Sociological approach to the study of relationships in the family

In the family's microsociology, the problem of studying family relationships is solved with the help of socio-psychological methods, but it does not boil down to a purely psychological analysis of the family as a species of a small group. The emergence and destruction of family unity, community, cohesion at all stages of the family life cycle, the functioning of the feelings of the family WE as the center of the family way of life, the analysis of the specifics of the relationship between parents and children, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, family members with a microenvironment of kinshipmicrosociological research.

At the heart of the sociological approach to family relations is the interest in configurations of role interactions. The social structure in the modernization process changes social roles and interrelations between them, which also affects family roles. The family's microsociology records the dynamics of interpersonal relationships in the family, conditioned by the transformation of family roles. In contrast to psychology, centered mainly on analyzing the emotional relationships of the family in the context of family stability, the sociology of the family is focused on the role structure and on its interaction with the system of interpersonal contacts.

Psychologist primarily interested in interpersonal roles, the processes of interpersonal perception and attraction of family members. Sociologist also refers to interpersonal relationships as a background, revealing through the specifics of family harmony and conflict, the features of integration of wrecking-marriage - kinship. "The degree of coordination of family roles( parental - conjugal - related) and the degree of their normative distancing from extra-family roles - that is the focus of sociological interest also in terms of the methodology and methodology of the study. How to measure the authority of parents and the socialization of children in relations between parents and children;how to explore dominance in dyadic relations between spouses and in family communication, in patterns of intergenerational interactions;what are the sociometric methods of obtaining data on the interpersonal conflictuality of marital relations in connection with gender inconsistency of family and professional roles of husbands and wives - these issues are most relevant today.

A huge number of methods and procedures developed in sociology and psychology are devoted to various aspects of the sociological dimension of the family, but the systematization of this extensive research technique within the sociological approach is not complete.

Usually relationship relationships are explored using tools that fix the structure of related communication( involvement in related interactions, frequency of contacts, related solidarity).At the same time, indices of relationship orientation and extended family are used, scales of surnames, mutual assistance and support, preferential territorial resettlement of relatives, indicators of the quality of relationships( the index of cohesion - conflicts, the importance of the extended family as a reference group).

Here is an example of a family scale:

. 1.Do you think that children under the age of 16 should be paid for their work in their family?

2. Do you think that working children under the age of 21 and living in the family should give all their salaries to their parents?

3. Who should take care of elderly parents - their children or the government?

4. If your parents do not advise marrying the girl you chose, do you marry her?

5. Should children who created their own family live with their parents?

6. Do you think it is possible to marry a man of another religious faith?

7. Is it possible to marry a person of a different nationality?

8. Could you make your son a partner of your company?

9. Do you like your son's intention to follow your professional steps?

10. Should you consult on important family matters with close relatives( uncle, aunt, cousin( fad or sister).)

Methods of investigating the relationship between parents and children are also extremely diverse and are built primarily on direct questions and their combinations or on judgments of projective or direct action. Here are some areas of measurement: normative and functional solidarity and integration, similarity and difference in values, interpersonal perception of potential support from family members, the quality of interactions in the family( feelings of closeness, intimacy, understanding, communication, trust and self-respect from others and othersin the family, the frequency of communication between family members).Here is one of the scales on the interactions of parents and children( for each of the items, it is necessary to note the frequency of interaction - almost never, once a year, several times a year, every month, a week):

1. Recreation and recreation outside the house( movies, picnics, travel, swimming, hunting, etc.).

2. Short visits.

3. Family celebrations and festive dinners, where the whole family gathers.

4. Small family holidays in connection with birthdays and anniversaries.

5. Joint discussions of important problems.

6. Religious activity of any type.

7. Write letters.

8. Joint lunches

9. Communicating by phone.

10. Exchange of gifts.

11. Different kinds of parents' help to children.

12. Helping children with their parents.

INVESTIGATION OF SPOUSE COMPATIBILITY ON THE BASIS OF INTERCEPTUAL PERCEPTION OF FAMILY ROLES

An extremely large number of scales, tests and techniques are created to fix the state of relationships in the matrimonial dyad. In addition to the mass indexes of conjugal happiness and satisfaction with marriage, there are questionnaires on revealing the degree of matrimonial adaptation and mutual adaptation. One of the first methods of marriage compatibility is the questionnaire, proposed by Ernst Burgess and his assistants, consisting of 36 direct questions and "passer-tichki."Based on the results of the answers, the fitness score was calculated, and then the dyad fell into one of 9 groups. Due to the limited amount of this training manual, this questionnaire is not provided. But this type of questionnaire is now a lot and we have. All these surveys are characterized by the combination of several questions on one topic and the calculation of the mean values ​​of all kinds of marital satisfaction or adaptation indexes.

Depending on the popularity of certain theories, in each research era, the criteria for marital fitness change and accordingly the content of the questions asked changes. If tests are used, then the change of theories affects the interpretation of the data. However, one can not but admit that until now there is not technically as simple and convenient procedure for measuring conjugal relationships as, for example, sociometric technique. Its inapplicability to the family is due to the fact that the spouses have already chosen each other, and children are deprived of this freedom of choice by the very fact of their birth. Of course, it is possible to modify the form of sociometric choice to measure intrafamily ties, to come up with some new selection criteria or some hypothetical situations in which the choice of each other's family members is reasonable and realistic. Nevertheless, the orthodox sociometry of the choice of people in the group according to the degree of sympathy - the antipathy of emotional preferences in the family is not feasible.

Therefore, in psychology, many interesting attempts have been made to create fundamentally new approaches to measuring family and conjugal relationships, which in time can be used in the sociology of the family. But these new tests do not solve the problems facing the sociological dimension of the degree of coincidence of the role and interpersonal structures of family communication. As a technique of this kind in 1970, AI Antonov proposed a method for studying the compatibility of spouses by the similarity of their mutual representations about the fulfillment of each of their socio-cultural family roles. This technique has been well tested in several pilot studies of several hundred pairs, the results obtained with its help correlate with the data of some similar procedures. Various aspects of the methodology were developed with the help of students of the psychological, sociological and philosophical faculties of Moscow State University( from 1972 to 1993, several dozen theses were defended on this topic).

To measure marital relations by the method of interrogation in connection with the inevitability of uncontrolled interactions in the SN-UN-OH system, it is better to abandon direct questions. As already noted, the SD technique best meets the requirements of projective procedures. The inclusion of various social phenomena in the ego, which is given a great role in the microsociology of the family and in social psychology, finds its embodiment in the SD technique through measuring the degree of identification of the I with some or other objects of the social world. The variability of the values ​​of Д between Я and the objects identified with EGO reflects the specifics of individual perception. Hence, as it were, the application of the method of inclusion in the I on the basis of the SD to the sphere of the relationship of the spouses begs of itself. It should be taken into account that the specific nature of the goals of the sociology of the family in the study of interpersonal dynamics presupposes special attention to the sociocultural roles of parenthood - matrimony - kinship.

Thus, the realization of the idea of ​​measuring the degree of involvement in family roles in the first phase only encounters technical problems, since individual blocks of this measurement procedure are actively exploited and have a meaningful interpretation recognized in social psychology. Comparison with the relevance of the relevant( family) way of life of objects indicates the importance attached to this aspect of family life. When working with SD, it turns out that for the identification of personal meanings it is not at all necessary to know what the self and the object to be compared with it are. The technique of SD is indifferent to the absolute, transcendental meaning of the objects being evaluated - an important difference in estimates is important. Skilful handling of these differences can help to learn about the individual and the family and anything else more than attempts to directly penetrate the deep essence of the same person.

Comparing with I family roles of the father, the wife, the sister, the grandson, etc., we receive a self-estimation of own performing skill in this or that role. By giving the same role objects to all family members for evaluation, one can know the characteristics of the interpersonal perception of these roles. Under certain conditions( which will be discussed below), mutual indicators of interpersonal perceptions are indicators of the actual performance of certain roles by family members. Involving disposition discourse makes it possible to understand that the more a family role is included in I, the stronger is the identification of I with this role. This means that the person, solving the task of choosing actions, says to himself: "I will do this because as a father I can not fail to do this, otherwise I will cease to respect myself and become someone else, not myself, that is, I will no longer be Me. "Coupling with the role of the father makes it impossible for an individual to imagine his self outside of this role. Hence all the definitions of the most diverse family situations are produced not from the position of some abstract self or a handsome bachelor, but from the point of view of the father. The described socio-psychological mechanism reveals the essence of the definition of situations, which differs sharply from the rational choice of the best alternative, with the refinement that I identify myself with several roles and the adopted strategy of behavior is dictated by the integral self, somehow connecting, coordinating all of its most significantroles( family and extra-family).With the predominance of personalized family roles should be expected from the I prosefinal decisions and definitions. With the preponderance of roles of the opposite kind, many family situations will be judged by a completely different I, detached from everything that is characteristic of the family man.

What family roles should be selected for their interpersonal perception by spouses? First of all, the parent "father-mother" and the married "husband-wife".The roles of kinship in the measurement of conjugal relationships are inappropriate, whereas in the study of family relations as a whole they are mandatory. Since by the degree of identification of roles with the I there is an opportunity to assess the actual performance of family roles by spouses, it is required to supplement these four roles with others. In language and verbal usage, the firmly established social role of the "family man" has been established and does not have the equivalent of a feminine gender. This, apparently, is due to a closer involvement of family roles of the function of women in culture. At the present time, a woman is not so tightly connected with the world of the family, nevertheless, this circumstance has not yet found its linguistic embodiment. Therefore, it was necessary to invent a female synonym for the sociocultural role of the "family man".By trial and error, the role of the "mistress", which has a slightly different meaning than the word "family man", was selected, and not very successfully. The phrase "housewife" was rejected, because it is too close to the negatively assessed in public opinion domestic work, to the word "housekeeper."The hostess in this sense is a broader concept, far from an undesirable, negative evaluation.

Another role of the "head of the family" was a tribute to the time - the issue of leadership in the family of a woman actively discussed in the press, in the home, and the uncertainty of this role for the man, especially in urban conditions. Incidentally, this role was included in all censuses of the population( except for the last), and therefore the population had experience of interpreting the rule of the family in the context of the instructions of the statistical department. In addition, the role of the "head of the family" was also convenient because it suited perfectly from the gender point of view.

As the aspect relating to sexual behavior is important for conjugal relationships, the roles of a man-woman were included in the methodology. They allowed, on the one hand, to determine to what extent the husband and wife identify themselves and their spouse with this sexual role, to what extent they keep attractiveness for each other, which is important for the spouses with experience. On the other hand, the preponderance of the importance of these gender roles over the parental( or vice versa) could serve as one of the characteristics of the marriage alliance.

Thus, in order to avoid an increase in the size of the survey form and to shorten the time for filling it out, the roles of husband-wife, mother-father, head of family, family man-mistress, men-women were selected. Additionally, in order to carry out their evaluation according to the degree of identification, the words I and the word combinations "my husband" for wives and "my wife" for husbands were introduced. In the experimental polls, the words OH - SHE were also used, as if replacing the named word combinations. However, they were found to be unacceptable as substitutes - the focus of the methodology described here on measuring the compatibility of spouses required a specific evaluation of each spouse( and the objects "he-she" did not satisfy this goal).

The objects "my - I am a husband-wife" were the most vulnerable in the sense that they required a specific evaluation on the SD scales of their marriage partner. Consequently, the requirements to the selection of scales were immediately increased: they had to be completely neutral and remove any hint of a direct evaluation of the personality. This problem, strictly speaking, is fundamentally insoluble, since the SD technique is based on an evaluation and without this it makes no sense. But such a technique of multiple and not "frontal" estimation is veiled by some uncertainty of the antonyms. Therefore, it is possible to select neutral scales for personal evaluation. Incidentally, the procedure for determining the respondent's attitude to himself and to people around him on the SD scales is close, in essence, to Morin's sociometry.

It should be noted that when assessing yourself or your spouse, for example, on the "fast - slow" scale, the respondent can literally understand this procedure and balance everything with the speed of reaction, or with gait, or with the speed of climbing the social ladder - it does not matter, what kind of meaning is invested by a person when he evaluates himself as something, faster than slow. Whatever this means, it is always right from a subjective point of view. What's important is different: the difference in the scores on this scale between the objects being compared. It is the search for such differences that makes up the essence of the method of including in one of the family roles in the self( the respondent himself and in I the image of his spouse).

To attract those respondents who by virtue of the activity of their protective motives in all see a threat to their self, C. Osgood and his colleagues used a veiled scale gradation system - not 3-2-1-0-1-2-3, but1-2-3-4-5-6-7, where the 0 is not clearly marked, the boundary of the transition from "fast" to "slow".Nevertheless, even with this system, cases of "deaf protection" are inevitable, that is, not a direct refusal from testing, but the departure of "complexed" respondents to zero( when 0 or 4 are graded on all scales and all objects).

What selection of scales for measuring the degree of identification with a set of family roles? First of all, all three Osgudov factors of evaluation, strength and activity must be presented. Each of them should be represented by several scales for mutual control and obtaining more reliable data. The average values ​​of A of any object with respect to three factors give three of its coordinates in the Osgudov geometry of space. The experience of the research has shown that it is best to represent each factor with two scales, since the assessment on 9 scales( without taking into account distracting attention) and 10 objects increases the time for filling the test and the laboriousness of this work.

The activity factor in most of our studies used the already mentioned scale "fast - slow", and also "active - passive".Scales such as "loud - quiet", "acute - stupid", "industrious - lazy", "excited-quiet", etc. could cause direct associations with the psychological characteristics of the respondents and were therefore rejected. The evaluation factor is presented not by the commonly used scales "good-evil", "useful-harmful", "expensive-cheap", "clean-dirty", "smart-stupid", "truthful-false", etc.( clearly estimatedin relation to specific people), but those that different authors attribute to each of the three factors, sinceobviously do not approach any of them. These scales are "bright - dark" and "warm - cold", correlating with "good" and "bad" and being more neutral with respect to the family values ​​being evaluated. The "strength" factor included "strong - weak" and "hard - soft"( rejected according to the results of experimental tests "heavy - light", "thick - thin", "full - empty", "big - small", "male- female "and other scales causing unwanted associations with family roles).

When practicing the technique in flight measurements, another factor of "habituality" discovered by J. Nunelli and represented by the scales "simple - complex", "new - old", "clear - confused", etc. was taken into account. Most of them have no characterantonyms neither in English, nor in Russian( usual - unusual, familiar - unfamiliar, etc.).These scales did not show themselves better than those selected by the 6th scale and were excluded from the methodology.

MEASURING THE SIMILARITY AND DIFFERENCES OF THE ROLE REPRESENTATIONS OF SPOUSES THROUGH THE TECHNIQUES OF THE "SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL"( SD)

In culture, family roles have taken deep root, and therefore every marriage requires members of the newly formed union to try on the role of husband-wife, to enter voluntarilyrole communication. Depending on the individual characteristics of each, the performance of family roles may differ materially from that of a suitable sample. However, the script of the role-playing game of the spouses at the first and subsequent stages of the family cycle, as it were, is predetermined by the director - culture, life. The style of playing the roles can be modified by the actors of the conjugal drama, but not infinitely, but within the play long written by the previous family generations. Internalization of own roles and roles of another spouse, the degree of identification of each of the spouses with these roles is an important characteristic of the role behavior of the person and the couple in the matter.

The degree of acceptance of their family roles is an indicator not only of the effectiveness of their assimilation, but also an indicator of the success of the role behavior of the individual. If you manage to cope with your role, you will find a common language with another, which also successfully internalizes its roles. The first condition for playing role games in the family is to clearly understand your role. But this condition necessarily includes the consideration of the reaction of other people to their own behavior. And this, in turn, activates the mechanism of role communication and interaction according to the rules that are described in the theory of roles. Execution of roles assumes acceptance of roles of another, ie, each participant has an image of another, an idea of ​​his roles. With direct communication, the mechanism of interpersonal perception, individual definition of family interaction situations is included, and it is important that the ideas of the spouses coincide with the roles they perform. The larger the zone of coincidence, the greater the "field" of co-ordinated interaction in this sense, the greater the mutual understanding and compatibility.

On this basis( recognized by many social and psychological concepts), a technique for conjugal compatibility is being developed. Each spouse should evaluate his roles by the degree of inclusion in the I and the role of his spouse in marriage. Here is the essence of the test, the question of how to create a primary test form, while it remains on the sidelines, but in general terms it can be said that the above-described 10 objects of evaluation using the 6 scales mentioned above are used to complete the blank forms for the husband and wife. Which are then carried out on the SD comparison, - this, in fact, is devoted to the subsequent presentation.

Self-evaluations of husbands and wives about their own performance of roles are determined by comparing I with each of them separately. For example, I am a husband, I am a father, I am a family man, etc. In the same way, one should act with self-assessments of wives. Thus, two sets of self-assessments are formed-5 husbands and 5 wives. Psychological analysis is limited to considering the values ​​of D for a single married couple. In sociological research, interest is focused on data on the group of interviewed couples in general. Thus, in our pilot study, 40 young families of students and postgraduates of Moscow State University with a marriage experience of 1.5 years and at an average age of 26.9 and 23.6 years of self-esteem of role behavior in the family were distributed as follows:

SELF-ASSESSMENT OF HUMAN FAMILIES WOMEN

1.I am the head of the family 1.77 11. I am a woman 2.07

2. I am a man 1.78 12. I am a wife 2.14

Z. I am a man 1,81 13. I am a housewife 2.21

4. I am the husband 1.94 14. I am the head of the family 2.28

5. I am the father 2.20 15. I am the mother 2.36

It is important for the sociologist to note that the parental roles appeared in the hierarchy of family roles on the lastmonthe and their wives and their husbands. Identification with the roles of the father and mother in the newly created families is apparently still low and is associated with the lack of children in most of the interviewed families. Only 20 of them have a child, and only half of the families he lives with his parents. Judging by the values ​​of D, all the self-assessments of both husbands and wives are not overestimated, they are quite realistic, ie, they are far from 0 - the boundary of complete inclusion in the family roles and are extremely far from 14.0 - the boundary of complete detachment from them. Further, work with self-assessments allows not only to rank them, but also to see, for example, the self-criticality of wives, in comparison with their husbands, as they vary in value from 2.07 to 2.36, and in husbands only one father's self-esteem2.0, the remaining 1.77-1.94.A special importance is attached to the role of the head of the family for husbands and indifference to this in women."However, the technique of conjugal compatibility for the full picture can not be limited to self-evaluations of the performance of roles. Incidentally, the word "self-esteem" is used here not to characterize the self, but to self-evaluate itself in some family role. It is necessary to know how the marital partner evaluates each of the spouses.

SELF-ASSESSMENT WIFE

11. I am a woman 2.07

12. I am a wife of 2.14

13. I am a businesswoman of 2.21

14. I am the head of the family 2.28

15. I am a mother 2.36

EVALUATION OF MEN'S WOMEN ASSESSMENT OF WIFE OF HUSBAND

6. My wife-wife 1.41 16. My husband-male 1.25

L My wife-woman 1.80 17. My husband is a man 1.82

8. My wife-mistress1.94 18. My husband-father 1.82

9. My wife-mother 1.99 19. My family husband 1.92

10. My wife is the head of the family 2.32 20. My husband is the head of the family 2.13

The assessments of the other spouse are also interesting for analysis on their own - first, one can immediately see by the magnitude of D that wives are less critical of their husbands, than to themselves, they have 4 ratings below 2.0.Secondly, when compared with the assessments of wives from husbands, the husbands' assessments again look a little less critical. Estimates of wives by husbands in comparison with their self-esteem are almost the same in three roles, they are less severe in the role of wife than their self-esteem of the role of husband, and in the role of heads of husbands are extremely picky to their wives. In other words, husbands do not consider their wife to be the head of the family and see only themselves in this role, although they are very fond of their wife as a wife, even more than a woman. Wives also do not see their husbands as heads of families, but even more themselves, they do not claim leadership.

We introduce one more element in the analysis of 20 evaluations - the degree of confirmation of self-esteem of any role by another spouse. It is perfectly conventional to adopt the following provision as an axiom - when comparing the self-esteem of one spouse with the evaluation of his role in this role by another spouse, we will consider the evaluation of the other as the only and indisputable criterion for the actual performance of the role. This method is all based on "subjective" assessments, so the only way to determine how much a person's rights are in self-esteem is in the evaluation given by another spouse, even if not true. In this article, it has already been repeatedly noted that the sociological dimension is based on the identification of differences. Therefore, when analyzing the mutual representations of spouses, one should again focus on finding differences in their perception of each other. And if this distinction is fixed, it does not matter which of the spouses is wrong and who is not. Maybe they both are mistaken, even if it matters only the fact of the difference itself or its absence.

EVALUATION OF THE WIFE OF THE HUSBAND

16. My husband is a man 1.25

17. My husband is a man 1.82

18. My husband is a father 1.82

19. My husband is a family man 1.92

20. My husband-head of the family 2.13

If the difference is obvious, and it is significant, then we can state a non-confirmation of the self-esteem of one spouse by another. Conversely, if there is no difference, then self-esteem is fully confirmed: this means that there is a similarity of representations, perceptions, there is the same definition of family situations. At the same time, it does not matter that mutual understanding is based on illusions - it is important that it exists and really affects the favorable "climate" of the conjugal union. Eliminating these illusions often means destroying the marriage, although the art of the therapist is to approximate the family's constructed reality of the family to adaptive interaction with the environment.

THE TEST FOR MEASURING THE ROLE COMPATIBILITY OF SPRINGS( TIRS)

Let's consider how in our example it is with self-assessment confirmation( for the sake of simplicity, the numbers of self-evaluations and estimates of the other will be used).So, the first three self-assessments of husbands( Nos. 1-2-3) are less in the value of D of the wives' estimates of 1.77, 1.78 and 1.81, since the evaluations of these roles by wives( Nos. 20-17-19)more, respectively, 2.13 -1.82 -1.92.However, only self-assessments Nos. 1 and 3 prove unconfirmed, whereas self-assessment No. 2, although it is less by 0.04, but this value is not statistically significant. The significance is determined with respect to the average value of the difference in the values ​​of A, calculated separately from the confirmed and unconfirmed self-assessments in accordance with the procedure for establishing the confidence limits of the values ​​of D. Self-assessment I-the husband 1.94 and the father-2.2 are confirmed,given by the wife, My husband is the husband of 1.25 and My husband is the father 1.82, much lower in size.

All self-assessments of the wife proved to be confirmed, even the role of the head of the family( due to the insignificance of the difference of 0.04).In a sample of young families, only 2 out of 10 self-esteem of the spouses are not confirmed, and one can think that the process of adaptation to family roles is quite successful, although the horror lies in the claims of husbands to the role of head of the family and in their unreadiness for the role of family man.

Here is the data for one of the families( the first digit is self-esteem, the second is the spouse's score, and the + sign indicates self-esteem confirmation):

1. I-female 6.8 6.0 + I-male 3.6 5.5 -

2. I am a wife 3,6 6,0 - I am a man 3,5 5,1 -

3. I am a mother 3,2 4,2 - I am a father 3,9 5.9

4. I am a housewife 3,2 3.3 + I-family man 2.5. 5.4 -

5. I am the head of the family 3.5 4.4 - I am the head of the family 3.8 5.7 -

All the self-esteem of the husband is not confirmed, and more than half of the wife's self-assessments are also overstated. At the stage of formation of the family after the birth of the first-born, this is often found. Repeated measurements after 3 and 5 months found confirmation of 3 self-evaluations of the wife, including the role of the mother, and 4 self-evaluations of the husband. It should be noted that the value of D, far from 0, and even 1.0 - the boundaries of complete identification with roles and the perfect performance of family roles, this family is far from ideal. But it attracts self-criticism and, as they say, healthy criticism of the spouse - the family is in the making, not everything is going smoothly, and low ratings of the performance of roles( but - high values ​​of D) are realistic. Subsequent studies have shown an improvement in assessments of spouses' fitness for family roles( the range of assessments by the husband's wife varies from 2.5 to 5.0 and the husband's wife's scores from 1.7 to 4.8).

Carried out the same kind of tests, but in wide selective studies, showed the prevalence of self-assessment confirmation of only one of the spouses, mutual confirmation of all self-assessments practically does not occur, very rarely 9 and 8, more often 5 and 6.

I am a man 3,6 5,5 -

I am a husband 3,5 5,1 -

I am a father 3,9 5.9 -

I am a family man 2,5 5,4 -

I am the head of the family 3.85.7 -

In accordance with the accepted tradition, such an algorithm of relations can be called a formula of mutual and one-sided love, especially if the roles of a man-woman and husband-wife are confirmed. It is interesting that in the book of A. Zhuravlev published in 1987, where a lot of attention is devoted to the analysis of love lyrics with the help of SD techniques and equations of mathematical logic, similar algorithms are shown: one-sided, or unrequited love( "he loves her, and she is his no-this history is a thousand years old, she loves him, but he does not exist, and it lasts for a thousand years ") and mutual love( the happy one who loves and loves), as well as transitional constructions, the equations of harmony and disparity.

Thus, the formula of mutual love for one or several roles is expressed by the tendency to underestimate their own self-esteem and overestimate the evaluation of their partner in marriage. The formula of one-sided love( when Adam loves Eve more than she does him and vice versa) describes the situation of most families, when the understatement of self-esteem and overstating of the other is peculiar only to one of the married couple, and in principle this is enough for the stability of the family ship. The above described methodology in this connection may be referred to as the test of the role compatibility of the TIRS spouses. It allows for the number of confirmed self-assessments out of 10 to distinguish several groups of families in terms of the degree of cohesion - the conflictual nature of the relationship.

Usually, all cohesive families are united in one group, for it is clear that there are always too few super-consolidated ones. Correspondingly, they enter the conflict pairs, then the whole sample is divided into three groups.

Monitoring the IISS methodology on other questions about the state of relationships or on the degree of guessing of each other's installations shows the validity of the methodology.

In the study "Vilnius-76" mentioned above, according to the TIRS methodology, close-knit families 47 and conflict 53( out of a total of 191).

There were no conflicts among the three-child families at all. In cohesive families, the opinion "we are dissatisfied with each other, but we strive to help another" is noted less often, and the answer is "1,5-2 times" "We are often unhappy with each other and do not help each other".The statement "we are bound only by habit" is not observed in super-solid families, but in super-conflict meets more than 3 times more often than in others.

Due to the fact that the claims of family dominance play a destructive role for marriage, male and female self-evaluations of this role were decided, as well as the assessment of the other spouse in this role to be compared with the groups on cohesion.

In close-knit families, not only wives, but husbands do not recognize leadership and assign this role to another. Opposite position is observed in conflict families, where husbands and wives do not recognize leadership after another. In the study "Moscow-78" was simultaneously tested 83 married couples, 50 of them cohesive, conflict and 15 - satisfactory.

From Table 3 it can be seen that the tendency to consider not yourself but the other leader of the family( I'm not the head of the family) is inherent in close-knit families and is completely absent in conflict families. For cohesive families, the dominant role of the husband in the family is also characteristic. Leadership such as "wife is the head of the family" helps the family to unite the least, and the most destructive for the family is the statement "I am the head of the family" when each of the spouses claims to sole leadership.

Table 3

To monitor data on the influence of the type of leadership on the degree of family cohesion, 22 divorcing couples were interviewed. It turned out that "I am the head" is noted in 45% of divorcees and in 13% of non-watered ones( out of 78 pairs), while "Not I am the head" in 9% of divorce versus 37% of those who are not watered. The leader of the family is the wife among 31% divorcing and 18% non-watered, while the husband's leadership is marked by 13% divorcing and 32% non-watered. A similar identification of the self-orientation and the non-self orientation was carried out for the remaining 4 roles. In general, according to them, I-orientation is characteristic for 53% of pairs of bred and non-self - among 5% of pairs. These indicators in stable families were 13% and 38%.The predominance of the husband in various spheres was noted among 32% of stable couples and 13% of those divorcing( with equal orientation to the leadership of the wife). Thus, to achieve family cohesion, the family's orientations toward intra-family activities and orientation toward husband's leadership are more valuable.

It's interesting that comparing the actual settings to the desired and expected number of children of one of the spouses and guesses about this other has revealed about the same number of guesses for both husbands and wives. However, it was the highest for the expected total number of children( 64%) and low for the desired( 29% for the wives and 38% for the husbands), and among the accurately guessed installations, there are twice as many spouses from close-knit families than from conflict ones.