article evaluation
Articles evaluation has the purpose to expose to how to write and reports each statistical technique. Late submission penalize by 10 points. The evaluation (2-3 pages) must covered the following issues: a. Justification for the use of the technique. b. Evidence of data screening and assumptions tested. c. Quality of the results presentation with complete information needed to evaluate the result. d. Discussion of results supported by the information offered. e. Suggestions for improving the report.
The Lost Years: Assessing Family Chang
e
in St. Petersburg, Russia, between 1983 an
d
2003
*
Christopher S. Swader
**
The transition from cotnmunism to capitalism following the breakup ofthe U.S.S.R. provide
s
a unique opportunity to analyze the itnpact of radical social change upon ‘the relationship.’
Within this study, the city of St. Petersburg serves as a laboratory in which to see how this
transformation affected perceptions of social relationships, specifically those within the
family.
A concern about “the deteriorating effectiveness of the family as a source of moral an
d
social guidance and values” (Hopper, 2003:36) motivates this investigation. The basi
c
assumption behind such a worry is that the social relationship serves as the glue that binds
individuals together, and is thus the mechanism through which social order is maintained.
Family relationships are particularly important because of their role in imprinting, enforcing,
and maintaining social norms.
With such concerns in mind, this article first reports on whether or not respondents in St.
Petersburg, Russia, have perceived a change in the quality of their family relationships
between 1983 and 2003. Second, the immediate causes of reported changes are explor
ed
through analyzing multiple regression results. Third, two family change perspectives, those
of family stress and of individualization, are used to interpret the results. These three issues
are dealt with through the lens of retrospective questionnaire data collected in St. Petersburg
in the summer of 2003.
HISTORICALOVERVIEW
The Family
In order to frame this analysis, it is necessary to first briefly introduce the historical contex
t
ofthe Soviet family before seeing how it may have changed after the fall ofthe U.S.S.R. On
the one hand, the Soviet state was highly anti-social and espoused policies that we
re
destructive for families. Shlapentokh (1991) describes how the Russian family in Stalinist
* The author is thankful for ihe advice of Baldo Blinkert of the University of Freiburg and for ihe fieldwork
assistance provided in St. Petersburg by Nina Oding of the Leontief Centre, Lyuba Ejova of the Centre fo
r
Independetit Social Research, and Maria Yashina of Herzen University. Many thanks as well to Andreas
Obermaier of the University of Bremen and to anonymous reviewers for their feedback and careful reading.
**Graduate School of Social Sciences (GSSS), University of Bremen, Germany, cswader@gsss.uni-bremen.de
318 Joumal of Comparative Family Studies
times lived under three immense pressures. First, state ideology, not the family, was the chief
determinant of social values, and these values both emphasized public life over private life
and work over family. Second, the Soviet state before and through Stalin’s reign existed in
conditions of stark material poverty. According to Sblapentokh (1991), tbis poverty
exacerbated the low-priority of family life because the poor living conditions within Soviet
homes and communal apartments of that era provided little incentive to spend time with tbe
family within tbem. Tbe third and most direct pressure exacted by tbe Soviet state against
the stability of families was that it pitted family members against one anotber in its mecbanisms
of repression. Stalinist intelligence services set cbildren against parents., wives against
husbands, and neighbors against eacb otber by encouraging them to spy on one anotber.
This sort of treachery, woven into every-day life by tbe state, in Sblapentokh’s (1991) view,
made family life tense. These pressures on the family were apparently great because people
reportedly “devoted little time and energy to their famihes” (Sblapentokb, 1991:267). Another
researcher. Malysheva (1992:10), has dubbed tbe Soviet person of this era “Homo Sovieticus,”
a human being “completely deprived of its social roots.”
On tbe other hand, the Soviet family became a sanctuary from tbe state, a place wbere state
ideology could not intrude. Under the strain of tbe above pressures, family members relied
more upon one another. As Sblapentokh (1991:267) puts it, “when faced witb the Stalinist
leviathan, the Soviet people tumed to their families for protection against the horrors of
everyday life.” Similarly, Malysbeva (1992:3) called family “the only place of expression and
resistance in a spiritual vacuum.” Furthermore, tbe pressures that affected Russian families
especially in Stalin’s time weakened considerably at tbe latter end of Soviet rule, to the
benefit of the family. The ideological collapse entailing tbe failure of communist ideals and
the declining authority of the state, tbe improvement in living conditions, and tbe decline of
repression allowed family life to “re-emerge” (Sblapentokb, 1991:269).
This re-emergence of tbe importance of family life was apparently short-lived, for signs of
family decay and of a greater Russian social deterioration were obvious by the late 198O’s.
Descriptions of Russian families in the eighties and in tbe years afterwards often use tbe
mantra of “demoralization” (Malysbeva, 1992; Shlapentokh. 1991). This demoralization did
not reach a critical mass until it was catalyzed by tbe total loss of popular trust in socialist
reality and ideology with glasnost and perestroika in tbe 198O’s. By tbe moment of the
collapse of tbe U.S.S.R., tbe decline of the family was fully visible. For example, in 1991,
Shlapentokb (1991) called tbe demoralization of Soviet society and tbe erosion of socia
l
bonds the main threat to the Russian family. He notes that many Soviet writers of this period
decried the “loss of prestige of family in society,” “tbe devaluation of tbe family,” and “the
collapse of tbe family” (Shlapentokh. 1991:272). Malysheva (1992) was no exception and
argued during tbis period tbat the demoralization of society was causing tbe demoralizati
on
of tbe family and would lead to a subsequent rise in crime, alcohol consumption, drug use,
prostitution, runaways, and divorce rates.
The Eomomy
Tbe economic crises of tbe 199O’s provide the context within wbicb tbe family change of tbis
period should be viewed. Russia’s initial transformation from a centrally planned to a market
economy entailed at least five significant aspects. The architects of this transformation
The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 319
called it ‘shock therapy,’ and while it certainly caused a shock for the population, whether or
not the economic changes were ‘therapeutic’ lies in the eye of the beholder. These reforms
initially caused a fall in living standards of nearly all parts of the population (Komozin, 1993).
First, in January 1992, prices were freed from their artificial fixed levels, causing massive
inflation. Second, the government had to balance its budget. It instituted an austerity plan
which made large cuts to almost all public welfare programs, such as health, education,
pensions, and social services (Malysheva, 1992:153). Third, the Ruble was opened up t
o
international trade, and its drop in value made it even harder for Russians to deal wit
h
inflation. Fourth, privatization wa.s implemented. What was supposed to be a transfer of
property to workers and managers instead became a sale of state property to government
cronies at well-below market prices (Koliandre, 2001). This “sale of the century” (Freeland,
20(
X
)) created a new class of Russian oligarchs who became rich by stripping state enterprises
of their assets, resulting in a loss of enterprise efficiency (Stiglitz, 2002:144). Fifth, the
inefficient Soviet industrial economy was subjected to market forces with paralyzing
consequences. 80 percent of the Soviet economy fell somewhere within the military industrial
complex. The subjection of these industries to market pressures caused a partial industrial
collapse. In 1992, the country’s GDP decreased by 14.5 percent from the previous year. In
1993. the decrease was 8.7 percent, and in 1994, 12.7 percent. The decline of the rate of
industrial production was even greater: 18 percent in 1992.14 percent in 1993, and 21 percent
in 1994 (Polozhevets, 2001). The human result of these GDP downturns was, of course,
unemployment.
To make matters worse, in addition to the shock therapy characterizing Russia’s initial market
transformation, more economic trouble occurred in 1998. Partially because of the Asian
crisis of 1997. international speculation, and falling oil prices, Russia’s currency collapsed in
August of 1998. The ruble lost 75 percent of its value almost instantly, and as a result, the
govenunent defaulted on its foreign debt. In addition, people’s purchasing power evaporated,
wiping out the emerging Russian middle class, and this problem was compounded by the
collapse of businesses and high unemployment. Banks also failed during this time, as the
Russian stock market, where the main index had grown five times larger between 1995 and
1997, lost 93 percent of its value in half a year (Meier, 1999; Polozhevets, 2001).
Since the 1998 crisis, the Russian and St. Petersburg economies have begun to recover, with
the St. Petersburg gross regional product growing by nearly seven percent in the first year
after the ruble devaluation, in 1999 (ETLA, 2000). Now, Russia is in the midst of solid
economic growth, hoping to double its GDP in 10 years. It has also been removed from the
list of ‘hyper-inflationary’ economies (International Bank of St. Petersburg, 2002). Therefore,
now is a time of economic hope for St. Petersburg, especially when compared with the
disastrous 199O’s.
Given the consensus that family decay had already begun by the moment of the Soviet
collapse and that radical changes were brought about by the decade of economic collapse
and recovery which followed, it is fair to ask how the Russian family might have fared during
this roller coaster ride after the collapse of socialism.
320 Journal of Comparative Family Studies
MEIH
OD
In order to measure the perceived changes in family relationships in St. Petershurg during
the said period of economic change, data collected from 120 St. Petersburg residents through
a questionnaire administered in the summer of 2003 are used. A non-probability quot
a
sample was collected because of resource constraints and the well-known (and, perhaps,
well-justified) suspicions of many Russian respondents toward door-to-door interviewers.
It is believed that the total dearth of quantitative data on the topic makes this data valuable
to analyze despite the generalization difficulties due to the sampling style. Since panel data
are unavailable, a retrospective questionnaire format was chosen as a means of assessing
changes in respondents, family relationships during the period of transformation.
The questionnaire asks respondents to recall their relationships and the problems within
them in four years: 2003, 1998, 1993, and 1983, The time period 15 years ago, 1988, was
omitted because of a desire to focus specifically on 1993 through 2003 (the years of radical
economic change) while using 1983 as abase.
Respondents were first asked to rate the curTent (2003) quality of five sets of relationships
with the following family members: their parents, their siblings, their children, their spouse,
and their other relatives. Five possible responses (excellent, good, neutral, bad, or very
bad) were available. Respondents were then asked about these same relationships 5 vears
ago, 10 years ago. and 20 years ago. Finally, measures of family cohesion, specifically the
“frequency of eating together with immediate family” and the “frequency of extended family
gatherings/’ were also collected in order to measure the regularity of basic face-to-face
social interactions within families.
Regarding the immediate causes of relationship changes, after respondents evaluated each
relationship within the four time periods, the questionnaire asked: “if there are problems in
this relationship, what are their main causes?” Respondents could choose up to three
problems including an “other” blank where they could write their own response. Their
responses were coded into the following 13 problem codes: “the other person moved away
from St. Petersburg.” “I or they work too much,” “arguments about money,” “unemployment.”
“substance abuse.” “they care more about their income than their family,” “they care more
about their friends than their family.” “difference in personalities,” “other: (non-economic),”
“Aging/Health related.” “Rarely meet or live in different cities,” “Household related problems,”
or “other (economic).”
The complete questionnaire was composed of 75 questions and required an average of 20-25
minutes to complete. Interviewers’ collected questionnaires from a quota sample of 120 St.
Petersburg residents between the ages of 30 and 69. This population was divided into two
age groups, the first between 30 and 49 and the second between 50 and 69. 50 percent of the
questionnaires were collected from each age group. Next, the age groups were broken down
into gender according to the city’s actual demographics, with roughly 52 percent women in
the younger group, and 55 percent women in the older group. Finally, five of the city’s
‘ St. Petersburg sociology professor Maria Yashina from Herzeti University assisted with the task of
administering the questionnaires by leading a team of her students as interviewers.
The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 32
1
districts were cbosen into which to distribute the sample: two higher income districts,
Vasileostrovsky and Vyiborsky; two lower income districts. Fruzensky and Nevsky; and one
central and very diverse district, Zentralny. The four respondent groups (older women,
younger women, older men, younger men) were then distributed into each of these districts
based on the actual population size of each district. Interviewers were then assigned to a
particular district with a quota for each respondent group. They traveled to areas where
people had free time, such as outside subway stations (where there were sometimes long
lines while crews perform maintenance) or to parks, approached the first lone person who
appeared to meet the quota criteria, and requested to administer the questionnaire. In the
end. roughly 75 percent of the 120respondents were collected in this manner. 25 percent of
the questionnaires were completed via telephone using the same quota guidelines at the end
of the collection period because of time constraints.
The method used here to measure the quality of relationships, retrospection, raises an
important concern. This questionnaire asked respondents for their perceptions of their
present and past relationships, and because the results may entail inaccuracies due to
reconstructions, bad memory, or nostalgia, there is reason to treat them with caution. On the
other hand, the commonly held assumption that most human memories are reconstructed
rather than recalled may not be entirely accurate. For example. Herrmann (1994) concluded,
based on results from a series of experiments he conducted, that the reconstruction — as
opposed to direct recall — of memories is relatively infrequent. Therefore, although studies
advise the need to exercise care when using retrospection, and it is thus unclear how accurate
retrospective relationship valuations might be, there is nonetheless no reason to outright
reject the potential research value of retrospective data. Especially considering th
at
longitudinal data are unavailable for tbis research question, retrospective data must be
considered.
RESULTS: DETERIORATING RELATIONSHIPS AND COHESI
ON
To answer the primary research question conceming the fate of family relationships in St.
Petersburg between 1983 and 2003. the one-way repeated measures ANOVA results and
pairwise mean differences of three types of data collected by the questionnaire are presented
within Tables 1 and 2:
1. Changes in the perceived relationship quality of the five relationships between 1983 and
2003.
2. Changes in reported family cohesion, that is in the frequency of immediate families
eating together and of extended family gatherings, between 1983 and 2003.
3. Changes in reported family relationship happiness between 1983 and 2003.
Relationship Qual
ity
Relationsbip quality was determined by asking respondents to rate tbe quality of their
relationships with their parents, siblings, children, other relatives, and spouse on a five-
point scale during the four time periods.
322 Journal of Comparative Family Studies
ir
w
is
e
a
^
o
c
C
O
OO
—
m
ON
^ ^
m
•i
so
ns
B
Q
CO
(as)
(-1
t o
CO
ar
ia
:2
0
0
3
g:
A
c5v
A
0 0
O ^
*
*
*
O \
” ^
3.
97
.8
84
OO
m
o
<—
—
***
1/3
a.
on
sh
ra
î
w
it
h
d .
r
A
0 0
c^
t/i
—
4.
(M
.
6
69
1 ^
m
, _ i
o
‘”:
m
o
CM
7
0
)
en
ts
a.
•B
a.
–
C
o
o:
0 0
ON
fA
O N
ON
C
o
p –
3.
81
.6
44
, _
r-
m
f M
OO
m
– ^
“M
OO
00
m
(6
9
in
gs
si
b
•5
a.
r.
c
o
•s
3J
rn
i
a-‘
ON
A
0 0
O N
ON
0 0
^
IP
OO
4.
08
.7
44
m
O
‘ ^
r-
o
99)
dr
en
eh
i
•S
a.
c
o
n j
(1)
o:
OO
8?
A
OO
A
O N
A
OO
UN
*
*
*
r-
o
r-
o
3.
62
.5
79
„_
m
OO
V
I
N P
m
ON
OO
m
at
iv
er
re
l
o
•S
D .
-C
t / i
O
re
a;
fe
20
03
19
98
°6
m
ON
A
on
*
#
•—•
OO
OO
4.
22
.7
86
r-
( —
1
m
us
e
(
Q .
Q .
,n
c
o
at
oi
m
0;<£
0 0
O v
m
00
o
4.
42
1.
01
]
o
_^
“^
o5
m
%
et
he
r
o
ea
ti
3(
1
cj 2c -^
3 ^
P̂ r”
.2
00
3
s;
A
m
ON
A
0 0
—
3.
42
(
1.
44
)
m
m
m
m
—:
8
‘̂
li
ly
t
•o
oj ; ^
OJ —
o ^
3 .£
JJ Si
PL,
O VI
o
P< -
*
c
vl
ex.
*
y ^
gn
i
“m
O
Z
d
The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 323
U
es
ul
A
N
O
V
A
1
s
at
ed
M
O
n
e-
W
ay
I
u
a
u
if
fe
re
n
Q
ea
•w
is
e
M
e;
i
“at9
u
1
19
93
.
19
93
.
19
83
,
19
83
,
19
83
,
TD
&
E
o
CJ
Si
a.
o
>
m
pa
re
d
o
o
m
p
ar
e
o
co
m
p
ar
ed
•o
D
m
pa
re
g
tN
o
m
>
20
0
•^
0 0
• ”
to
2
0
0
3
to
1
9
9
8
m
O
“2
• c
n
wi
d
*
9
1
*
*
2
8
9
*
*
6
7
5
*
*
*
.4
7
4
*
*
*
.1
84
*
ip
s{
c
o
la
ti<
Wl
1)
na.
o.
ui
d
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
.2
2
9
*
n
.s
.
:7
0
)
c
KJ
a.
x :
:S
a.
Wl
( =
O
u
a;
wi
d
n
.s
.
.1
30
*
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
(6
9
)
DO
C
si
bl
sz
a
c
o
DS
ui
d
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
.2
42
*
‘
.2
8
8
*
*
.1
82
*
(6
6)
Ir
en
ch
i!
x :
a.
sh
i
c
o
a
D
OH.
d
13
5*
n
.s
.
2
6
0
*
*
*
.1
7
7
*
*
.1
25
*
•2o^
”—’
at
iv
i
rr
el
(L)
o
x;
S
a
o
QJ
wi
d
n.
s.
n.
s.
.3
15
**
***£££
24
1*
*
a
W l
3
a.
5
:S
a.
c
o
fl
a:
t/i
d
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
.3
13
**
n
.s
.
n
.s
.
• w
it
th
ei
OD
M r^
C -J
C – ^
[ 1 .
ui
d
23
4*
.2
25
*
*
*
r-
.5
68
**
*
#
*
*
rn
.I”
1
UJ
-a
c
a j
o
>>
(D
3
O ”
—
ZZ
“en”
OX)
C
• c
6
O VI
^ VI
< »
324 Journal of Comparative Family Studies
As shown in Tables I and 2, overall reported relationship quality with parents cannot be said
to significantly change over time. However, reported quality of relationships with parents in
1983 is significantly higher than in 1998, the year of the ruble crash.
Similarly, relationship quality with siblings shows no significant change over time. The lone
significant pairwise comparison is that relationships among siblings were reported as stronger
in 1993 than in 1998.
Regarding relationships with children, Table 1 shows a significant (p<.01) difference between the four time periods. Specifically, relationship quality with children in 1983 is significantly higher than in any period thereafter.
Perceived relationship quality with other relatives, which was defmed as any relatives except
for parents, siblings, children, the spouse, grandparents, or grandchildren, also shows
significant deterioration (p<.001). with 1983 having a significantly higher mean than every
latertimeperiod, and with 2003 significantly lower than 1993.
Finally, the tables show that relationship quality with the spouse has deteriorated significantly
since 1983 (p<.001). Perceived 1983 spouse relationship quality was significantly higher
than at any time period afterwards.
Family Cohesion
Cohesion was measured within the questionnaire in two ways. First, for immediate family,
cohesion was defined as the frequency the family eats meals together on a regular basis.
Table 1 demonstrates a gradual significant decline in how often families eat together. In 1983,
respondents report having eaten together with their families significantly more often than in
2003.
Extended family cohesion was defined by how often respondents’ families held extended
family gatherings. This type of social activity decreased steeply between 1983 and 1998.
There were more reported extended family gatherings in 1983 than in 1993, and more in 1993
than in 1998 or 2(X)3. However, the frequency of these gatherings has leveled off between
1998 and 2003 and has not experienced further deterioration.
Relationship Happiness
Respondents were asked to respond to the question, “Are you happy with your relationships
with your family?” This question was asked for each of the four time periods and was
answered on the following five-point scale: No, Mostly No, Maybe, Mostly Yes, or Yes. As
seen in Tables 1 and 2, one-way repeated measures ANOVA analysis shows a very significant
(p<.001) difference between respondents' happiness with tbeir relationships in the four time
periods. Respondents' reported 1983 happiness with their relationships is significantly
higher than their 1993 relationships, and they report that they were also happier in 1993 than
in either 1998 or 2003. In short, the data indicate a noticeable perceived decline in happiness
The Lost Years: AsseJising Family Change 325
with relationships between 1983 and 1998. Although there is a decline as well in the mean of
relationship happiness during the economic recovery from 1998 to 2003, it is not statistically
significant. What is significant is the low happiness with relationships in 2003 compared to
1993 or 1983.
RESULTS: IMMEDIATE CAUSES OF DETERIORATION
It is clear from the results presented above that individuals interviewed in this study have
perceived a decline in the quality of their relationships between 1983 and 1998, with no better
than stagnation thereafter. Regarding possible reasons for this deterioration, linear regressions
are performed to test the influence of respondents’ reported causes of relationship problems
on relationship quality.
Since the relationship quality with siblings and parents registered an insignificant difference
in means over the four time periods, no regressions are run on these. Instead, relationship
quality with children and the spouse, whose 1983 values correlate at .423 and factor together
under one component with a .844 loading, are combined into a composite close family
relationship quality index with 1983 as a base. In addition, an extended family relationship
quality variable (“other” relatives) is also used as a dependent variable. Also, since it is not
central to this article’s interests in tracing causes of the changes in the reported quality of
relationships over time, results of regressions performed with relationship happiness as a
dependent variable are not reported here.
Therefore, three linear regressions have been performed corresponding to the last three time
measurements of each of two dependent variables: close family relationship quality and
extended family relationship quality. The structure of these regressions can be found in
Figure 1. Each dependent variable is predicted based on the previous value of the same
variable, the age and sex of the respondent, and the effects of contemporaneous and previous
income, family cohesion, and the 13 reported relationship problems.
Close-Family Relationship Quality
As shown in column one in Table 3, regression results with 1993 close relationship quality as
a dependent variable show that females were less likely to report high quality child and
spouse relationships in this year. Furthermore, it is notable that the previous level of close
relationship quality in 1983 had no effect on later close relationship quality in 1993, a fact that
could be explained by the vast socio-economic changes between 1983 and 1993. Regarding
contemporaneous effects, only the cohesion variable of the frequency of eating together in
1993 had a positive significant effect on that year’s close family relationship quality. However,
when one turns to previous 1983 influences, one sees that earlier frequency of eating together
in 1983 has a Hf-gar/Ve effect on I993closefamily relationships; this indicates that families
which were cohesive in 1983 were less likely to have close family relationships in 1993, and
vice versa. Similarly, those who reported the problem that their family members valued
friends more than the family in 1983 were more likely to enjoy close family relationships in
1993. The remaining 1983 variable having influence on 1993 close relationship quality is the
“other (economic)” relationship problems, or those responses that could not be clearly
326 Joumal of Comparative Family Studies
cn
o
o
0 0
O
ON
s
C M
o
1 .
s
0 0
ON
-Q tu 8
CO ^
Q.
cn
o
lat
. ^
“E
o
O
CC
o
ity
ro
-—
I
• Q
aJ”O CD
t n
. 0
!™ X The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 327
categorized into any of the twelve other problem groups, but were clearly related to money. Table 3
Variable
OLS Regression Results for Close Family Relationships (T values)
1993 1998 2003
Adjusted R-Squared .816 -2.811* n.a. -0.290 n.a. 2.246* -1.415 -3.171**
.854 5.821*** -2.262* -2.071* -1.557 -0.245 0.761 4.516*** 2.250* -2.610* -0.375 -3.204** -2.621*
*p<.05. **p<.OI. ***p<.001
n.a. These items were deleted from the calculation because they were either constants or lacked con-elations
with the dependent variable
m.c. Deleted because of multi-col linearity with same variable of later time period. 328 Journal of Comparative Family Studies
As shown in Table 3, column two, with 1998 close relationship quality as the dependent Column three illustrates the results of linear regression performed on 2003 close family Extended-Family Relationship Quality
As shown within Table 4. column one, the strongest predictor of reported 1993 extended In 1998, extended family relationships are also heavily influenced by the previous 1993 2003 extended family relationship quality is affected strongly by stability from the 1998 The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 329
Table 4
Variable OXvS Regression Results for Extended Family Relationships (T values)
1993 1998 2003 Adjusted R-Squared .223 4.226*** -2.117* -2.603* 0.743 -1.098 .482 6.918*** -2.001* 0.761 -1.071 -0.131 0.337 .548 6.143*** -2.647** -1.812 -0.248 -1.283 -2 724** 0.368 *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.OOI
n.a. These items were deleted from the calculation because they were either constants or lacked correlatioas m.c. Deleted because of multi-collinearity with same variable of later lime period. 330 Journal of Comparative Family Studies
THEORETICALDISCUSSION
To summarize, according to the respondents, there was a clear statistically significant (see Family Stress and Individualization
Regarding the third interest of this article, to theoretically frame these changes, there are two Typical of the family stress perspective are studies that show, for example how family economic The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 331
to family troubles in a manner which eould be reversible if the family’s economic situation The second theoretical approach to the family-economy question, based upon modernization Next, in order to speculate on what some of the root causes of the perceived changes in Close- versus Extended-Family Relationships
The regression results illustrate a need to differentiate between close and extended family 332 Joumal of Comparative Family Studies
Close families appear to have experienced an abrupt change between 1983 and 1993, as In contrast, extended family relationships do not exhibit the same symptoms of abrupt stress For what reasons might close families exhibit more symptoms of stress and extended families More generally, there is other evidence in the data that would argue that a family stress The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 333
happiness, and family cohesion variables each decline until 1998, but then do not recover IMPUCATIONS
To change geai^ a hit, it may be fruitful to analyze, aside from the causes of family deterioration, During the 199O’s, each of these forms of social anarchy rose sharply at the same time as Incidentally, this study’s respondents reported whether or not their children have engaged 334 Journal of Comparative Family Studies
respectively -.444 {p<.001), -.281 {p<.Ol), and -.427 (p<.001). This evidence may support what
is claimed here; the study of changing family relationships during times of rapid social
change is critical because of potential informal social control consequences.
CONCLUSION
While the circumstantial evidence, both in the form of retrospective reports and corresponding In addition, similar research conducted with a probability sampling technique may verify and Furthermore, the use of longitudinal data would be a sure-fire way to measure relationship Finally, concerning the theoretieal framing of radical social change in general, our knowledge REI^ERENCES
Committee of Economic Development and Committee of Finances of St. Petersburg (1995). Behind Comminee of Government Statistics of St. Petersburg (2002). Sankt-Peterburg Statisticheskyi ETLA Solid Investment Group (2000). St. Petersburg in the 199O’s: December 2000 Biannual Review.
Conger. R. D. and G. H. J. Elder (1994). Family Stress and Adaptation; Reviewing the Evidence. In The Lost Years: Assessing Family Change 335
Conger, R. D.. et al. (1994). Economic Stress and Marital Relations. In R. D. Conger and G. H. J. Freeland. C. (2000). Sale of the Century. New York: Crown Publishers.
Habermas. J. (1989). Tendencies Toward Juridification. In The Theory of Communicative Action; Herrmann. D. J (1994). The Validity of Retrospective Reports as a Function of the Directness of Hirschi, T. (2002). Causes of Delinquency. London: Transaction Publishers.
Hopper, P. (2003). Rebuilding Communities in an Age of Individualism. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
Hraba. J. et al. (2000). Family Stress During the Czech Transfonnation. Joumal of Marriage and Iarskaia-Smimova, E. (1996). Comparison of Russian Family Life Then and Now. Social Development Ingwerson, M, (1996). Eastern Europe’s New Money Culture Rips Famiiies Apart. Christian Science Intemationai Bank of St. Petersburg (2002). Annual Report: Key Macroeeonomic trends in 2002.
Koliandre. A. (2001, December 24). A decade of economic reform. BBC News Online. Retrieved 17 Komozin. A. (1993). Shokovaya ekonomika: Tendentsii obshchestvennogo mneniya naselenyi Rosii Malysheva, M. (1992). Some Thoughts on the Soviet Family. In J. Riordan (Ed.), Soviet Social Reality Meier, A. (1999, February 2). The Crash: The Russian Market from Start to Crash. PBS Online. Ornacka. K. and I. Szczepaniak-Wiecha (2005). The Contemporary Family in Poland: New Trends Polanyi, K. (1944), The Great Transformation. New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc.
Polozhevets, G (2001, December 1). Russian Reforms; 10 Years On, Interview with the executive Reich, R. (2003, July 11). Suicide Stats Have Jumped For Russians [Electronicl. The St. Petersburg Scheer, S. D. and D. G. Unger(1998). Russian Adolescents in the Era of Emergent Democracy: The Shlapentokh. V. (1991). The Soviet Family in the Period of the Decay of Socialism. Joumal of Simmel,G (1995). The Philosophy of Money. D.Frisby (Ed.). New York: Routledge. 336 Journal of Comparative Family Studies
Simons, R. L., et al. (1994). Economic Pressure and Harsh Parenting. In R. D. Conger and G. H. J. Singh, S. and J. E. Darroch {2(X)0). Adolescent Pregnancy and Childbearing: Levels and Trends in Stiglitz. J. E. (2002). Globalization and Its Discontents. New Delhi: Penguin Books.
Whitbeck, L. B et al. (1991). Family Economic Hardship, Parental Support, and Adolescent Self- Whitbeck, L. B et al. (1997). The Effects of Parents’ Working Conditions and Family Economic
Article Evaluation
16 Feb
Justification for the use of the technique.
In order to measure the perceived changes in family relationships in St. Petersburg during the said period of economic change, data is collected using different statistical techniques. The most recommended technique is the non-probability method. It is used because it believed that the result of calculated data on the specified topic makes it more valuable. This technique provides more precise results as compared to the others. It is justified that the results through this technique is statistically more accurate because we does to door data collection technique is used. But there is one thing that is remarkable. Which is that the bias is a term which may be present in this statistical technique. Because due to door to door collection there are many factors that may be present which cause bias. For the purpose of inferential analysis, linear regression is used to check the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Evidence of data screening and assumptions tested.
This data is gathered through a questionnaire. The questionnaire asked about for their perceptions of their present and past relationships, and because the results may entail inaccuracies due to reconstructions, bad memory, or nostalgia, there is reason to treat them with cautions. On the other hand, the commonly held assumption that most human memories are reconstructed rather than recalled may not be entirely accurate.
Quality of the results presentation with complete information needed to evaluate the result.
Since the relationship quality with siblings and parents registered an insignificant difference in means over the four-time periods, no regressions are run on these. Instead, relationship quality with children and the spouse, whose 1983 values correlate at .423 and factor together under one component with a .844 loading, are combined into a composite close family relationship quality index with 1983 as a base. It is clear from the results presented above that individuals interviewed in this study have perceived a decline in the quality of their relationships between 1983 and 1998, with no better than stagnation thereafter. Regarding possible reasons for this deterioration, linear regressions are performed to test the influence of respondents’ reported causes of relationship problems on relationship quality. Therefore, three linear regressions have been performed corresponding to the last three time measurements of each of two dependent variables: close family relationship quality and extended family relationship quality. Each dependent variable is predicted based on the previous value of the same variable, the age and sex of the respondent, and the effects of contemporaneous and previous income, family cohesion, and the 13 reported relationship problems.
Discussion of results supported by the information offered
According to the respondents, the results are clearly significant. there was a clear statistically significant deterioration in happiness with relationships, relationship quality with spouses, children, and extended family, and in the frequencies of close families eating together and extended family gatherings when comparing 1983 and 2003. Regarding the specific transition periods, each of the above variables, except the frequency of eating meals together, shows significant decline in the 10 years between 1983 and 1993. Over the last transition period, from 1998 to 2003, none of these relationship or cohesion variables shows significant change. What stands out from this part of the analysis, aside from the notable 1983 to 1998 deterioration, is also that none of these variables ever shows a significant increase. Even after the steep drop in most relationship variables between 1983 and 1998, none of these recovers between 1998 and 2003.
Suggestions for improving the report.
This particular study has attempted to connect perceptions of deteriorating family relationships directly to the period of economic change in St. Petersburg. The intent is not to imply that other cultural factors, such as changing religious and poetical values, evolving gender roles, or shifts in family functions, have had no influence. In addition, similar research conducted with a probability sampling technique may verify and help to generalize this study’s results. Furthermore, the use of longitudinal data would be a sure-fire way to measure relationship changes without the doubts often raised with retrospective studies.
c;
9?
The fact that 1983 “other economic” problems negatively influence 1993 close relationships
could indicate that those families which already had money-related problems before the
transformation were particularly ill-suited to face the big economic transition to come.
Q l – A g e
Q3-Sex: Female
Previous Quality of Close Relationships
Contemporary Household Income
Contemporary Frequency of Eating Together
Contemporary Problem: Moving Away
Contemporary Problem: “Working too much”
Contemporary Problem: Arguments about money
Contemporary Problem: Unemployment
Contemporary Problem: Substance Abuse
Contemporary Problem: Value income more than family
Contemporary Problem: Value friends more than family
Contemporary Problem: Different Personalities
Contemporary Problem: Other (non-economic)
Contemporary Problem: Aging/Health
Contemporary Problem: Rarely Meet/Different Cities
Contemporary Problem: Household related
Contemporary Problem: Other (economic)
Previous Household Income
Previous Frequency of Eating Together
Previous Problem: Moving Away
Previous Problem: “Working too much”
Previous Problem: Arguments about money
Previous Problem: Unemployment
Previous Problem: Substance Abuse
Previous Problem: Value income more than family
Previous Problem: Value friends more than family
Previous Problem: Different Personalities
Previous Problem: Other (non-economic)
Previous Problem: Aging/Health
Previous Problem: Rarely Meet/Different Cities
Previous Problem: Household related
Previous Problem: Other (economic)
-1.986
1.434
-2.024
2.511*
1.184
2.021
0.511
-1.146
0.2(M
0.927
-1.093
-0.485
-1.642
0.020
0.421
n.a.
-2.329*
-0.091
-2.053
-1.545
-1.519
0.554
-1.287
•^.192
n.a.
1.435
0.320
-0.403
-0.208
-0.830
-1.998
0.736
-0.265
-1.293
0.414
-0.454
-0.084
-1.126
1.256
1247
0.122
-0.437
1.053
1.978
-1.600
-0.154
-0.324
-0.736
1.263
-0.0%
n.a.
1.528
1.863
n.a.
-0.437
2.033*
0.626
0.303
-0.292
-0.348
-4.092***
-0259
-2.132*
0.769
0.680
-1.960
-0.812
0.060
-1.436
-1.063
0.418
0.087
-0.348
-0.009
-1.263
0.204
1.239
1.744
1.061
m.c.
1344
variable, stability with the previous 1993 strength of close relationships begins to exert a
strong influence. In addition, contemporary problems of unemployment begin to negatively
affect child and spouse relationships. Finally, another contemporary effect is that the problem
of “rarely meet or different cities” begins to negatively affect close family relationships as
family members meet one another less often or may have moved away. No previous 1993
variables, except for the previous close relationship quality, have a significant influence on
1998 close family relationship quality.
relationship quality as a dependent variable. First, the earlier 1993 effect having reversed
itself, women in 2003 report stronger close family relationships than men. Next, there is once
again a strong stability effect from previous 1998 close relationship quality. In addition, the
frequency of eating together positively influences close family relationship quality. Also,
reported 2003 unemployment problems, substance abuse (mainly alcoholism), “‘other (non-
economic)” problems, and “different personalities” problems exert a negative influence on
close family relationships. Finally. 1998 “‘other (economic)” relationship problems have a
detrimental impact on 2(X)3 close family relationships as well.
family relationship quality is the previous 1983 level, a result that differs substantially from
findings on elose family relationships, where there was evidence for a rupture between 1983
and 1993. Besides that, 1993 extended family relationships are negatively influenced by the
perceived problem that relatives value their income more than their family and by “‘other
(economic)” problems. Except for the previous level of extended family relationship quality,
no previous 1983 variables have a significant effect on extended families in 1993.
extended family relationship quality. The only remaining factor is that contemporary 1998
reported arguments about money negatively affect 1998 extended families.
extended family quality. In addition, 2003 extended family relationships are negatively
influenced by 2(X)3 arguments about money. In contrast to the negative influence it exerts on
close families, 2O()3 unemployment exerts a positive influence on extended families. Perhaps
this is because the unemployed have more time to socialize with their extended families,
whereas among the employed, these relationships would be severely neglected in competition
with close family and work responsibilities. Next, earlier 1998 reports of the problem of
“valuing income more than the family” negatively influence 2(X)3 extended family relationships.
Finally, reports of “different personality” problems in 1998 positively impact extended family
relationships in 2003.
Q l – A g e
Q3-Sex: Female
Previous Quality of Extended Family Relationships
Contemporary Household Income
Contemporary Frequency of Extended Family Gatherings
Contemporary Problem: Moving Away
Contemporary Problem: “Working too much”
Contemporary Problem: Arguments about money
Contemporary Problem: Unemployment
Contemporary Problem: Substance Abuse
Contemporary Problem: Value income more than family
Contemporary Problem: Value friends more than family
Contemporary Problem: Different Personalities
Contemporary Problem: Other (non-economic)
Contemporary Problem: Aging/Health
Contemporary Problem: Rarely Meet/Different Cities
Contemporary Problem: Household related
Contemporary Problem: Other (economic)
Previous Household Income
Previous Frequency of Extended Family Gatherings
Previous Problem: Moving Away
Previous Problem: “Working too much”
Previous Problem: Arguments about money
Previous Problem: Unemployment
Previous Problem: Substance Abuse
Previous Problem: Value income more than family
Previous Problem: Value friends more than family
Previous Problem: Different Personalities
Previous Problem: Other (non-economic)
Previous Problem: Aging/Health
Previous Problem: Rarely Meet/Different Cities
Previous Problem: Household related
Previous Problem: Other (economic)
0.579
-0.215
-0.337
0.049
-1.608
-0.339
0.269
n.a.
n.a.
0.422
-1.657
0.578
-1.147
n.a.
n.a.
0543
1.424-
0.496
m.c.
n.a.
n.a.
1.181
1.170
1.001
n.a.
1.437
n.a.
n.a.
-1.640
-1.671
0.990
0.520
-0.039
-0.525
0.694
n.a.
-0.811
-1.261
-0.600
n.a.
-.556
n.a.
n.a.
0.490
1.149
-0.289
n.a.
n.a.
-1.081
1.524
m.c.
n.a.
.845
n.a.
n.a.
0.009
1.795
0.616
0.930
-0.697
0.525
2.587*
-1.037
1.140
1.280
-1.391
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
0.050
-l.(>16
-0.118
1.007
0.955
n.a.
-0.107
2.255*
0.417
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
with the dependent variable
again Table 2) deterioration in happiness with relationships, relationship quality with spouses,
children, and extended family, and in the frequencies of close familie.s eating together and
extended family gatherings when comparing 1983 and 2003. Regarding the specific transition
periods, each ofthe above variables, except the frequency of eating meals together, shows
significant decline in the 10 years between 1983 and 1993. During the next “step,” only
happiness with relationships, relationship quality with siblings, and the frequency of extended
family gatherings .show statistically significant decline between 1993 and 1998. Over the last
transition period, from 1998 to 2003, none of these relationship or cohesion variables shows
significant change. What stands out from this part of the analysis, aside from the notable
1983 to 1998 deterioration, is also that none of these variables ever shows a significant
increase. Even after the steep drop in most relationship variables between 1983 and 1998,
none of these recovers between 1998 and 2003. It is worth noting as well that changes within
the close family were more abrupt at the beginning of the transformation, but leveled off in
the last five years, while extended family relationships experienced a more gradual decline
throughout the 20-year period, although the pace ofthe decline may have abated after 1998.
• major approaches that are relevant here to assess the interplay between family change and
economic change. First, and corresponding to St. Petersburg’s experience of economic
shock in the l990’s, the family stress perspective suggests that economic stress causes
family stress. Second, and more in relation to the transition from a centrally-planned to a
free-market economic structure, an individualization hypothesis would predict that families
also experience a more permanent type of change independent from economic crisis, hut
dependent instead upon the effect of structural economic transformation on people’s values.
These two perspectives differ across two dimensions. Temporally, relationship deterioration
due to family stress should be temporary and reverse itself during economic recovery, while
if relationship deterioration is due to individualization, it should be more permanent (barring
no retreat from the free-market economic model). Second, these two perspectives have
different causal argumentations. Family stress points to economic conditions of scarcity as
the precursor for relationship decline, while individualization blames cultural change due to
a shift in the economic structure.
hardship negatively affects both marital relations (Conger et al., 1994) and parenting behaviors
(Simons et al., 1994), which in tum damages children’s self efficacy, self-esteem, and overall
adjustment (Conger and Eider, 1994; Whitbeck etal., 1991; Whitbeck etal., 1997). Asaresult,
families experiencing stress are also more likely to have children that are depressed and
abusing alcohol or drugs (Scheer and Unger, 1998). Another example of use of this
perspective can be seen in a study on family stress during the post-Soviet Czech
transformation (Hraba et al., 2000). This study demonstrated how a family’s perceived
economic pressure caused increased marital instability. Families grew instable as a direct
reaction to economic crisis. The important implication here is that economic hardship leads
would turn around.
and individualization argumentation, supposes that family change is bound together with
historical structural-economic changes. In their recent review of contemporary Polish families,
Omacka and Szezepaniak-Wiecha (2005), highlight the need for such a maero-level approach,
one that is sensitive to changes brought on by modernization, such a.s industrialization,
urbanization, and technological developments, when analyzing family change. One facet of
this modernization that is especially relevant to families in post-Soviet countries is the
reintroduction of free-market capitalism, which theori.sts have long alleged may have profound
effects on social relations. For example, Karl Polanyi (1944) noted how gain and profit-
oriented markets are alien and unnatural to human relations, and the evolution of these
within industrial and capitalist development in the 19’̂ century, which resulted in the
replacement of socially-embedded markets, had a profound effect on the social world. Similar
argumentation can be found with Habermas” (1989) reasoning wherein rationalization, for
example, in the form of cost-benefit analyses introduced and required by the capitalist
economy, affects social relations by ‘colonizing’ them with alien concepts; rational thinking
seeps into the intimate social sphere with potentially destructive effects, such as in the form
of profit-oriented thinking within the family. Simmel (1995) makes similar arguments within
the Philosophy of Money, when he suggests how the abstractions brought about by money
amount to impersonalization when extended into the relational sphere. The core argument is
that there may be a fundamental mismatch between sociality and calculative economic thinking;
material culture in this way would imply an individualization, or desocialization of its subjects.
In contrast to family stress, this individualization approach highlights that, due to the capitalist
free-market economic structure, certain changes occur within individuals – such as an increase
in material aspirations or the use of cost-benefit analyses in everyday life – which amount to
a lower valuation of the family, and these changes may occur independently from economic
hardship. Therefore, such changes would be only reversible if the economic structure were
changed.
family relationships may be. the data are .scrutinized for clues of both family stress and
individualization affecting these relationships.
relationship quality, because these are seemingly affected by different types of pressures.
Extended family relationships tend to be affected by materialism-related problems such as
“valuing income more than family,” and “arguments about money,” which both do not
significantly affect close relationships. In contrast, close relationships are uniquely affected
by family cohesion and substance abuse variables. In addition, both close and extended
relationships are affected by everyday sorts of problems such as different personalities,
other (non-economic) problems, and by unemployment, although the negative effects of
unemployment show up only within the close family within this data.
evidenced by the lack of continuity between the close relationship qualities of those time
periods and the surprising result that families that ate together often in 1983 were less likely
to have strong relationships in 1993 even though the 1993 frequency of eating together had
a positive effect on close family relationships. This may be indicative of the upheaval and
family stress resulting from the initial onset of the shock therapy, offset once families had
adapted to the new environment and reestablished some degree of stability. By 1998, the
effect of unemployment on close family relationships also becomes apparent, an effect that
remains in 2003. In addition, substance abuse begins to exert a negative influence on close
relationships in 2003. To recap, I suggest that this combination of the above-mentioned
rupture in close relationship quality and the appearance of the significant negative influences
of unemployment and substance abu.se demonstrate that close relationships in St. Petersburg
were, if the respondents’ reports are accurate, indeed negatively impacted by family stress
due to the insecure economic environment.
as close relationships do at the beginning of the transformation. Instead, extended
relationships appear to have changed according to a gradual and persistent mechanism more
consistent with individualization and materialistic value-change argumentation. For example,
the most persistent negative influence upon extended family relationships appears to come
from the extended family member’s “valuing income more than family” and from “arguments
about money” between extended fami ly members, for one or both of these problems negatively
affect extended family relationships in 1993, 1998, and 2003. These problems may arise from
the increasing materialism of the individual family members and their increasing instrumental
or exploitative use of their extended families for economic gain. Perhaps the counter-intuitive
finding that unemployment positively affects extended family relationships in 2003 can be
explained by the same type of argument. If unemployment might, to some extent, signal a
person’s lack of adjustment to the new economic structure, then would the unemployed be
therefore less influenced by materialist culture and thus less likely to “value income more
than the family,” to argue with their relatives about money, or to use socializing time instead
for more materialistic ends? Furthermore, the fact that extended family relationships appear
to continue to weaken, and are still affected in 2003 by arguments about money despite the
economic recovery, suggests that this trend may represent an enduring value shift due to
individualizing pressures.
more symptoms of individualization? The answer probably lies in the different levels of
intimacy of these two groups. In times of economic stress, the immediate family may be
forced into a ‘survival mode,” meaning that limited time and resources lead to the contraction
of the intimate social network and a focus on the close family. In tum, the extended family
either becomes unimportant or an instrumentalized – and therefore a ‘colonized’ – network,
one of the tnany sources of weak ties used to identify and procure scarce resources. Of
course, in times of economic hardship, individualization pressures also affect the close
family, but these may not be so apparent amid more pressing existential concems.
model alone is not sufficient. First, close relationships, extended relationships, relationship
despite a significant economic recovery in St. Petersburg between 1998 and 2003. Furthermore,
it is notable that, in the six regressions run, income never correlates with a relationship
dependent variable. If these relationships are changing because of economic .stress, should
not the effect of income differences also be visible, at least during the troubled years of 1993
or 1998? This point is not made in order to try to invalidate a model based on economic
stress, but only to highlight that some changes in families — such as individualization, value
changes, or rationalization — may be occurring independently from micro-level economic
success or failure. On the other hand, as shown earlier, it is clear that stress-related variables,
such as unemployment and substance abuse, have also played a major role for these
respondents.
its consequences. What would be the implications of a decline in the quality of family
relationships, if it indeed has occurred? If one is grounded in notions of intimate social
integration and social control theory (see Hirschi, 2002), one would expect the decay of
social bonds to lead a loss of informal social control over individuals, and therefore a rise in
anomie and forms of deviance. With this in mind, recall Malysheva’s (1992) prediction that
the demoralization of Russian society and families would lead to a steep rise in social anarchy.
Unfortunately, her prediction was accurate, and one need not search for long in order to fmd
plenty of evidence for social anarchy in St. Petersburg, Russia. Crime rates nearly doubled
during the first few years of shock therapy in St. Petersburg between 1991 and 1993. Even
more troubling, the murder rate in the city more than tripled in only three years, from 1990 to
1993. In the same three-year time period, St. Petersburg rates of accidental deaths, mainly
due to alcohol-related accidents, rose by almost 250 percent (Committee of Economic
Development and Committee of Finances of St. Petersburg, 1995; Committee of Government
Statistics of St. Petersburg, 2002). Meanwhile, Russia’s suicide rate is three times the world
average. In 1991, therate was 26.5 per 100,000, but in 1994, in the aftermath of shock therapy,
it rose to 42.1 per 100,000. After improving slightly in the next several years, Russian suicide
rates spiked again in 1999, following the ruble devaluation (Reich, 2003). Prostitution likewise
has seen a boom in Russia since the collapse of communism (Ingwerson. 1996). The Russian
teen pregnancy rate jumped as well, by 54 percent, between 1980 and 1995 (Singh and
Darroch, 2000). In addition to these other social ills, rates of infant and adult mortality,
divorce, drug use, and alcoholism have also increased (Iarskaia-Smimova, 1996).
family relationships appear to have suffered the most. This conjunction between economic
change, deteriorating families, and social anarchy is no accident. Within such an environment
— characterized by the weakening of authentically ‘social’ norms and values — the
accompaniment of rising suicide, alcoholism, and crime rates should not be surprising.
in delinquent activities, and the correlations between this reported juvenile delinquency and
the quality ofthe respondents’ 2003, 1998, and 1993 relationships with their children are
‘social ills,’ appears formidable, it is still far from conclusive. Therefore, much research is
needed to conclude whether, and why, family relationships have decayed. This particular
study has attempted to connect perceptions of deteriorating family relationships directly to
the period of economic change in St. Petersburg. The intent is not to imply that other cultural
factors, such as changing religious and pohtical values, evolving gender roles, or shifts in
family functions, have had no influence. Rather these factors, which were out of empirical
reach of this particular questionnaire, would be expected to mediate the economic-
psychological mechanisms suggested here.
help to generalize this study’s results. This is imperative since the perceived deteriorations
in relationship quality, happiness, and family cohesion reported in St. Petersburg are disturbing
if they are indeed accurate. If they are correct, might friendships and other social relationships
also have weakened, and in other locations in the post-socialist world, as well?
changes without the doubts often raised with retrospective studies. However, because of
the shortage of such data in most transition countries, especially of data that cover the ‘lost
years’ before and after the transition, retrospective data, whether qualitative or quantitative,
are sometimes all that are available.
of the effects — such as individualization, value change, and rationalization — of changing
economic structures within transition societies is definitely empirically lacking when compared
to the many studies focusing on economic conditions in the tradition of the family stress
model. Indeed the differing causes of deterioration suggested here for relationships within
the close family and the extended family could be one direction in which to test the interplay
between such cultural-historical and immediate eeonomic factors in affecting family change
at different levels of intimacy.
the Lines of Figures.
Ezhegodnik 2002 (St. Petersburg Statistical Yearbook 2002).
R. D. Conger and G. H. i. Elder (Eds.), Families in Troubled Times: Adapting to Change in Rural
America (pp. 255-268). New York: De Gruyter.
Elder (Eds.), Famiiies in Troubied Times: Adapting to Change in Rural Atnerica (pp. 187-203). New’
York; De Gruyter.
Volume 2: Lifeworld and System, A Critique of Functionalist Reason (pp.356-373). Boston: Beacon
Press.
Retrieval Processes, In N. Schwarz and S. Sudman (Eds.), Autobiographical Memory and the Validity
of Retrospective Reports (pp.21 -37). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Family, 62(2). 51^-5^1.
Issues, 18(1), 53-65.
Monitor. 88(202), 10,2c.
July, 2006 from http://news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/business/1727305.stm
(Shock economics: Tendencies of social opinion of the Russian population). Sotsiologicheskie
issledovaniya, II., 10-17.
in the Mirror of Glasnost. London: St. Martin’s Press.
Retrieved 17 July, 2006 from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crash/etc/russia.html
and Phenomena. Joumal of Family and Economic Issues, 26(2). 195-224.
directorof the Expert Institute, Andrei Neshchadin. Johnson \s Russia List. Retrieved 17 July, 2006
from http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5575-l2.cfm
Times.
Role of Family Environment in Substance Use and Depression. Family Relations. 47(3), 297-303.
Cotnparative Family Studies, 22(2), 267-280.
Elder (Eds.), Families in Troubled Times: Adapting to Change in Rural Ameriea (pp.207-222). New
York: De Gmyter
Developed Countries. Family Planning Perspectives, 32{i), 14-23.
Esteem. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(4), 353-363.
Hardship on Parenting Behaviors and Children’s Self-Efficacy. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60(4),
291-303.