are empirically, possibly through the use of judges, known to be cohesive and non-cohesive. The more the scales differentiate between the two types of families, the more validity can be assigned to the scales. Another question of scaling is reliability. The method of test- retest is an accepted method of establishing reliability. A period of from two to six weeks should elapse between the two administrations of the scale items to the subjects. One last thing needs to be said about the measuring instruments of family solidarity. The data show fairly good ditributions for both the Associational and the Consensual solidarity items. But the Affectual items were rather skewed in favor of high affect. This may be a function of social desirability, in which case care should be exercised in reconstructing the scale items in such a way as to mini mize, as much as possible, the social desirability factor. In sum, however, much confidence can be placed in the utility of the family solidarity scales as they have already proven to be able to discriminate between perceived high and low solidarity. 227 (b) Psychological Well-being: Five Bradburn scales were used to measure the mental health of the respondents: The Affect Balance, the Positive Affect, the Negative Affect, the Worry Extensity, and the Avowed Happiness scales. The validity and reliability of these scales were taken for granted since they were used by Bradburn successfully and are said to correlate with some other measure he had developed and seem to correlate also with other scales developed by other inves tigators. However, further work needs to be done on these scales. The same methods of establishing validity and reliability that were suggested for the family solidarity scales could also be used for the psycholo gical well-being scales until more validity and reliability can be said of them. (2) Theory: The theory that there is a positive relationship between family solidarity and mental health has received support in this study. The theory that Association, Consensus, and Affect are positively related has also received support from the data. Of the nine hypotheses concerning the relationship between back ground factors and family solidarity one was clearly not supported, two were partially supported, and six were supported. Why was the hypo thesis regarding the old generation's perception of family solidarity not supported? Apparently, while the old generation has high percep tion of family solidarity, yet the middle generation, probably because of its deeper involvment with its seniors and its juniors, perceives the highest family solidarity of all three generations. The G2 's may be also idealizing, while the G^'s are seeing things more 228 realistically. The data showed the most and the least educated people to have the lowest perception of family solidarity. The hypothesis of this study predicted only the highest educated people to have low perceived family solidarity. It looks as though those who are low on education may not have the consensus or even the association dimensions that were used to tap family solidarity. It is also possible that these measures were not adequate for the low-educated respondents. Another important implication is evident here. In this research it was perceived family solidarity that was measured. It may be that in future research, actual behavioral indicators of family solidarity should be observed to test the relationship between the observed and the perceived. Only four of the nine hypotheses linking background variables and mental health are supported. Three were not supported, and the remaining two x^ere partially supported. The third generation was again found to score the highest on psychological well-being instead of the old generation as hypothesized. It may be that even though the old generation is respected and kept in the main stream of life in this patriarchal society, yet through "disengagement" mental well-being suffers. The young people are the most active and enthusiastic generation, and this may explain why they have scored the highest in psychological xjell-being. The hypothesis that Christians xrould have higher scores of psychological well-being than Mohammedans must remain inconclusive pending more refined measures of psychological well-being. It Is also 229 possible that other factors mediate to make the two religious groups equal in their psychological well-being, even though the Christians made a better showing in perceived solidarity. It will be important in future research to give added attention to the genera tLonal member ship of religious groups. This study showed that the third generation Mohammedans scored higher than their Christian counterparts while their elders in both ascending generations showed lower scores than their Christian counterparts. This finding underlines the importance of both religion and generational membership as variables for speci fication. It was found also that, contrary to prediction, it is not age but sex that is a better predictor of psychological well-being. In all age groups, it was the female that had lower psychological well being than the male. The sex variable looms high in importance when dealing with psychological well-being. Socio-economic status was hypothesized to have no relationship to psychological well-being. This was a mistaken prediction according to the data. The lower-income classes showed higher Affect Balance than the other classes. This relationship needs to be tested again on a larger sample to find out if it is true that the relationship holds. Of the four hypotheses linking family solidarity and mental health; by specifying on background variables, three were supported and one was not. The prediction was that the correlation between family solidarity and psychological well-being would be the highest for the old generation. In fact, the data show the correlation to be the 230 highest for the young generation. Apparently, psychological well being for the old generation and for the middle generation is more affected by factors other than family solidarity. What are those factors? and why is the family that important for the young adult? Since the young adults were found to be the most dependent financially on other members of their family, financial dependence may be an important explanatory variable in future research. And since the old generation reported highest worry scores about health and growing old, these variables may be more important in shaping their psycholo gical well-being than family solidarity per se. Undoubtedly, there are many other factors involved in psycholo gical well-being than family solidarity. Financial security must be an important variable. Health is another. One's feeling of self- worth is a third. These and other variables could be included in future research to assess their influence on psychological well-being. But this study has shown that family solidarity is another variable to be considered when dealing with mental health. The family may form a buffer for the individual against the on slaughts of outside pressures in life. On the other hand, the family itself is an important source of pressure for the individual. There fore, in families where there is solidarity, the family pressures are somewhat lifted, and the individual is freed to better battle the stresses and strains from social.systems other than the family. Another important implication of the research is the fact that in the analysis, the individual's perception of family solidarity was used. No attempt was made to check that perception with the percep- 231 of other members of the family. This higher level of analysis would take dyadic interaction and analyze the differences between the perception of various dyads in the same family. A third approach would consider the joint perception of all family members, so that the unit of analysis is neither the individual nor the dyad but the entire family. Finally, the implications of the findings regarding Homans' inter action theory: The data of this study supported the theory. But the data is cross-sectional. What is needed is a longitudinal research to show the increments that may accrue over time and test whether it is true that the greater the association, the greater the consensus, the greater the affect, and vice versa, between family members. (3) Future Research: With the implications, limitations, modifi cations, and changes suggested in the preceeding pages, at least two phases of the future research are indicated. First, the same research should be replicated in Lebanon on a larger sample, probably a random sample, without the cumbersome 30-*page questionnaire that tapped so many other subjects of the present research. A short interview protocol should be administered to a similar, but larger sample, and hopefully more representative of Lebanon. Secondly, the revised and tested instruments should be used in a research in another cultural setting, such as the United States, in order to determine the variability of the association between family vertical solidarity and mental health, or psychological well-being. REFERENCES Ackerman, N. W. 1958 The Psychodynamics of Family Life. New York: Basic Books. Adams, B. N. 1964 "Structural factors affecting parental aid to married children." Journal of Marriage and the Family 64 (August) Adams, P.L., J. Schwab, and J. Apointi 1965 "Authoritarian parents and disturbed children." American Journal of Psychiatry 121 (June): 1162-1167. Adelson, J. 1970 "What generation gap?" The New York Times Magazine January 18. Albee, G. W. 1965 "A critical look at social work's approach to mental dis orders." Speech to Cleveland Area Chapter, National Association of Social Workers, October, 25. Aldous, J. and R. Hill 1965 "Social cohesion, lineage type, and intergenerational transmission." Social Forces 43 (May):471-482. Aldous, J. 1965 "The consequences of intergenerational continuity." Journal of Marriage and the Family 27 (November). Aldous, J. 1967a "Intergenerational visiting patterns: variation in boun dary maintenance as an explanation." Family Process 6 (2). Aldous, J. 1967b "A family over three generations: the transmission of interacting and relating patterns." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (November). Al-Jumhuriyyah Al-Lubnaniyyah 1965a Al-Khidma Al-Ijtima'iyya Al-Ahliyya fi Lubnan (Social Welfare in Lebanon). Beirut: Government Press. Al-Jumhuriyyah Al-Lubnaniyyah 1965b At-Ta-lim fi Lubnan (Education in Lebanon). Beirut: Government Press. 232 233 Antemius, G. 1938 The Arab Awakening. London: Hamilton. Ayoub, V. 1955 Political Structure of a Middle Eastern Community. Un published Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University. Ayoub, V. 1965 "Conflict resolution and social reorganization in a Lebanese village." Human Organization 24 (Spring). Babchuk, N. C., and H. Ballweg 1967 "Change in religious affiliation and family stability." Social Forces 46 (4):511-555. Back, K. W. 1951 "Influence through social communication." The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46:(9). Bengtson, V. L. 1970 "The generation gap." Youth and Society 2 (1). Bengtson, V. L., and J. A. Kuypers 1970 "The drama of generational differences: perception, reality, and the developmental stake." Mimeograph paper presented at the American Psychological Association 78th Annucal Convention, Miami Beach, September 4. Bossard, J. H., and E. S. Boll 1963 "Ritual in family living." In Sussman (ed.), Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Bossard, J. H. S., and E. Boll 1950 Ritual in Family Living. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Bradburn, N. 1965 Reports on Happiness. Chicago: Aldine. Bradburn, N. 1969 The Structure of Psychological Well-Being. Chicago: Aldine Broom, L, and P. Selznick 1963 Sociology. New York: Harper and Row. Brown, R. ; 1965 Social Psychology. New York: The Free Press. Browning, C. J. 1960 "Differential impact of family disorganization on male adolescents." Social Problems 8:37-44. 234 Buric, 0., and A. Zecovio 1967 "Family authority, marital satisfaction, and the social network in Yuguslavia. 11 Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (2): 325-336. Cartwright, D., and A. Zander (eds.) 1960 Group Dynamics: Research and Theory. New York: Harper and Row. Churchill, C. W. 1954 The City of Beirut: A Socio-Economic Survey. Beirut: Dar El-Kitab. Cleland, C. B. 1955 "Familism in rural Saskatchewan." Rural Sociology 20:252. Clements, W. H. 1967 "Marital interaction and marital instability." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (4):697-702. Crouse, B., M. Karlins, and H. Schroder 1968 "Conceptual complexity and marital happiness." Journal of Marriage and the Family 30 (4):643-646. Dean, D. G. 1966 "Emotional maturity and marital adjustment." Journal of Marriage and the Family 28 (4):454-457. Deutsch, M., and R. M. Krauss 1965 Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books. Durkheim, E. 1951 Suicide. Glencoe: The Free Press. Elder, G. H. 1965 "Family structure and educational attainment: a cross national analysis." American Sociological Review 30 (Feb):81. Farsoun, S. K. 1970 "Family structure and society in modern Lebanon." In L. E. Sweet's Peoples and Cultures of the Middle East. New York: The Natural . History Press. Festinger, Leon 1967 "Informal social communication." In Hollander and Hunt's Current Perspective in Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. 235 Fiedler, F. E., and W. Meuwese 1965 "Leader's contribution to task performance in cohesive and uncohesive groups." In Steiner and Fishbein's Current Studies in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Fisher, W. B. 1950 The Middle East. London: Methuen Flugel, J. C. 1921 The Psychoanalytic Study of the Family. London: Hogarth. Freedman , J. L., J. Carlsmith, and D. Sears 1970 Social Psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Freud, S. 1953 On Narcissism: an introduction. In Collected Papers. London: Hogarth. Fromm, E. 1941 Escape from Freedom. New York: Farrar and Rinehart. Geismar, L., and U. Gerhart 1968 "Social class, ethnicity, and family functioning: exploring some issues raised by the Moynihan Report." Journal of Marriage and the Family 30 (4):480-487. Goodman, N., and R. Ofshe 1968 "Empathy, communication efficiency, and marital status." Journal of Marriage and the Family 30 (4):597. Gordon, Chad 1969 "Self-conceptions, Race, and Family Factors as Determinants of Adolescent Achievement Orientations." Unpublished monograph. Gross, N.,and W. E. Martin 1952 "On group cohesiveness." American Journal of Sociology 57: ! 546-564. Gross, L. (ed.) 1967 Sociological Theory: Inquiries and Paradigms. New York: Harper and Row. Gulick, J. 1953 "The Lebanese village: an introduction." American Antrho- : poligist 55:367-372. Gulick, J. 1965 "Old Values and New Institutions in a Lebanese Arab city." Human Organization 24 (Spring). 236 Hagen, E. 1957 "The process of economic development. 11 Economic Develop ment and Cultural Change 5 (April):198. Haley, J. 1967 "Speach sequences of normal and abnormal families with two children present." Family Process 6:81. Hamblin, R. 1958 "Group integration during a crisis." Human Relations 11: 67-76. Handel, Gerald, (ed.) 1967 The Psychosocial Interior of the Family. Chicago: Aldine. Harper, D. W., Jr., and J. Garza 1968 Ethnicity, Family Generational Structure, and Intergene rational Solidarity. Revised paper presented at the 21st annual meeting of the Gerontological Society, Denver, Colorado, October 21-November 2. Hitti, P. K. 1957 Lebanon in History. London: Macmillan. Homans, G. C. 1950 The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World. Hottinger, A. 1966 "Zu'ama in historical perspective." In Binder's Politics in Lebanon. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hoult, T. F. 1969 Dictionary of Modern Sociology. New Jersey: Littlefield, Adams, and Co. Jahoda, M. 1950 "Toward a social psychology of mental health." In Milton's (ed.) Problems of Infancy and Childhood. New York: Josiah Macy Foundation. Jansen, L. 1952 "Measuring family solidarity." American Sociological Review 17:727-733. Kandel, D. B., and G. B. Lesser 1969 "Parental and peer influences on educational plans of adolescents." American Sociological Review 34 (April): 213-222. Khaldun, I. 1958 The Muqaddimah, An Introduction to History. F. Rosenthal, Translator. New York: Pantheon Books. 237 Landecker, W. A. 1951 "Types of integration and their measurement.” American Journal of Sociology 56:332-340. Larson, W. 1967 Intra-family Relationships and Adolescent School Adjust ment. Unpublished monograph. University of Souther California. Lennard, H, and M. Beaulieu 1965 "Interaction in families with schizophrenic children." Archives of General Psychiatry 12:166. Levinger, G. 1965 "Marital cohesiveness and dissolution: an integrative review." Journal of Marriage and the Family 27 (Feb): 19-28. Lipset, S. 1963 Political Man. New York: Anchor Books. Litman, T. 1969 "Health care and the family: a three-generational analysis." American Sociological Review 28 (Feb):9-21. Luckey, E. 1966 "Number of years married as related to personality percep tion and marital satisfaction." Journal of Marriage and the Family 28.(Feb):44-48. Manis, J., M. Brawer, G. Hunt, and L. Kercher 1963 "Validating a mental health scale." American Sociological Review (Feb):108-116. Matthews, D., and M. Akrawi 1949 Education in Arab Countries of the Near East. Washington: American Council on Education. McMillan, E. 1969 "Problem build-up: a description of couples in marriage counseling." The Family Coordinator 18 (July):260-267. Merton, R. 1957 Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press. Meyer, R., and K. Leonard 1959 Middle Eastern Capitalism: Nine Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 238 Michel, A. 1967 "Comparative data concerning the interaction in French and American families." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (May):337-344. Miller, D., and R. Barnhouse 1967 "Married mental patients in crisis: a research report." American Journal of Psychiatry 124 (Sep):364-370. Mills, T. 1967 The Sociology of Small Groups. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall. Myerhoff, B., and W. Larson 1965 "Primary and formal aspects of family organization, group consensus, problem perception, and adolescent school success." Journal of Marriage and the Family 27 (May)213- 217. Navran, L. 1967 "Communication and adjustment in marriage." Family Process 6:172. Neugarten, B., and V. Bengtson 1968 "Cross-national studies of adulthood and aging." Inter disciplinary Topics in Gerontology. Basel/New York: Karger. Nye, F., and W. Rushing 1969 "Toward family measurement research." In Hadden and Borgatta's (eds.) Marriage and Family. Illinois: Peacock. Nader, Laura 1965 "Communication between village and city in the modern Middle East." Human Organization 24 (April). Nisbet, R. 1966 The Sociological Tradition. New York: Basic Books. Parsons, T. 1968 "The normal American family." In Sussman's Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Boston: Houghton Mifflin & Co. Patai, R. 1956 "General Character of the society." In Patai's (ed.) The Republic of Lebanon. New Haven: Human Relations Area Files. Person, W. 1958 "Lebanese Economic development since 1950." Middle East Journal (Simmer): 277-294. 239 Pickford, J., E. Signori, and H. Rempel 1966 "Similar or related personality traits as a factor in marital happiness." Journal of Marriage and the Family 28 (May):190-192. Rehberg, R., and D. Westley 1967 "Parental encouragement, occupation, education, and family size: artifactual or independent determinants of adolescent expectation." Social Forces 45 (March)362-374. Reusch, J. 1956 "Toward a unified theory of human behavior." In Grinker's (ed.) Theory of Human Behavior. New York: Basic Books. Rogers, E., and H. Sebald 1962 "A distinction between familism, family integration, and kinship orientation." Marriage and Family Living 24:27. Rosow, I. 1967 Social Integration of the Aged. New York: The Free Press. Rustow, D. 1960 "The politics of the Near East." In Almond and Coleman's (eds.) The Politics of the Developing Areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Sa'aty, G. 1955 Social Goals and Values Related to Education in Three Selected Lebanese Communities. Unpublished Master's Thesis. American University of Beirut. Salisbury, W. 1964 Religion in American Culture. Homewood: The Dorsey Press. Sayigh, Y. 1955 "Economic Development of Lebanon." Mimeograph paper at Johns-Hopkins University, Baltimore. Scott, W. 1965 Values and Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally. Schrecker, P. 1959 "Family, conveyance of tradition." In Anshen's (ed.) The 1 Family: Its Function and Destiny. New York: Harper and Row. Sewell, W., and V. Shah 1968 "Social class, parental encouragement, and educational aspirations." American Journal of Sociology 73 (March): 559-572. 1 240 Sharpe, D., and C. Broderick 1967 "Level of sexual experience and predicted adjustment in marriage." Journal of Marriage and the Family 29 (August): 424-427. Shepherd, C. 1964 Small Groups. San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co. Sherman, S. 1967 "Intergenerational discontinuity and therapy of the family." Social Casework 48:216-221. Simos, B. 1970 "Relations of adults with aging parents." The Gerontologist 10 (Summer). Smelser, N. (ed.) 1967 Sociology. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Smith, M. 1969 Social Psychology and Human Values. Chicago: Aldine. Streib, G. 1965 "Intergenerational relations: perspective of the two generations on the older parent." Journal of Marriage and the Family (Nov). Streib, G., and E. Shanas 1965 Social Structure and the Family: Generational Relations. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Strauss, M. 1968 "Communication, creativity, and problem-solving ability of middle- and working-class families in three societies." American Journal of Sociology 73 (January):417-430. Sussman, M. 1968 "Relationships of adult children with their parents in the United States." In Sussman's (ed.) Sourcebook in Marriage and the Family. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Sweet, L. (ed.) 1970 Peoples and Cultures of the Middle East. New York: The Natural History Press. Tannous, A. 1942 "Group behavior in the village community of Lebanon." American Journal of Sociology 48:231-239. 241 Thibaut, J., and H. Kelley 1967 The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Thomas, M. 1968 "Children with absent fathers." Journal of Marriage and the Family 30 (Feb):89-96. Toby, Jackson 1957 "The differential impact of family disorganization." American Sociological Review 22:505-512. Touma, T. 1958 Un Village de Montagne Au Liban: Hadeth el Jabbe. Paris: Mouton. Turner, R., and L. Killian 1957 Collective Behavior. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Weulersse, J. 1946 Paysans de Syrie et du Proche-Orient. Paris: Gallimard. Whitehurst, R. 1968 "Premarital reference group orientations and marriage adjustment." Journal of Marriage and the Family 30 (August) 397-401. Wilkening, E. 1954 "Change in farm technology as related to families." American Sociological Review 19:30. Williams, H., and J. Williams 1965 "The extended family as a vehicle of culture change." Human Organization 24 (Spring). Yakun, Z. 1965 AzZawaj (Marriage). Beirut and Saida, Lebanon: Al-Maktaba j Al-'Asriyah. APPENDICES Appendix 1 General Information (All Generations) First, some questions about yourself: 1. Your age:________ Date of Birth: Month_____ Date____Year_____ 2. Sex: Male________ Female_______ 3. Marital Status: Married__________ Engaged__________ Widowed__________ Divorced^________ Single___ 4. If you have children, what are their ages? Sons: ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Daughters:____________ ___ ___ ___ 5. Religion: Muslim_______ Druz______ Maronite_____ Orthodox_________ Other________________ 6. How important is religion to you? Very important Important Slightly__important___ Not important at all____ 7. How often do you attend church or mosque? At least once a week On Holidays______ At least once a month 242 243 Never_____ 8. What is the highest grade in school you have completed? Grade School ______Junior High High School ______College and/or University 9. Are you now enrolled in school or planning to go to school this fall? No, not in school ______Yes, High School Yes, technical or business school 10. If you plan to enroll in the future what is the degree you seek? 11. Are your natural parents living? Both living_________ Mother only living_______ Father only living_______________ Both deceased____________ 12. If both your natural parents are living, have they gotten a divorce? Yes___________ No_____________ 13. If one of your parents is deceased or they are no longer married to each other, is your mother, widowed__; remarried____; divorced___; deceased_ is your father, widowed__; remarried____; divorced___; deceased_ 14. What are the ages of your brother and sisters? Brothers' ages: ____; _____; ____ ; _____; ; ; _____. Sisters' ages: ; ___; ____; _____; ; ; _____. 15. Do you live with your • parents? Yes ; No . 16. If you don't live with your parents, how far do you live from them? (Circle the nearest number): 5 klm. ; 15 Kim. ; 50 klm. ; 100 klm. ; 100+klm.____ 244 17. In what kind of place do you live? One-family house ; apartment house_; residence hotel_____; Men's dorm or fraternity ; Women's dorm or sorority_____ . 18. If you do not live with your parents, do you live with some relative such as an aunt, brother, or grandparent? Yes___________ No_________ 19. Are you currently employed? _Not employed at all Employed part-time _Not employed, but looking ____________ Employed full-time for a job 20. If you are currently employed, what kind of work do you do? (Be as specific as possible without referring to the name of the firm) 21. Is this the kind of work you expect mostly to do the whole time you work in the future? Yes______ ; No, I expect to_________________________________ 22. If you are not currently employed, what kind of work do you plan to do as a career? 23. To what extent are you financially dependent on your iparents? 100% dependent _______Principally dependent, but some income of my own _______50% dependent (approximately) _______Principally independent, but some help from parents _______100% financially independent of parents 245 24. If you (and/or your spouse, if you are married) have any income apart from your parents, approximately how much does it amount to in a year? (Circle the nearest number): LL. 300 LL. 600 LL. 1000 LL. 2000 LL. 4000 LL. 6000 LL. 8000 LL. 12000 LL. 15000 25. What is your parents' approximate annual income? (Circle the nearest number). If you do not know, guess as best you can: LL. 1,000 LL. 2,000 LL. 4,000 LL. 6,000 LL. 8,000 LL. 10,000 LL. 12,000 LL. 15,000 LL. 18,000 LL. 20,000 Appendix 2 Psychological Well-being — Worry Extensity— (All Generations) People have their ups and down. We would like you please to place an X under "yes" or "no" for each of the following items: Yes During the past few weeks, have you worried about: 1. Not having enough money? 2. About financial debts? 3. How things are going at work (at your spouse's work? 4. Getting along with your (spouse or girl friend or boy friend)? 5. Moving ahead in this world? 6. Some member of your family? 7. Sexual problems? 8. People you have trouble with? 9. Your health? 10. Things that happen in your neighborhood? 11. The world situation? 12. Growing old? 247 Appendix 3 Psychological Well-being — Positive and Negative Affect— Components of Affect Balance (All Generations) Yes No During the Past month did you ever feel: 1. Particularly excited or interested in something? ____ __ 2. Did you ever feel so restless that you couldn't sit long in a chair? ___ __ 3. Proud because someone complimented you on some thing you had done? ___ __ 4. Very lonely or remote from other people? ___ __ 5. Pleased about having accomplished something? ___ __ 6. Bored? ___ __ 7. On top of the world? ___ __ 8. Depressed or very unhappy? ___ __ 9. That things were going your way? ___ __ 10. Upset because someone criticized you? ___ __ Note; Odd numbers are Positive Scale items; even numbers are Negative Scale items. 248 Appendix 4 Psychological Well-being — Avowed Happiness— (All Generations) Please place an X alongside the appropriate answer: 1. Taken all together, how would you say things are these days— would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy? Very happy___________ Pretty happy_________ Not too happy________ 2. Compared with your life today, how were things four or five years ago? Were things happier for you then or not quite as happy as now? Happiter then________________ Not as happy then____________ About the same ______ 3. Think of how your life is going now. Do you want it to continue in much the same way as it's going now; do you wish you could change some parts of it; or do you wish you could change many parts of it? Continue much the same way_______ Change some parts________________ Change many parts________________ 4. When you think of the things you want from life, would you say that you're doing pretty well, or you're not doing too well now in getting the things you want? Doing pretty well now___________ Not doing too well now_ (Continued) 249 Appendix 4 (Continued) (Answer only if you are presently married) 5. Taking all things together, how would you describe your marriage? Would you say that your marriage was very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy? Very happy_____________ Pretty happy___________ Not too happy__________ 6. Taking all things together, how would you describe your experiences as a parent? Would you say that they have been very satisfying, pretty satisfying, or not especially satisfying? Very satisfying__________________ Pretty satisfying________________ Not especially satisfying 250 Appendix 5 Family Solidarity-G-^ — Associational— YOU AND YOUR CHILD: How often do you and your child engage in the following types of activities together? Please place an X in the appropriate columns: 1. Commercial and other recreation (movies, pic nics, swimming, hunting, etc.)............... 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Brief drop-in visits for conversation. Large family reunions: Happy occasions (birth days, anniversaries, Christmas, etc.) Eng. in religious activities of any kind... Talk over things that are important to you. Write letters............................. Telephone................................. You giving him financial assistance and other help...................................... You receiving from him financial assistance and other help................................... 10. Gift exchange. a 0J 3 CT * 0 ) £ S* CD > i — I 4J e CD 3 o' CD M CD 5 a 4J CD O 0 rH c CD > CD £5 11. How would you characterize the quality of communication between yourself and your child— the degree to which you can exchange ideas, or talk about things that concern you? Very Good Very Poor 12. How much do you enjoy doing things with your child? Very Much Not at All Note: The same schedule was repeated for "YOU AND YOUR GRANDCHILD." 251 Appendix 6 Family Solidarity-G^ — Affectual— People feel differently towards the relations between them,their parents, and their grandparents. Please indicate your own feelings on the following subjects: I. YOUR CHILD'S RELATIONS TOWARDS YOU: 1. In very general terms, how well do you feel your child gets along with you? Very Well ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Poorly 2. How well do you feel your child understands you? Very Well ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Poorly 3. How close do you think your child feels towards you? Very Close____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Distant 4. How much do you feel your child trusts you? Very Much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Not at All 5. How fair do you feel your child is towards you? Very Fair ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Not at All 6. How much respect do you feel from your chiJld? Very Much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ Not at All 7. How much affection do you feel your child has for you? Very Strong ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Weak II. YOUR RELATIONS TOWARDS YOUR CHILD: 8. In very general terms, how well you do get along with your child? Very Well ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Poorly 9. How well do you feel you understand your child? 252 Very Well ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Poorly 10. How close do you feel toward your child? Very Close ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Distant 11. How much do you trust your child? Very Much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Not at All 12. How fair do you feel you are towards your child? Very Fair ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Not at All 13. How much do you respect your child? Very Much ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Not at All 14. How much affection do you feel towards your child? Very Strong ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Weak Note: The same schedule was repeated for "III. YOU AND YOUR GRAND CHILD" and "IV. YOUR GRANDCHILD AND YOU." 253 Appendix 7 Family Solidarity-G^ — Consensual— Here is a list of statements about a wide variety of social issues. First, we would like you to indicate the extent of your own agreement with each statement. Then we would like you to indicate what you think would be your child's and grandchild's agreement or disagreement with the statement. You may have to guess their opinions with respect to some of the items; that's O.K. What we want is your estimate of their opinions. (Please mark an X on the appropriate line below.) Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 1. It is man's duty to work; it is sinful to be idle. OPINION: Mine ____ Child's Grandchild's 2. Work provides the best opportunity to be creative; a person can express his skills and talent in his work. OPINION: Mine____________________________________ ____ ____ Child's Grandchild's 3. Even if he finds his job unpleasant, a man should work in order to be respected. OPINION: Mine____________________________________ ____ ____ Child's Grandchild's 4. Whether or not a person enjoys his job, he ought to work hard because this is the only way he will ever earn enough to buy the really important things in life. 254 Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree OPINION: Mine____________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Our government should provide its citizens with the things listed below from funds collected by taxes: 5. Guaranteed Annual Wages. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Child's ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Grandchild' s ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6. Health care "from the cradle to the grave." OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 7. Aid to families with dependent children. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 8. Higher education. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 9. Employment at minimum wage or over. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 10. A person who is without religion is truly lost. OPINION: Mine____________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Child's ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Grandchild's ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 11. A person who does not attend church regularly cannot keep his religious faith. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 12. One of the good things about going to church is that we meet our own kind of people there. OPINION: Mine 255 Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 13. The work of God would be better accomplished by the merging together of church groups that are similar to each other. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 14. Churches and mosques in our country should be very active in working for social issues such as racial equality and national unity. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Child’s_________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Grandchild's ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 15. The father should really be the head of the household; most important decisions should be made by him. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Child's_________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Grandchild's ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 16. It is actually more important for the father to be a good provider than for him to spend a great deal of time with his family. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 17. Even if love and companionship no longer exist, a concern for one's children ought to keep a married couple together. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Child's_________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Grandchild's ____ _______________ ____ ____ 18. Sexual behavior should be bound by mutual feelings, not by formal and legal ties only. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Child's_________ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Grandchild's ____ 19. Marriage, even when there are children, should be entirely a 256 Strongly Agree Strongly Disagree personal commitment which can be dissolved at the will of either part ner without interference from religion or law. OPINION: Mine ; ____ ____ 20. Sex should be permitted only within marriage. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ Lebanon's Politics: Please circle one of the two possible answers: 21. Some believe that Lebanon's highest interests are primarily guaranteed through Lebanon's ties with foreign nations; others believe that Lebanon's highest interests are guaranteed through Lebanon's strong ties with the Arab nations. What do you believe? Foreign Ties Arab Ties 22. In your opinion do the resolutions of the United Nations serve small countries, such as Lebanon, or are they primarily serving the great powers? Serve Small Nations Serve Only Great Powers 23. Some say that the policy of free enterprise and laissez-faire, within logical boundaries, help in Lebanon's prosperity; others claim just the opposite, namely, that Lebanon's prosperity would be better guaranteed by laws that would strictly regulate the economy. What is your opinion? Free Enterprise within Logical Boundaries Strict Regulation 24. Do you believe that Lebanon's foreign policy springs from Lebanon and for Lebanon's best interests, or does it spring from other powers and thus serves those powers? Springs from Lebanon Springs from outside 25. Knowing that Lebanon needs the help of its emigrants both in the field of economics and in the field of politics, which would you say was more effective their economic or their political assistance? Economic Political 26. Some say that the multiplication of political parties results in 257 chaos; others say that multiple political parties are a sign of deep maturity. What is your opinion? Chaos Maturity 27. Would you say that incidents that shake general security are resulting from the neglect and lack of law-enforcement? Yes No 28. Do you believe that the legal system is outdated in our country and that the ammendment of the legal system would bring more security and a smoother running of things? Yes No 29. During elections candidates are elected either as members of certain parties or on personal charismatic leadership without present ing a campaign platform that would bind the candidate or his party. Do you prefer this system or another in which binding platforms of intended policy would be the deciding factor? Binding Platforms Personal or Party 30. There exist around Lebanon governmentssysterns that differ from our own. Would you say that totalitarian regimes bring better results, or personal freedom such as is the case in Lebanon? I Prefer Lebanon's Regime I Prefer the Regimes around Lebanon Lebanon’s Educational System: The goals of our public educational system (including elementary and high schools and state colleges and universities) should be: 31. To teach factual knowledge and the basic principles on which our society is founded. Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Child's Grandchild's 258 Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree 32. To help people find themselves; that is, to find their own personal identities. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Child's ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Grandchild's ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 33. To develop the mind; to learn to think rationally. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 34. To help people understand the ideas and knowledge produced in the past, from which they can develop new knowledge and ideas appro priate for the present. OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 35. To promote the growth of each individual by teaching him to deal intelligently with the problems that are important to him. OPINION: Mine 259 Appendix 8 Family Solidarity-G^ — Associational— Note: The items of this Appendix are exactly the same as those for Appendix 5. However, since this is dealing with Generation 2, the perceived family solidarity is with their parents and their two children. The preamble reads as follows: YOU AND YOUR PARENTS AND YOUR 2 CHILDREN: How often do you and your parents and two children engage in the following types of activities together? etc. The frequency column headings are: FATHER, MOTHER, SON, DAUGHTER. Appendix 9 Family Solidarity-G2 — Affectual— Note: The items of this Appendix are exactly the same as those for Appendix 6. However, since this is dealing with Generation 2, the perceived family solidarity is with their parents and their two children. The preamble was exactly the same as Appendix 6, but the relationships for the items were modified. Example: YOUR 2 CHILDREN'S RELATIONS TOWARDS YOU: 1. In very general titerms, how well do you feel your 2 children get along with you? Son: Very Well_____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Poorly Daughter: Very Well ____ Very Poorly The same set of questions was repeated for the following relations: YOUR RELATIONS TOWARDS YOUR 2 CHILDREN: YOUR PARENTS' RELATIONS TOWARDS YOU: (Father; Mother) YOUR RELATIONS TOWARDS YOUR PARENTS: (Father; Mother) 260 Appendix 10 Family Solidarity-G2 — Consensual— Note; The items of this appendix are exactly the same as!those for Appendix 7. However, since this is dealing with Generation 2, the perceived family solidarity is with their parents and their own children. The second paragraph of the preamble (the first is exactly like the first in Appendix 7) reads as follows: Then we would like you to indicate what you think would be your parents' and 2 children's agreement or disagreement with the state ment. etc. Example: 1. It is man's duty to work; it is sinful to be idle. Strongly Strongly Agree Disagree OPINION: Mine ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Parents' 2 Children's Appendix 11 Family Solidarity-Gg — Associational— Note: The items of this Appendix are exactly the same as those for Appendix 5 and Appendix 8. However, since this is dealing with Generation 3, the perceived family solidarity is with their parents and their grandparents. The preamble reads as follows: YOU AND YOUR PARENTS AND YOUR GRANDPARENTS: How often do you and your parents and your grandparents engage in the following types of activities together? etc. The frequency column headings are: FATHER, MOTHER, GRANDFATHER, and GRANDMOTHER. 261 Appendix 12 F am ily S o lid a r ity -G g — A ff e c t u a l— Note: The items of this Appendix are exactly the same those for Appendix 6 and Appendix 9. However, since this is dealing with Generation 3, the perceived family solidarity is with their parents and their grandparents. The preamble was exactly the same as that of Appendix 6, but the relationships for the items were modified. Example: YOUR PARENTS' RELATIONS TOWARDS YOU: 1. In very general terms, how well do you feel your paints get along with you? Father: Very Well Very Poorly Mother: Very Well ____ Very Poorly The same set of questions was repeated for the following relations: YOUR RELATIONS TOWARDS YOUR PARENTS: YOUR GRANDPARENTS* RELATIONS TOWARDS YOU: YOUR RELATIONS TOWARDS YOUR GRANDPARENTS: Appendix 13 Family Solidarity-Gg — Consensual— Note: The items of this Appendix are exactly the same as those for Appendix 7 and Appendix 10. However, since this is dealing with Generation 3, the perceived family solidarity is with their parents and their grandparents. The first paragraph of the preamble is the same as that for Appendix 7. The second paragraph reads as follows: Then we would like you to indicate what you think would be your parents1 and grandparents * agreement or disagreement with the statement. An example would be exactly the same as the one given for Appendix: 10, but under OPINION, it would be: Mine, Parents', Grandparents'. 262 Appendix 14 G lo b a l F am ily S o lid a r it y G e n e ra tio n -1 Please keep the same child in mind as you answer the following ques tions : I. YOU AND YOUR CHILD: 1. Taking everything into consideration, how often do you do things together with your child? Very Often______________________ ____ ____Never 2. In general, how similar are your views about life to those of your child? Very Similar ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Different 3. All in all, how close do you feel to your child? Very Close ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Distant Please keep the same grandchildren in mind as you answer the following questions: II. YOU AND YOUR GRANDCHILDREN: 4. Taking everything into consideration, how often do you do things together with your grandchildren? Very Often ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Never 5. In general, how similar are your views about life to those of your grandchildren? Very Similar ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Different 6. All in all, how close do you feel to your grandchildren? Very Close __________ ____ ____ ____Very Distant 263 Appendix 15 G lo b a l F am ily S o lid a r it y G e n e ra tio n -2 I. YOU AND YOUR PARENTS: 1. Taking everything into consideration, how often do you do things together with your parents? Father: Very Often ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Never Mother: Very Often ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Never 2. In general, how similar are your views about life to those of your parents? Father: Very Similar ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Different Mother: Very Similar ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Different 3. All in all, how close do you feel to your parents? Father: Very Close ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Distant Mother: Very Close ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Distant Please keep in mind the same two children about whom you answered in previous questions as you answer the following questions: II. YOU AND YOUR 2 CHILDREN: 4. Taking everything into consideration, how often do you do things together with your children: Son: Very Often ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Never Daughter: " ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Never 5. In general, how similar are your views about life to those of your : children? Son: Very Similar ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Different Daughter: " ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Different (Continued) 264 Appendix 15 G lo b a l F am ily S o lid a r it y G e n e ra tio n -2 (Continued) 6. All in all, how close do you feel to your children? Son: Very Close ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____Very Dis tant Daughter: Very Close ____ Very Dis tant 265 Appendix 16 G lo b a l F am ily S o lid a r it y G e n e ra tio n -3 I. YOU AND YOUR PARENTS: 1. Taking everything into consideration, how often do together with your parents? you do things Father: Very Of ten Never Mother: Very Often Never 2. In general, how similar are your views about life parents? to those of your Father: Very Similar Very Different Mother: Very Similar Very Different 3. All in all, how close do you feel to your parents? Father: Very Close Very Distant Mother: Very Close Very Distant II. YOU AND YOUR GRANDPARENTS: 1. Taking everything into consideration, how often do together with your grandparents? you do things Grand father: Very Often Never Grand mother: Very Often Never 2. In general how similar are your views about life to those of your grandparents? Grand father: Very Similar Very Different Grand mother: Very Similar Very Different Appendix 16 G lo b a l F am ily S o lid a r it y G e n e ra tio n -3 (Continued) All in all, how close do you feel to your grandparents? Grand father: Very Close____ _ Very Distant Grand mother: Very Close____ _ Very Distant
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Correlates Of Mental Health In An Aged Population: An Analysis Of Supported Self-Disclosure
PDF
Cultural Continuity And Discontinuity In Adolescent Socialization
PDF
Bam: An Innovative Change Model--Barriers Encountered In The Implementation Of A Classical Research Design To Modify The Behavior And Attitude Of Staff And Inmates In A Correctional Institution
PDF
Attitudes Toward Sex In Marriage And Patterns Of Erotic Behavior In Dating And Courtship Before Marriage
PDF
The Public Definition Of A Social Movement: Women'S Liberation
PDF
A Study Of The Relationships Between Religious Affiliation, Religious Practices And Marital Adjustment
PDF
Dissonance and Self-Perception Analysis of "Forced Compliance": When Two Theories Make Competing Predictions
PDF
Status consistency and its effects on marital adjustment and stability
PDF
An Analysis Of The Positive And Negative Functions In The Contemporary Usage Of An Ancient Rite Of Passage
PDF
Dying And Death Role-Expectation: A Comparative Analysis
PDF
A Study Of Relationships Between Occupational And Marital Roles And Marital Adjustment
PDF
Social-Psychological Factors In Organizational Attachment
PDF
Familism, Suburbanization, And Residential Mobility In A Metropolis
PDF
Some Behavioral Consequences Of Career Success: A Synthesis Of Reward Andbalance Approaches
PDF
Effects Of Integrated School Experience On Interaction In Small Bi-Racialgroups
PDF
A Sociological Approach To The Etiology Of Female Homosexuality And The Lesbian Social Scene
PDF
The Parameters Of Singleness: An Inquiry Into Some Factors Influencing The Choice Of Singleness Over Marriage As A Way Of Life
PDF
The Effectiveness Of A Laboratory Training Program In Changing Supervisorial Attitudes Toward Subordinates In A California County
PDF
An Analysis Of Factors In The Family'S Withdrawal Of A Patient From A Hospital For The Mentally Retarded
PDF
Power Relationships In Marital Discord
Asset Metadata
Creator
Haddad, Anees Adib
(author)
Core Title
The Effects Of Generation, Religion, And Sex On The Relationship Of Family Vertical Solidarity And Mental Health In Lebanon
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Sociology
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, individual and family studies
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Bengtson, Vern L. (
committee chair
), Conolley, Edward S. (
committee member
), Kobrin, Solomon (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-557815
Unique identifier
UC11362005
Identifier
7206061.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-557815 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
7206061.pdf
Dmrecord
557815
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Haddad, Anees Adib
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA
Tags
sociology, individual and family studies