Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1Iol. 18, No. 5, 1989
Adolescent Perception of Family Climate and Adaptation to Residential Schooling Shmuel Shuiman ~ and Eti Prechter 2
Received August 4, 1988; accepted September 11, 1989
The article investigates the role that adolescents" perceptions o f the family plays as he/she adapts to living away f r o m home. Family atmosphere perceptions o f adolescents who study at a residential school and adolescents who live at home were evaluated. The adaption o f these two groups o f adolescents, as perceived by their teachers, was also evaluated. Results have shown differential contributions of family dimensions to adolescent adaptation in residential and nonresidential schooling. Results are discussed in connection with the process o f adolescent separation f r o m the family and the increased impact o f the peer group.
INTRODUCTION A d o l e s c e n t i n d i v i d u a t i o n is a c o n t i n u o u s process between p a r e n t s a n d children during which new forms o f affective, behavioral, a n d cognitive states in their relationships have to be negotiated (Steinberg, 1981). C o n c e p t u a l l y this process consists o f two constructs: (1) r e l a t i o n s h i p s within the family a n d (2) r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the adolescent and the family. T h r o u g h the c o n t i n u o u s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f distinct t h o u g h t s a n d wishes, the adolescent signals parents that prior childish relationships are being
~Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Tel Aviv University, 69978 Ramat Aviv, Israel. In 1987-1988, Visiting Faculty, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota. Received his Ph.D. from Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Research interests include developmental and family processes in normal and handicapped children and adolescents. To whom correspondence should be addressed. ~Eti Prechter received her M.S.W. from Tel Aviv University. 439 (j047-2891/89/1000-0439506.00/0 9 1989 Plenum Publishing Corporation
440
Shulman and Prechter
transformed. The sustained insistence on differences and distinctiveness brings both parties, parents and adolescents, to a new quality of mature relationships. The overzealous investment in extrafamilial activities, i.e., the peer group, describes the additional components of the individuation process. Adolescents act for themselves and regulate their behavior while being psychologically and physically separate from the family (Sabatelli and Mazor, 1985). Being separate from the family may enable the adolescent to perceive his/her family from additional perspectives and thus further contribute to a reevaluation of relationships within the family. Following Grotevant and Cooper (1985), adolescents' intra- and extrafamily relationships are interrelated. Individuated family relationships, which allow the adolescent to develop his/her point of view in a context of connectedness, provide a secure base from which the adolescent can explore the world outside the family. Family interaction or structure reflecting cohesiveness combined with respect for individuality are important for optimal adolescent individuation (Hauser et al., 1984; Shulman and Klein, 1982). A review of the studies on adolescent process and family organization (Constantine, 1987) reveals that almost all of the studies dealt with the role of intrafamily relationships (or organization) in the adolescent individuation process. Only two studies, to the best of our knowledge, dealt with the impact of physical separation on the relationship between adolescent and parents. Montemayor (1981) reported that adolescents who spent more time with their fathers had more frequent arguments at home. Thus, a higher degree of ongoing involvement with the family interferes with the establishment of new relationships and may lead to more conflicts that reflect the as yet unattained renegotiated relationship. Once separation has been achieved and the adolescent's sense of individuality is more consolidated, the need to criticize or to be in conflict with the family may diminish. Sullivan and Sullivan (1980) have shown that adolescent males who separate from their parents upon entering college tend to report an increase in the affection of their parents toward them and of them toward their parents. Attending a residential school exemplifies another mode of leaving home during adolescence. In Israel, nearly 20% of all adolescents attend various forms of residential schooling (Kashti, 1985). Residential education has demonstrated a capacity for bringing about a change in values, norms, and actual behavior even among youth from a disadvantaged background (Kashti, 1979). From this perspective, attending a residential school may represent a means of overcoming a disadvantaged background, and may also function as an adaptive mode of attaining independence and competence. Thus, the question may be raised as to whether leaving home and attending a residential school will be related to a different perception of the family by the adolescent.
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
441
It should be noted that though students in these residential schools belong to families from lower and lower middle class, they do not represent a clinical population. The children are sent to residential schooling because their hometowns and villages do not offer adequate educational opportunities. Thus, the reason for residential schooling does not rest in most of the cases within the dynamics or organization of a family, but rather with the available educational facilities. Moos (1976) has introduced the concept of family climate, which assesses each individual's perceptions of the family milieu. The family climate measures 10 variables of family interaction in three conceptual dimensions: (1) Relationships assess the extent to which family members feel commitment toward each other, and openly express their positive or negative feelings. (2) Personal Growth measures the extent to which family members are assertive, self-sufficient, and make their own decisions; to what extent their activities are achievement oriented; the degree of their interest in a social, intellectual, and cultural life; and the extent of their participation in social and recreational activities. (3) System Maintenance evaluates the degree of importance attached to clear organization and structure in family life, and the extent to which rules and procedures are emphasized. It is plausible to suggest that being out of the home and not being directly exposed to family life may bring the adolescent to perceive his/her family in a different mode. Furthermore, it can be argued that the greatest difference between residential and nonresidential adolescents will be manifested in their perception of the level of System Maintenance, namely the level of organization and control the adolescents usually resent. Parental control and dominance encourage dependency (Benjamin, 1979), which interferes with adolescent striving for independence. Various studies have shown the role the family plays in adolescent development and adaptation. Hauser et al. (1984) have shown adolescent ego development was positively associated with enabling behavior in the family and negatively associated with constraining behavior. Adolescents' levels of differentiation and self-concept have been found to vary with family paradigms differing on cohesiveness and tolerance for individual view (Shulman and Klein, 1982). Grotevant and Cooper (1985) found interaction with parents who allowed the adolescent to express ideas and suggestions was related to the adolescent's level of identity exploration. In a more recent article, Cooper et al. (in press) found patterns of communication between family members reflecting individuation to be predictive of the adolescent's behavior with a peer. Conceptually, the family's role in adolescent adaptation or maladaptation can be understood from two perspectives. Through the facilitation of optimal separation and the reinforcement of independent behavior, the family may directly and beneficially influence the acquisition of competen-
442
Shulman and Prechter
cy skills. In addition, family cohesion combined with respect for individual strivings and accomplishments may serve as a model to guide individual adaptation in later life. Following Damon (1983), an individual may draw from previous relationships and integrate them into an autonomous self that will determine subsequent meaningful relationships to others. An adolescent who lives at home is exposed to both modes of family impact: the direct and indirect. Adolescents who study at residential schools are not exposed to the daily impact of family life. Parents do not encourage them daily nor do they criticize their mode of behavior. However, these adolescents may carry with them what might be termed a "working model" of adaption that they have internalized at home and that has an impact on current behavior. Generally, an individual's perception of expressed closeness and respect for individuality and autonomy in his/her family has been found to be related to higher functioning and ego resiliency (Block and Block, 1980). High levels of control and dominance have been related to a lower level of adaptation (Benjamin, 1979). Shulman et al. (1987) report adolescent perception of family cohesion and organization combined with respect for individuality to relate to a higher level of functional coping in the adolescent. A further question raised in this study is, What role does the perception of the family play in the adaptation of an adolescent who is out of the home? Is family perception related to adaptation in a similar mode as with adolescents who live with their families or does it reflect a different path? Children and adolescents' adaptation has been described in different terms and measured differently in various studies. Schaefer (1981) has suggested a spherical model to explain children's adjustment and competence at school. According to Schaefer, adaptive behavior can be evaluated via three main dimensions: (1) Academic Competence, including verbal intelligence, curiosity, task orientation, and low distractability; (2) Social Adjustment, including consideration of others or hostihty toward them; and (3) Extraversion-Introversion, which characterizes social, emotional, and interpersonal behavior. Conceptually these dimensions reflect important developmental tasks in adolescence, especially for a residential student. In the pursuit of autonomy, i.e., initiative and a sense of control over one's life (Greenberg and Sorenson, 1974), the youngster is expected to cope efficiently with career goals and, on a daily basis, with school demands. Establishment of adaptive extrafamilial relationships with the absence of excessive dependency on others (Greenberger and Sorenson, 1974) is crucial for a residential student, and may reflect his/her ability for mature interpersonal relationships. Using Schaefer's model of adaptation, the additional objective of this study is to investigate the degree of association between family atmosphere
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
443
and adolescent adaptation once the adolescent is out of the home, as compared to adolescents still living at home.
METHOD Subjects One hundred and eight 10th-grade adolescents (mean age = 15.3) studying at a comprehensive school in Israel participated in the study. The sample consisted of two subgroups. Fifty-one who came from across the country roomed at the school dormitories and visited their families every second weekend. Fifty-seven, whose families live in the surrounding locale, did not use the dormitory facilities and returned home every afternoon. Of the 51 resident students, 34 were boys and 17 were girls. The nonresidential day group consisted of 38 boys and 19 girls. Classes were composed of both resident and day students. Eighty-five adolescents belonged to intact families and 23 belonged to single-parent families. All the families were of lower or lower middle class status. No significant difference existed between the residential and nonresidential groups as to the proportion of single-parent families or the educational level of either fathers or mothers.
Instruments The Family Environment Scale (FES) The FES has been used to measure family climate in various families (Moos, 1976). The Hebrew adaptation of the FES used here consists of 90 yes-no items, 9 in each of 10 subscales that compose the three general dimensions: Relationships (Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict), Personal Growth (Independence, Achievement Orientation, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, Active-Recreational Orientation, Moral-Religious Emphasis), and System Maintenance (Organization, Control). The Hebrew adaptation showed solid reliability and validity, which is reported elsewhere (Shulman et aL, 1987). Results reported in this study refer to the three main dimensions.
Classroom Behavior Inventory (CBI) (Schaefer and Edgerton, 1978) The Hebrew adaptation of the CBI consists of 42 items that describe typically observed behavior in classroom. Teachers rate each behavior on a 4-point scale from not at all (1) to very much (4).
444
Shulman and Prechter
Internal consistency reliabilities above .90 have been achieved for the Hebrew adaptation, as with the original version. Factor analysis of the scales of the Hebrew adaptation replicated the factor structure reported by Schaefer, validating the spherical model of the three main factors: Academic Competence (alpha = .96), Social Adjustment (alpha = .95), and Extraversion vs. Introversion (alpha = .80). An additional factor of Dependence-Independence (alpha = .86), being relevant to adolescent individuation, was included. Procedure Six weeks after the beginning of the school year, the Moos FES was administered to the students. A few months later, when homeroom teachers were well acquainted with the students, they were asked to evaluate students on the Schaefer CBI. RESULTS Family Climate and Residential Education A multivariate analysis of variance was performed to compare residential and nonresidential groups on the three Moos dimensions. No significant differences were found between the two groups (F[1,106] = 0.31, p > .05). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table I. Adolescents studying at a residential school do not perceive their family atmosphere differently from adolescents who stay with their families. Family Climate and Adolescent Adaptation in Residential Education Pearson correlations between adolescent adaptation measures and dimensions of family climate were computed. Distinctive differences between
Table I. Comparisonof Residential and Nonresidential Groups on the Moos Family Environment Scale Dimensions Residential Nonresidential group (n = 51) group (n = 57) Mean SD Mean SD Relationships 5.23 1.64 4.90 1.46 Personal growth 5.67 1.71 5.68 1.62 System maintenance 5.59 1.48 5.76 1.46
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
445
Table II. Residential Group AdolescentAdaptation: Relationships to Family Climate Dimensions; Hierarchical Regressions and Correlations Simple Step/dimension entered /~ R2 F R Academic competence 1. System maintenance .39 .11 6.28~ .34 2. Relationships -.33 .22 6.83b -.27 Social adjustment 1. System maintenance
.12
.01
0.74
.12
Extraversion- introversion 1. System maintenance
.29
.09
1.93
.20
.39 - .20
.12 .14
6.85 b 3.83 a
Dependence-independence 1. System maintenance 2. Relationships
.35 -
.06
~ < .05. bp < .01. patterns of correlations for residential and nonresidential groups emerged. No significant differences were found between males and females, and therefore data were collapsed across sex. Multiple regressions were carried out to evaluate what contribution family climate dimensions make in predicting the four criterion measures of adolescent adaptation. The computations were performed for the residential and nonresidential groups separately, and are presented in Tables II and III, respectively. As can be seen, Family Climate dimensions explained a significant, although still moderate, amount of the variance for academic competence and level of independence in both groups, as well as social adjustment in the nonresidential groups. System Maintenance was the dimension that entered first in most of the regression equations. However, its contribution was different in each group. Whereas with the residential group System Maintenance contributed positively to adolescent adaptation, it had an adverse effect within the nonresidential group. A further distinction between the two groups was revealed concerning the second dimension entering the regression equation. In the residential group, the Relationships dimension entered second, and in the nonresidential group, Personal Growth. Regressions between criterion variables and family climate dimensions revealed similar results to the stepwise regressions. DISCUSSION Contrary to our initial assumptions, no differences in the perception of family climate between residential and nonresidential adolescents were found. One possible explanation is that not enough time had passed since the residential adolescents left their homes and, therefore, a major change in their perceptions o f their families had not yet occurred. However, it
Shulman and Prechter
446
Table Ill. Nonresidential Group Adolescent Adaptation: Relationships to Family Climate Dimensions; Hierarchical Regressions and Correlations Step/dimension entered
F
Simple R
/~
R2
Academic competence I. System maintenance 2. Personal growth
-.39 .33
.06 .15
3.80" 4.60 b
-.25 .15
Social adjustment 1. System maintenance
-.32
.09
5.18 b
-.29
Extraversion- introversion 1. System maintenance
.24
.05
2.80
Dependence-independence 1. Personal growth 2. System maintenance
.37 - .32
.06 .15
3.61 ~ 4.75 b
.22 .25 - . 16
p < .07. p < .05.
should be mentioned that Sullivan and Sullivan (1980) tested their adolescents one month after departure for college and found significant change. A further explanation could be that the adolescents in this study were younger (mean age = 15.3) than those in the Sullivan and Sullivan study (mean age = 17.8). Younger adolescents, though out of the home, may be still emotionally involved with their families and have not changed their perceptions of their families. Additionally, it may be suggested that the Sullivan and Sullivan (1980) measure of affection is of a concrete nature and is more affected by situational fluctuations. The perception of the family is an abstract construct and does not change easily. It is rather that with time an individual acquires an additional perspective as some adolescents may comment "Now I understand what my parents meant." It is the new perspective that is related to individuals' behavior-where certain family rules or routines gain a new meaning. The former suggestion is supported by the further inspection of the results revealing different relationships to exist between perception of family climate and school adaptation for residential and nonresidential adolescents. In the nonresidential group, emphasis by the family on structure and control interfered with autonomous expression in the domain of Academic Competence. On the other hand, the family's encouragement of individual assertiveness and self-sufficiency contributed to adolescent competence. In the residential group, the tendency was just the reverse. The adolescent's perception o f the family as emphasizing organization and control positively contributed to his/her academic competence. It may be suggested that for
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
447
the day-school adolescent, parental control may evoke opposition, while for the boarding student this control simply represents the former condition o f his/her life, which may now serve as a model for self-organization and the strengthening of individual competence. The degree of interpersonal commitment in the family, as perceived by the resident student (level of Relationships), may signify some kind of an emotional burden. Preoccupation with family matters may impede his/her sense of separateness, and thus interfere with the attainment of competence. Similar differential dynamics were found in the contribution of family climate to the level o f Dependence-Independence within the residential and nonresidential groups. Control that is, at the time, experienced by a day student may conflict with autonomous behavior. The sense of organization and control, when the family is no longer involved, may foster and support independent behavior. Leaving home enables the youngster to perceive the family differently and may lessen sources of conflict. Thus this study suggests that the perception of the family does not change with the individual's act of leaving the family, either to attend boarding school or to enter a new relationship, such as marriage. Separation from the family and the ability to inspect it from a distance enables persons to integrate the positive and negative aspects of their family of origin, as suggested by Main et al. (1985). Parental attitudes are reevaluated and judged for their comprehensive meaning. Appropriate control and organization are a source of support from close others, and may contribute to one's sense of coherence and continuity. They are not perceived by residential schoolers as mere obstacles to their daily activities. Studying at a residential school exposes the adolescent to other youngsters he/she has not preselected. The intimate exposure to peers is important since adolescence is the stage when the youngster invests in the peer group as part of the disengagement process from the family. Brown et al. (1986) outlined the importance adolescents assign to the peer group's ability to provide emotional and instrumental support, foster friendships, and facilitate social interaction. The investment and reliance on peers is probably reinforced for adolescents living away from home, such as boarding school students. The role of the family in determining the level o f social adjustment diminishes. Support for this notion may be found in the relationship between family climate and adolescent social adjustment. Family climate did not explain social adjustment within the residential group, but explained 9% of the variance within the nonresidential group. The differential exposure of boarding and nonboarding students to family dimensions can be understood following Boss and Greenberg's (1984) theory on family boundary ambiguity. According to Boss, family members have to alter their perception of the family once a loss or a change
448
Shulman and Prechter
has o c c u r r e d . Boss o u t l i n e d the m a l a d a p t i v e o u t c o m e s t h a t m a y surface w h e n a f a m i l y does n o t recognize t h a t o n e o f its m e m b e r s is missing. Boss p r o p o s e d t h a t f a m i l y t y p e m a y be related to v a r i a b i l i t y in h o w families perceive a n d r e s p o n d to change. It is suggested t h a t the b o a r d i n g s c h o o l a d o l e s cents in this s t u d y , w h o were f o u n d to b e l o n g to a n o r m a l s a m p l e , d i d n o t o v e r l o o k the c h a n g e t h a t t o o k p l a c e in their r e l a t i o n s h i p with the family. Moreover, they demonstrated an ability to internalize family models for their own use; the s a m e m o d e l , h o w e v e r , m a y e v o k e o p p o s i t i o n with the a d o l e s c e n t w h o lives at h o m e . It s h o u l d be e m p h a s i z e d t h a t the results o f this s t u d y are b a s e d on the adolescent's p e r c e p t i o n s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f o t h e r f a m i l y m e m b e r s m a y yield a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the processes a c c o m p a n y i n g the act o f leaving h o m e as expressed b y the a d o l e s c e n t a n d the f a m i l y . A longitudinal s t u d y m a y highlight w h e t h e r the d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n o f f a m i l y , in relation to individual a d a p t a t i o n , is a reaction for a short period or the beginning o f a larger process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T h e a u t h o r s a r e g r a t e f u l to L u J e a n H u f f m a n - N o r d b e r g a n d P e d r a M e e k s for their help a n d c o m m e n t s .
REFERENCES
Benjamin, L. (1979). Structural analysis and differentiation failure. Psychiatry 42: 1-23. Block, J. H., and Block, J. (1980). The role of ego control and ego resiliency in the origins of behavior. In Collins, W. A. (ed.), Development of Cognition, Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (3/'ol. 13). Eribaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Boss, P., and Greenberg, J. (1984). Family boundary ambiguity: A new variable in family stress theory. Family Process 23: 535-546. Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., and Pertie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group ("crowd") aff'diation in adolescence. J. Adoles. 9: 73-96. Constantine, L. L. (1987). Adolescent process and family organization: A model of development as a function of family paradigm. J. Adoles. Res. 2: 349-366. Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., and Ayers-Lopez, S. (in press). Links between patterns of negotiation in adolescents' family and peer interaction. Int. J. Behav. Develop. Damon, W. (1983). The nature of social-cognitive change in the developing child. In W. F. Overton (Ed.), The Relationship between Social and cognitive Development. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Greenberger, E., and Sorenson, A. (1974). Toward a concept of psychosocial maturity. J. Youth Adoles. 3: 329-358. Grotevant, D. H., and Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Develop. 56: 415428. Hanser, S. T., Powers, S. I., Noam, (3. G., Jacobson, A. M., Weiss, B., and Fallansbee, D. J. (1984). Family contexts of ego development. Child Develop. 55: 195-213. Kashti, Y. (1979). The Socializing Community, Disadvantaged Adolescents in Israeli Youth Villages. Studies in Educational Evaluation Monograph No. 1, Tel Aviv.
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
449
Kashti, Y. (1985). Social development of adolescents in residential settings. In Ziv, A. (ed.), Between Childhood and Adulthood. Tel Aviv University Press, Tel Aviv, Papirus. Main, J., Kaplan, N., and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In Bretherton, I., and Waters, E. (eds.), Growing Points o f Attachment Theory and Research (Vol. 50). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Montemayor, R. (1982). The relationship between parent-adolescent conflict and amount of time adolescents spend with parents and peers. Child Develop. 53: 1512-1518. Moos, R. H. (1976). The Human Context: Environment Determinants o f Behavior. Wiley, New York. Sabatelli, R. M., and Mazor, A. (1985). Differentiation, individuation and identity formation: The integration of family system and individual developmental perspectives. Adolescence 20: 619-633. Schaefer, C. S. (1981). Development of adaptive behavior: Conceptual models and family correlates. In Begas, M. J., Haywood, H. C. and Garber, H. L. (eds.), Psychosocial Influence in Retarded Performance: Vol. 1. Issue and Theories in Development. Baltimore, University Park Press, MD. Schaefer, E. S., and Edgerton, M. (1978). Classroom Behavior Inventory. Unpublished manucript, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Shulman, S., and Klein, M. M. (1982). The family and adolescence: A conceptual and experimental approach. J. Adoles. 5: 219-234. Shulman, S., Seiffge-Krenke, I., and Samet, N. (1987). Adolescent coping style as a function of perceived family climate. J. Adoles. Res. 2: 367-381. Steinberg, L. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty. Develop. Psychok 17: 833-840. Sullivan, K., and Sullivan, A. (1980). Adolescent-parent separation. Develop. Psychok 16: 9399.
Adolescent Perception of Family Climate and Adaptation to Residential Schooling Shmuel Shuiman ~ and Eti Prechter 2
Received August 4, 1988; accepted September 11, 1989
The article investigates the role that adolescents" perceptions o f the family plays as he/she adapts to living away f r o m home. Family atmosphere perceptions o f adolescents who study at a residential school and adolescents who live at home were evaluated. The adaption o f these two groups o f adolescents, as perceived by their teachers, was also evaluated. Results have shown differential contributions of family dimensions to adolescent adaptation in residential and nonresidential schooling. Results are discussed in connection with the process o f adolescent separation f r o m the family and the increased impact o f the peer group.
INTRODUCTION A d o l e s c e n t i n d i v i d u a t i o n is a c o n t i n u o u s process between p a r e n t s a n d children during which new forms o f affective, behavioral, a n d cognitive states in their relationships have to be negotiated (Steinberg, 1981). C o n c e p t u a l l y this process consists o f two constructs: (1) r e l a t i o n s h i p s within the family a n d (2) r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the adolescent and the family. T h r o u g h the c o n t i n u o u s p r e s e n t a t i o n o f distinct t h o u g h t s a n d wishes, the adolescent signals parents that prior childish relationships are being
~Senior Lecturer, School of Education, Tel Aviv University, 69978 Ramat Aviv, Israel. In 1987-1988, Visiting Faculty, Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota. Received his Ph.D. from Bar-Ilan University, Israel. Research interests include developmental and family processes in normal and handicapped children and adolescents. To whom correspondence should be addressed. ~Eti Prechter received her M.S.W. from Tel Aviv University. 439 (j047-2891/89/1000-0439506.00/0 9 1989 Plenum Publishing Corporation
440
Shulman and Prechter
transformed. The sustained insistence on differences and distinctiveness brings both parties, parents and adolescents, to a new quality of mature relationships. The overzealous investment in extrafamilial activities, i.e., the peer group, describes the additional components of the individuation process. Adolescents act for themselves and regulate their behavior while being psychologically and physically separate from the family (Sabatelli and Mazor, 1985). Being separate from the family may enable the adolescent to perceive his/her family from additional perspectives and thus further contribute to a reevaluation of relationships within the family. Following Grotevant and Cooper (1985), adolescents' intra- and extrafamily relationships are interrelated. Individuated family relationships, which allow the adolescent to develop his/her point of view in a context of connectedness, provide a secure base from which the adolescent can explore the world outside the family. Family interaction or structure reflecting cohesiveness combined with respect for individuality are important for optimal adolescent individuation (Hauser et al., 1984; Shulman and Klein, 1982). A review of the studies on adolescent process and family organization (Constantine, 1987) reveals that almost all of the studies dealt with the role of intrafamily relationships (or organization) in the adolescent individuation process. Only two studies, to the best of our knowledge, dealt with the impact of physical separation on the relationship between adolescent and parents. Montemayor (1981) reported that adolescents who spent more time with their fathers had more frequent arguments at home. Thus, a higher degree of ongoing involvement with the family interferes with the establishment of new relationships and may lead to more conflicts that reflect the as yet unattained renegotiated relationship. Once separation has been achieved and the adolescent's sense of individuality is more consolidated, the need to criticize or to be in conflict with the family may diminish. Sullivan and Sullivan (1980) have shown that adolescent males who separate from their parents upon entering college tend to report an increase in the affection of their parents toward them and of them toward their parents. Attending a residential school exemplifies another mode of leaving home during adolescence. In Israel, nearly 20% of all adolescents attend various forms of residential schooling (Kashti, 1985). Residential education has demonstrated a capacity for bringing about a change in values, norms, and actual behavior even among youth from a disadvantaged background (Kashti, 1979). From this perspective, attending a residential school may represent a means of overcoming a disadvantaged background, and may also function as an adaptive mode of attaining independence and competence. Thus, the question may be raised as to whether leaving home and attending a residential school will be related to a different perception of the family by the adolescent.
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
441
It should be noted that though students in these residential schools belong to families from lower and lower middle class, they do not represent a clinical population. The children are sent to residential schooling because their hometowns and villages do not offer adequate educational opportunities. Thus, the reason for residential schooling does not rest in most of the cases within the dynamics or organization of a family, but rather with the available educational facilities. Moos (1976) has introduced the concept of family climate, which assesses each individual's perceptions of the family milieu. The family climate measures 10 variables of family interaction in three conceptual dimensions: (1) Relationships assess the extent to which family members feel commitment toward each other, and openly express their positive or negative feelings. (2) Personal Growth measures the extent to which family members are assertive, self-sufficient, and make their own decisions; to what extent their activities are achievement oriented; the degree of their interest in a social, intellectual, and cultural life; and the extent of their participation in social and recreational activities. (3) System Maintenance evaluates the degree of importance attached to clear organization and structure in family life, and the extent to which rules and procedures are emphasized. It is plausible to suggest that being out of the home and not being directly exposed to family life may bring the adolescent to perceive his/her family in a different mode. Furthermore, it can be argued that the greatest difference between residential and nonresidential adolescents will be manifested in their perception of the level of System Maintenance, namely the level of organization and control the adolescents usually resent. Parental control and dominance encourage dependency (Benjamin, 1979), which interferes with adolescent striving for independence. Various studies have shown the role the family plays in adolescent development and adaptation. Hauser et al. (1984) have shown adolescent ego development was positively associated with enabling behavior in the family and negatively associated with constraining behavior. Adolescents' levels of differentiation and self-concept have been found to vary with family paradigms differing on cohesiveness and tolerance for individual view (Shulman and Klein, 1982). Grotevant and Cooper (1985) found interaction with parents who allowed the adolescent to express ideas and suggestions was related to the adolescent's level of identity exploration. In a more recent article, Cooper et al. (in press) found patterns of communication between family members reflecting individuation to be predictive of the adolescent's behavior with a peer. Conceptually, the family's role in adolescent adaptation or maladaptation can be understood from two perspectives. Through the facilitation of optimal separation and the reinforcement of independent behavior, the family may directly and beneficially influence the acquisition of competen-
442
Shulman and Prechter
cy skills. In addition, family cohesion combined with respect for individual strivings and accomplishments may serve as a model to guide individual adaptation in later life. Following Damon (1983), an individual may draw from previous relationships and integrate them into an autonomous self that will determine subsequent meaningful relationships to others. An adolescent who lives at home is exposed to both modes of family impact: the direct and indirect. Adolescents who study at residential schools are not exposed to the daily impact of family life. Parents do not encourage them daily nor do they criticize their mode of behavior. However, these adolescents may carry with them what might be termed a "working model" of adaption that they have internalized at home and that has an impact on current behavior. Generally, an individual's perception of expressed closeness and respect for individuality and autonomy in his/her family has been found to be related to higher functioning and ego resiliency (Block and Block, 1980). High levels of control and dominance have been related to a lower level of adaptation (Benjamin, 1979). Shulman et al. (1987) report adolescent perception of family cohesion and organization combined with respect for individuality to relate to a higher level of functional coping in the adolescent. A further question raised in this study is, What role does the perception of the family play in the adaptation of an adolescent who is out of the home? Is family perception related to adaptation in a similar mode as with adolescents who live with their families or does it reflect a different path? Children and adolescents' adaptation has been described in different terms and measured differently in various studies. Schaefer (1981) has suggested a spherical model to explain children's adjustment and competence at school. According to Schaefer, adaptive behavior can be evaluated via three main dimensions: (1) Academic Competence, including verbal intelligence, curiosity, task orientation, and low distractability; (2) Social Adjustment, including consideration of others or hostihty toward them; and (3) Extraversion-Introversion, which characterizes social, emotional, and interpersonal behavior. Conceptually these dimensions reflect important developmental tasks in adolescence, especially for a residential student. In the pursuit of autonomy, i.e., initiative and a sense of control over one's life (Greenberg and Sorenson, 1974), the youngster is expected to cope efficiently with career goals and, on a daily basis, with school demands. Establishment of adaptive extrafamilial relationships with the absence of excessive dependency on others (Greenberger and Sorenson, 1974) is crucial for a residential student, and may reflect his/her ability for mature interpersonal relationships. Using Schaefer's model of adaptation, the additional objective of this study is to investigate the degree of association between family atmosphere
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
443
and adolescent adaptation once the adolescent is out of the home, as compared to adolescents still living at home.
METHOD Subjects One hundred and eight 10th-grade adolescents (mean age = 15.3) studying at a comprehensive school in Israel participated in the study. The sample consisted of two subgroups. Fifty-one who came from across the country roomed at the school dormitories and visited their families every second weekend. Fifty-seven, whose families live in the surrounding locale, did not use the dormitory facilities and returned home every afternoon. Of the 51 resident students, 34 were boys and 17 were girls. The nonresidential day group consisted of 38 boys and 19 girls. Classes were composed of both resident and day students. Eighty-five adolescents belonged to intact families and 23 belonged to single-parent families. All the families were of lower or lower middle class status. No significant difference existed between the residential and nonresidential groups as to the proportion of single-parent families or the educational level of either fathers or mothers.
Instruments The Family Environment Scale (FES) The FES has been used to measure family climate in various families (Moos, 1976). The Hebrew adaptation of the FES used here consists of 90 yes-no items, 9 in each of 10 subscales that compose the three general dimensions: Relationships (Cohesion, Expressiveness, Conflict), Personal Growth (Independence, Achievement Orientation, Intellectual-Cultural Orientation, Active-Recreational Orientation, Moral-Religious Emphasis), and System Maintenance (Organization, Control). The Hebrew adaptation showed solid reliability and validity, which is reported elsewhere (Shulman et aL, 1987). Results reported in this study refer to the three main dimensions.
Classroom Behavior Inventory (CBI) (Schaefer and Edgerton, 1978) The Hebrew adaptation of the CBI consists of 42 items that describe typically observed behavior in classroom. Teachers rate each behavior on a 4-point scale from not at all (1) to very much (4).
444
Shulman and Prechter
Internal consistency reliabilities above .90 have been achieved for the Hebrew adaptation, as with the original version. Factor analysis of the scales of the Hebrew adaptation replicated the factor structure reported by Schaefer, validating the spherical model of the three main factors: Academic Competence (alpha = .96), Social Adjustment (alpha = .95), and Extraversion vs. Introversion (alpha = .80). An additional factor of Dependence-Independence (alpha = .86), being relevant to adolescent individuation, was included. Procedure Six weeks after the beginning of the school year, the Moos FES was administered to the students. A few months later, when homeroom teachers were well acquainted with the students, they were asked to evaluate students on the Schaefer CBI. RESULTS Family Climate and Residential Education A multivariate analysis of variance was performed to compare residential and nonresidential groups on the three Moos dimensions. No significant differences were found between the two groups (F[1,106] = 0.31, p > .05). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table I. Adolescents studying at a residential school do not perceive their family atmosphere differently from adolescents who stay with their families. Family Climate and Adolescent Adaptation in Residential Education Pearson correlations between adolescent adaptation measures and dimensions of family climate were computed. Distinctive differences between
Table I. Comparisonof Residential and Nonresidential Groups on the Moos Family Environment Scale Dimensions Residential Nonresidential group (n = 51) group (n = 57) Mean SD Mean SD Relationships 5.23 1.64 4.90 1.46 Personal growth 5.67 1.71 5.68 1.62 System maintenance 5.59 1.48 5.76 1.46
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
445
Table II. Residential Group AdolescentAdaptation: Relationships to Family Climate Dimensions; Hierarchical Regressions and Correlations Simple Step/dimension entered /~ R2 F R Academic competence 1. System maintenance .39 .11 6.28~ .34 2. Relationships -.33 .22 6.83b -.27 Social adjustment 1. System maintenance
.12
.01
0.74
.12
Extraversion- introversion 1. System maintenance
.29
.09
1.93
.20
.39 - .20
.12 .14
6.85 b 3.83 a
Dependence-independence 1. System maintenance 2. Relationships
.35 -
.06
~ < .05. bp < .01. patterns of correlations for residential and nonresidential groups emerged. No significant differences were found between males and females, and therefore data were collapsed across sex. Multiple regressions were carried out to evaluate what contribution family climate dimensions make in predicting the four criterion measures of adolescent adaptation. The computations were performed for the residential and nonresidential groups separately, and are presented in Tables II and III, respectively. As can be seen, Family Climate dimensions explained a significant, although still moderate, amount of the variance for academic competence and level of independence in both groups, as well as social adjustment in the nonresidential groups. System Maintenance was the dimension that entered first in most of the regression equations. However, its contribution was different in each group. Whereas with the residential group System Maintenance contributed positively to adolescent adaptation, it had an adverse effect within the nonresidential group. A further distinction between the two groups was revealed concerning the second dimension entering the regression equation. In the residential group, the Relationships dimension entered second, and in the nonresidential group, Personal Growth. Regressions between criterion variables and family climate dimensions revealed similar results to the stepwise regressions. DISCUSSION Contrary to our initial assumptions, no differences in the perception of family climate between residential and nonresidential adolescents were found. One possible explanation is that not enough time had passed since the residential adolescents left their homes and, therefore, a major change in their perceptions o f their families had not yet occurred. However, it
Shulman and Prechter
446
Table Ill. Nonresidential Group Adolescent Adaptation: Relationships to Family Climate Dimensions; Hierarchical Regressions and Correlations Step/dimension entered
F
Simple R
/~
R2
Academic competence I. System maintenance 2. Personal growth
-.39 .33
.06 .15
3.80" 4.60 b
-.25 .15
Social adjustment 1. System maintenance
-.32
.09
5.18 b
-.29
Extraversion- introversion 1. System maintenance
.24
.05
2.80
Dependence-independence 1. Personal growth 2. System maintenance
.37 - .32
.06 .15
3.61 ~ 4.75 b
.22 .25 - . 16
p < .07. p < .05.
should be mentioned that Sullivan and Sullivan (1980) tested their adolescents one month after departure for college and found significant change. A further explanation could be that the adolescents in this study were younger (mean age = 15.3) than those in the Sullivan and Sullivan study (mean age = 17.8). Younger adolescents, though out of the home, may be still emotionally involved with their families and have not changed their perceptions of their families. Additionally, it may be suggested that the Sullivan and Sullivan (1980) measure of affection is of a concrete nature and is more affected by situational fluctuations. The perception of the family is an abstract construct and does not change easily. It is rather that with time an individual acquires an additional perspective as some adolescents may comment "Now I understand what my parents meant." It is the new perspective that is related to individuals' behavior-where certain family rules or routines gain a new meaning. The former suggestion is supported by the further inspection of the results revealing different relationships to exist between perception of family climate and school adaptation for residential and nonresidential adolescents. In the nonresidential group, emphasis by the family on structure and control interfered with autonomous expression in the domain of Academic Competence. On the other hand, the family's encouragement of individual assertiveness and self-sufficiency contributed to adolescent competence. In the residential group, the tendency was just the reverse. The adolescent's perception o f the family as emphasizing organization and control positively contributed to his/her academic competence. It may be suggested that for
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
447
the day-school adolescent, parental control may evoke opposition, while for the boarding student this control simply represents the former condition o f his/her life, which may now serve as a model for self-organization and the strengthening of individual competence. The degree of interpersonal commitment in the family, as perceived by the resident student (level of Relationships), may signify some kind of an emotional burden. Preoccupation with family matters may impede his/her sense of separateness, and thus interfere with the attainment of competence. Similar differential dynamics were found in the contribution of family climate to the level o f Dependence-Independence within the residential and nonresidential groups. Control that is, at the time, experienced by a day student may conflict with autonomous behavior. The sense of organization and control, when the family is no longer involved, may foster and support independent behavior. Leaving home enables the youngster to perceive the family differently and may lessen sources of conflict. Thus this study suggests that the perception of the family does not change with the individual's act of leaving the family, either to attend boarding school or to enter a new relationship, such as marriage. Separation from the family and the ability to inspect it from a distance enables persons to integrate the positive and negative aspects of their family of origin, as suggested by Main et al. (1985). Parental attitudes are reevaluated and judged for their comprehensive meaning. Appropriate control and organization are a source of support from close others, and may contribute to one's sense of coherence and continuity. They are not perceived by residential schoolers as mere obstacles to their daily activities. Studying at a residential school exposes the adolescent to other youngsters he/she has not preselected. The intimate exposure to peers is important since adolescence is the stage when the youngster invests in the peer group as part of the disengagement process from the family. Brown et al. (1986) outlined the importance adolescents assign to the peer group's ability to provide emotional and instrumental support, foster friendships, and facilitate social interaction. The investment and reliance on peers is probably reinforced for adolescents living away from home, such as boarding school students. The role of the family in determining the level o f social adjustment diminishes. Support for this notion may be found in the relationship between family climate and adolescent social adjustment. Family climate did not explain social adjustment within the residential group, but explained 9% of the variance within the nonresidential group. The differential exposure of boarding and nonboarding students to family dimensions can be understood following Boss and Greenberg's (1984) theory on family boundary ambiguity. According to Boss, family members have to alter their perception of the family once a loss or a change
448
Shulman and Prechter
has o c c u r r e d . Boss o u t l i n e d the m a l a d a p t i v e o u t c o m e s t h a t m a y surface w h e n a f a m i l y does n o t recognize t h a t o n e o f its m e m b e r s is missing. Boss p r o p o s e d t h a t f a m i l y t y p e m a y be related to v a r i a b i l i t y in h o w families perceive a n d r e s p o n d to change. It is suggested t h a t the b o a r d i n g s c h o o l a d o l e s cents in this s t u d y , w h o were f o u n d to b e l o n g to a n o r m a l s a m p l e , d i d n o t o v e r l o o k the c h a n g e t h a t t o o k p l a c e in their r e l a t i o n s h i p with the family. Moreover, they demonstrated an ability to internalize family models for their own use; the s a m e m o d e l , h o w e v e r , m a y e v o k e o p p o s i t i o n with the a d o l e s c e n t w h o lives at h o m e . It s h o u l d be e m p h a s i z e d t h a t the results o f this s t u d y are b a s e d on the adolescent's p e r c e p t i o n s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n o f o t h e r f a m i l y m e m b e r s m a y yield a m o r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the processes a c c o m p a n y i n g the act o f leaving h o m e as expressed b y the a d o l e s c e n t a n d the f a m i l y . A longitudinal s t u d y m a y highlight w h e t h e r the d i f f e r e n t i a l p e r c e p t i o n o f f a m i l y , in relation to individual a d a p t a t i o n , is a reaction for a short period or the beginning o f a larger process.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T h e a u t h o r s a r e g r a t e f u l to L u J e a n H u f f m a n - N o r d b e r g a n d P e d r a M e e k s for their help a n d c o m m e n t s .
REFERENCES
Benjamin, L. (1979). Structural analysis and differentiation failure. Psychiatry 42: 1-23. Block, J. H., and Block, J. (1980). The role of ego control and ego resiliency in the origins of behavior. In Collins, W. A. (ed.), Development of Cognition, Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (3/'ol. 13). Eribaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Boss, P., and Greenberg, J. (1984). Family boundary ambiguity: A new variable in family stress theory. Family Process 23: 535-546. Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., and Pertie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group ("crowd") aff'diation in adolescence. J. Adoles. 9: 73-96. Constantine, L. L. (1987). Adolescent process and family organization: A model of development as a function of family paradigm. J. Adoles. Res. 2: 349-366. Cooper, C. R., Grotevant, H. D., and Ayers-Lopez, S. (in press). Links between patterns of negotiation in adolescents' family and peer interaction. Int. J. Behav. Develop. Damon, W. (1983). The nature of social-cognitive change in the developing child. In W. F. Overton (Ed.), The Relationship between Social and cognitive Development. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. Greenberger, E., and Sorenson, A. (1974). Toward a concept of psychosocial maturity. J. Youth Adoles. 3: 329-358. Grotevant, D. H., and Cooper, C. R. (1985). Patterns of interaction in family relationships and the development of identity exploration in adolescence. Child Develop. 56: 415428. Hanser, S. T., Powers, S. I., Noam, (3. G., Jacobson, A. M., Weiss, B., and Fallansbee, D. J. (1984). Family contexts of ego development. Child Develop. 55: 195-213. Kashti, Y. (1979). The Socializing Community, Disadvantaged Adolescents in Israeli Youth Villages. Studies in Educational Evaluation Monograph No. 1, Tel Aviv.
Family Climate and Residential Schooling
449
Kashti, Y. (1985). Social development of adolescents in residential settings. In Ziv, A. (ed.), Between Childhood and Adulthood. Tel Aviv University Press, Tel Aviv, Papirus. Main, J., Kaplan, N., and Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In Bretherton, I., and Waters, E. (eds.), Growing Points o f Attachment Theory and Research (Vol. 50). Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Montemayor, R. (1982). The relationship between parent-adolescent conflict and amount of time adolescents spend with parents and peers. Child Develop. 53: 1512-1518. Moos, R. H. (1976). The Human Context: Environment Determinants o f Behavior. Wiley, New York. Sabatelli, R. M., and Mazor, A. (1985). Differentiation, individuation and identity formation: The integration of family system and individual developmental perspectives. Adolescence 20: 619-633. Schaefer, C. S. (1981). Development of adaptive behavior: Conceptual models and family correlates. In Begas, M. J., Haywood, H. C. and Garber, H. L. (eds.), Psychosocial Influence in Retarded Performance: Vol. 1. Issue and Theories in Development. Baltimore, University Park Press, MD. Schaefer, E. S., and Edgerton, M. (1978). Classroom Behavior Inventory. Unpublished manucript, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Shulman, S., and Klein, M. M. (1982). The family and adolescence: A conceptual and experimental approach. J. Adoles. 5: 219-234. Shulman, S., Seiffge-Krenke, I., and Samet, N. (1987). Adolescent coping style as a function of perceived family climate. J. Adoles. Res. 2: 367-381. Steinberg, L. (1981). Transformations in family relations at puberty. Develop. Psychok 17: 833-840. Sullivan, K., and Sullivan, A. (1980). Adolescent-parent separation. Develop. Psychok 16: 9399.
