Medellín FMM, Rivera HME, López PJ, Kanán CMEG, Rodríguez-Orozco AR

Language: Spanish
References: 16
Page: 147-154
PDF size: 287.75 Kb.

ABSTRACT

This study was conducted with the objective of evaluating whether a relationship between family functioning and social support networks exists in a sample of parents from the city of Morelia, Michoacán.
Methods: A total of 192 adults participated; 17% were men and 83% were women with a mean of age of 42 years. They answered two selfadministered questionnaires: the adapted Nava Network Quality and the FACES II scale. ANOVA with the Bonferroni post hoc test and Spearman’s correlation were applied.
Results: Only 12 out of 16 types of families proposed by Olson were found. The family functioning types that were found are 29% connected-chaotic, 20% emmeshed-chaotic, 19% connected-flexible, and in the remaining 32% all the other types of family functioning. Family support networks followed by friend networks provide the most support to the majority of family types. Statistically significant differences were found in the variance analysis among the different family types and their perception of family support networks with an F(11.180)= 8.573, p‹.001, and the perceived lack of support from social networks with an F(11.180)= 4.501, p‹0.001.
The correlations between family functioning and social support networks were significant, but low in most of the cases.
Conclusions: Family support networks, followed by friend support networks, were found to provide the greatest support to the majority of family types. However, this pattern changes depending on the typology and level of family functioning. The chaotic-connected followed by enmeshed-chaotic were family functioning types frequently found in this sample.
Significant and low, differences were found in the correlations of the different levels of family functioning and their social support networks.
The characterization of family functioning in relation to the perception of support provided by social networks is useful for the identification of resources and specific strategies for clinical and psychosocial interventions with families.

REFERENCES

1. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review General Psychology 2002;6(4):307-24.

2. Velasco ML, Sinibaldi J. Manejo del enfermo crónico y su familia. México: Manual Moderno; 2001.

3. Minuchin S, Fishman H. Técnicas de terapia familiar. México: Paidós; 2009.

4. Olson D, McCubbin H, Barnes H, Muxen M et al. Families: What makes them work. USA: Sage; 1989.

5. Olson DH, Russell CS, Sprenkle DH. Circumplex model of marital and family systems: VI. Theoretical update. Fam Process 1983;22:69-83.

6. Olson DH. Circumplex model of marital and family systems. J Family Therapy 2000;22(2):144-167.

7. Martínez A, Iraurgi L, Gladíndez E, Sanz M. Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES): Desarrollo de una versión de 20 items en español. J Clinical Health Psychology 2005;6(2):317-338.

8. Aquilino L, Martínez, P. Evaluación psicológica y psicopatológica de la familia. España: Instituto de Ciencias para la Familia; 2003.

9. García E, Musitu G. Psicología social de la familia. España: Paidós; 2000.

10. Calleja, N. Inventario de escalas psicosociales en México 1984-2005. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Psicología, 2011. Recuperado el 16 de julio de 2011. Disponible en red: http://planeacion.psicol.unam.mx/cake/inventario-de-escalas.

11. Nava C, Reyes-Lagunes I, Vega CZ. La escala de calidad de red social. Revista Psicología Social Personalidad 2001;27(2):149-159.

12. López-Peñaloza J. Resiliencia familiar ante el duelo. Tesis de Doctorado en Psicología. México: UNAM, Facultad de Psicología, 2008.

13. Rivera-Heredia ME, Andrade P. Recursos individuales y familiares que protegen al adolescente del intento suicida, Revista Intercontinental Psicología Educación 2006;8(2):23-40.

14. Valdés AA. Familia y desarrollo. Intervenciones en terapia familiar. México: Manual Moderno; 2007.

15. Sluzki C. La red social: Frontera de la práctica sistémica. España: Gedisa; 2002.

16. Hofstede G, Hofstede GA. Cultures and organizations. Software of the mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New York: McGraw Hill; 2005.