This study, using a contextual approach, explores the relationship of family bonds to family structure and function across five cultures: Greece, Cyprus, the Netherlands, Britain, and Germany. Its long-term goal is the construction of measures of family structure and functioning that are useful in cross-cultural research. Differences in emotional closeness, geographic proximity to relatives, and frequency of telephone contacts and meetings were not found among the five cultures with respect to members of the nuclear family. Differences between Greece and Cyprus, selected as relatively collectivist cultures, and Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, individualist cultures, on these variables were found with respect to members of the extended family. By showing a pattern of cross-cultural similarity and differences, although moderate, among extended family members, this study shows that family structure and function are context variables that can explain variability between psychological variables and thus add to the explanatory power of cross-cultural psychology.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aerts, E. (1993). Bringing the institution back in. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D. A. Hansen, A. Skolnick, & G. E. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self and society: Toward a new agenda for family research. (pp. 3-42). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2.
Bengtson, V. L. , & Schrader, S. S. (1982). Parent-child relations. In D. J. Mangen & W. A. Peterson (Eds.), Research instruments in social gerontology. (Vol. 2, pp. 115-128). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
3.
Berry, J. W. (1975). An ecological approach to cross-cultural psychology. Nederlands Tijdschrift boor de Psychologie, 30, 51-84.
4.
Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. New York: Russell Sage/Halstead/Wiley.
5.
Berry, J. W. (1980). Ecological analyses for cross-cultural psychology. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology. (Vol. 2, pp. 157-189). London: Academic.
6.
Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distance. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 229-308.
7.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. In H. C. Triandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. (Vol. 2, pp. 389-444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
8.
Christakopoulou, S. (1995). Koinonikoi desmoi ston psyhologiko horo kai xrono tis koinotitas: Mia diapolitistiki meleti [Social bonds in the psychological space and time of the community: A cross-cultural study]. Doctoral dissertation, University of Athens.
9.
Christodoulides, A. D. , et al. (1982). The structure of the Cypriot family and the place of adolescents in it. Nicosia, Cyprus: National Committee, Children's International Year.
10.
Cowan, P. A. , Field, D., Hansen, D. A., Skolnick, A., & Swanson, G. E. (1993). Preface. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D. A. Hansen, A. Skolnick, & G. E. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self and society: Toward a new agenda for family research. (pp. ix). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
Durkheim, E. (1933). The division of labor in society. (G. Simpson, Trans.). New York: Free Press.
12.
Fijneman, Y A. , Willemsen, M. E., & Poortinga, Y. H., in cooperation with Erelcin, F. G., Georgas, J., Hui, H. C., Leung, K., & Malpass, R. S. (1996). Individualism-collectivism: An empirical study of a conceptual issue. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27, 381-402.
13.
Fischer, C. S. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
Georgas, J. (1988). An ecological social model: The case of Greece. In J. W. Berry, S. H. Irvine, & E. B. Hunt (Eds.), Indigenous cognition: Functioning in cultural context. (pp. 105-123). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Nijhoff.
15.
Georgas, J. (1989). Changing family values in Greece: From collectivist to individualist. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 80-91.
16.
Georgas, J. (1991). Intrafamily acculturation of values in Greece. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22,445-457.
17.
Georgas, J. (1993). An ecological-social model for indigenous psychology: The example of Greece. In U. Kim & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Indigenous psychologies: Theory, method and experience in cultural context. (pp. 56-78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Georgas, J. , & Berry, J. W. (1995). An ecocultural taxonomy for cross-cultural psychology. Cross-Cultural Research, 29, 121-157.
19.
Georgas, J. , & Christakopoulou, S. (1993, July). Psychosocial distance of the family and the neighborhood. Paper presented at the 3rd European Congress of Psychology, Tampere, Finland.
20.
Georgiou, S. N. (1996). Family dynamics and school achievement in Cyprus. Manuscript in preparation, University of Cyprus, Nicosia.
21.
Hall, E. T. (1963). A system for the notation of proxemic behavior. American Anthropologist, 65, 103-126.
22.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
23.
Hogg, M. A. (1987). Social identity and group cohesiveness. In H. C. Turner, M. A. Hogg, P. J. Oakes, S. D. Reicher, & M. Wetherell (Eds.), Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. (pp. 89-116). New York: Blackwell.
24.
Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
25.
Hogg, M. A. , & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications. London: Routdedge.
26.
Horowitz, A. , & Dobrof, R. (1982). The role of families in providing long-term care to the frail and chronically ill elderly living in the community. New York: Brookdale Center on Aging, Hunter College.
27.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1982). Sex roles, family and community in Turkey. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
28.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1990). Family and socialization in cross-cultural perspective: A model of change. In J. I. Bernan (Ed.), Cross-cultural perspectives: Nebraska symposium on motivation, 198. (pp. 136-200). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
29.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1994). A critical appraisal of individualism and collectivism. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and application. (pp. 52-65). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures. East Sussex, U.K.: Lawrence Earlbaum.
31.
Kagitcibasi, C. , & Berry, J. W. (1989). Cross-cultural psychology: Current research and trends. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 493-531.
32.
Kim, U. , Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S.-C., & Yoon, G. (Eds.). (1994). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
Leung, K. , & Bond, M. H. (1989). On the empirical identification of dimensions for Cross-Cultural comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20, 133-151.
34.
Levinson, D. , & Malone, M. J. (1980). Toward explaining human nature. New Haven, CT: Human Relations Area Files Press.
35.
Levy, M. J. , & Fallers, L. A. (1959). The family: Some comparative considerations. American Anthropologist, 61, 647-651.
36.
Little, K. B. (1968). Cultural variations in social schemata. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10, 1-7.
37.
Litwak, E. (1960). Occupational mobility and extended family cohesion. American Sociological Review, 25, 385-394.
38.
McCaslin, R. (1993). An inter-generational family congruence model. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D. A. Hansen, A. Skolnick, & G. E. Swanson (Eds.), Family, self and society: Toward a new agenda for family research. (pp. 295-316). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Moreland, R. L. (1987). The formation of small groups. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Group processes. (Vol. 8, pp. 80-110). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
40.
Moreland, R. L. , & Levine, J. M. (1982). Socialization in small groups: Temporal changes in individual-group relations. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 137-192.
41.
Murdock, G. P. (1949). Social structure. New York: Macmillan.
42.
Neki, J. S. (1976). An examination of the cultural relativism of dependence as a dynamic of social and therapeutic relationships. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 49, 1-10.
43.
Nimkoff, M. F. , & Middleton, R. (1960). Types of family and types of economy. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 215-225.
44.
Osmond, M. (1969). A cross-cultural analysis of family organization. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 31, 302-310.
45.
Parsons, T. (1943). The kinship system of contemporary UnitedStates. American Anthropologist, 45, 22-38.
46.
Pitrou, A. (1977). Le soutien de la famille dans le societé urbaine. Revue Francaise de Sociologie, 18,47-84.
47.
Poortinga, Y. H. (1989). Equivalence of cross-cultural data: An overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 737-756.
48.
Roussel, L. , in collaboration with Bourguignon, O. (1976). La famille apres la mariage des enfants (etude des relations entre generations) [The family after marriage of children (study of intergenerational relationships)] (INED: Travaux et Documents No. 73). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
49.
Segalen, M. (1986). Historical anthropology of the family. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
Segall, M. H. (1984). More than we need to know about culture, but are afraid not to ask. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 15, 153-162.
51.
Sinha, D. (1988). The family scenario in a developing country and its implications for mental health: The case of India. In P. R. Dasen, J. W. Berry, & N. Sartorious (Eds.), Health and cross-cultural psychology: Toward implication. (pp. 48-70). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
52.
Toennies, F. (1957). Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In T. Parsons, E. Shils, K. Naegele, & J. Pitts (Eds.), Theories of society. (pp. 191-201). Glencoe, IL: Scott, Foresman.
53.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.
54.
Triandis, H. C. , Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung, K., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H., Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B. P., Verma, J., Spangerberg, J., Tousard, H., & De Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38, 257-267.
55.
Triandis, H. C. , McCusker, C., Betancourt, H., Iwao, S., Leung, K., Salazar, J. M., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. B., Touzard, H., & Zaleski, Z. (1993). An etic-emic analysis of individualism-collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 24, 366-383.
56.
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relation. (pp. 15-40). London: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Turner, J. C. (1984). Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimension: European developments in social psychology. (Vol. 2, pp. 518-538). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
Uzoka, A. F. (1979). The myth of the nuclear family. American Psychologist, 34, 1095-1106.
59.
Yang, C. (1988). Familism and development: An examination of the role of family in contemporary China mainland, Hong Kong and Taiwan. In D. Sinha & H. S. R. Kao (Eds.), Social values and development: Asian perspective. (pp. 93-124). New Delhi: Sage.
60.
Vincent, C. E. (1966). Familia spongia: The adaptive function. Journal of Marrage and the Family, 28, 29-36.
61.
Winch, R. F. (1971). The modern family. (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
62.
Winch, R. F. (1979). Toward a model of familial organization. In W R. Burr, R. Hill, F. I. Nye, & I. L. Reiss (Eds.), Contemporary theories about the family: Research based theories. (Vol. 1, pp. 162-179). New York: Free Press.
