Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology

Izvestiya of Saratov University.

ISSN 2304-9790 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9013 (Online)


For citation:

Drobysheva T. V., Voytenko M. Y. Peculiarities of joint pastime of parents with their children in the megalopolis. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Educational Acmeology. Developmental Psychology, 2022, vol. 11, iss. 3, pp. 232-242. DOI: 10.18500/2304-9790-2022-11-3-232–242

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
Full text:
(downloads: 201)
Language: 
Russian
Article type: 
Article
UDC: 
316.61

Peculiarities of joint pastime of parents with their children in the megalopolis

Autors: 
Drobysheva Tatiana V., Institute of Psychology RAS
Voytenko Maria Yu., Institute of Psychology RAS
Abstract: 

The study appears to be of relevance due to its focus on diff erences in the interaction of parents and children in families with diff erent role models (patriarchal, matriarchal, and egalitarian). The purpose of the study is to identify diff erences in the forms of joint pastime of parents with their child in families of diff erent types. Presumably, the forms of joint pastime of parents with their children diff er in families of diff erent types, depending on the role model of the family. In particular, in families with the one-parent-dominance model, the joint pastime of parents with their children will be limited to the performance of their functional duties. Egalitarian families diff er in this respect preferring varied forms of joint pastime of parents with their children. The study involved parents of preschoolers living in 11 administrative districts of Moscow. All families are full. The sample (N = 247) included male (45%) and female (55%) parents aged 27 to 48. The following methods were applied: a questionnaire to identify the socio-demographic characteristics of parents and families, their attitudes to the division of family responsibilities; the authors’ original questionnaire aimed at identifying the forms of joint pastime of parents with their children that are preferred by the parents; scaling the psychological well-being of parents (satisfaction with the quality of their interaction with children, with living conditions in the city, and with the comfort of the urban environment for children’s life), and their subjective economic status (developed by V. A. Khashchenko). In order to study the peculiarities of the respondents’ perception of the urban environment, the authors used closed types of questions; the manifestation level of urban identity was revealed with the help of M. Lally’s methodology. The results of the study confi rm the hypothesis about the diff erences in the joint pastime of parents with their children in the families of citizens from families of diff erent types. The research results demonstrate that parents from matriarchal-type families are focused on fulfi lling their functional responsibilities connected with caring for their child, but they limit the child’s contacts in the social environment of the megalopolis. In patriarchal-type families, parents shift their responsibility for the child’s upbringing to the spouse and relatives. Their joint activity with the child is limited to the performance of their functional responsibilities connected with caring for the child and to participation in the child’s games. Parents from families with partnership relations are distinguished by having diff erent forms of joint pastime both at home and in the megalopolis. They visit the circus, museums, theaters, shopping centers together with the child, thus expanding the experience of the child’s social interaction with other residents of the city and creating conditions for the socio-psychological well-being of children in the megalopolis. The results of the study indicate the necessity to develop a variety of urban programs for joint pastime of parents with their children. Such programs which will be in demand by diff erent categories of families, primarily with the dominant role of the father or the mother.

Reference: 
  1. Зиммель Г. Большие города и духовная жизнь // Логос. 2002. № 3 (34). URL: https://www.hse.ru/ data/2018/09/07/1155200918/Зиммель_Большие_ города.pdf (дата обращения: 9.06.2022).
  2. Нартова-Бочавер С. К. Человек суверенный: психологическое исследование субъекта в его бытии. СПб. : Питер. 2008. 400 с.
  3. Дробышева Т. В., Войтенко М. Ю. Социальнопсихологическое благополучие детей в условиях мегаполиса: методологические основы исследования // Известия Саратовского университета. Новая серия. Серия: Акмеология образования. Психология развития. 2015. Т. 4, вып. 1. С. 21‒25. https://doi. org/10.18500/2304-9790-2015-4-1-21-25
  4. Дробышева Т. В., Войтенко М. Ю. Факторы социально-психологического благополучия личности в мегаполисе: представления детей о городе проживания // Институт психологии Российской академии наук. Социальная и экономическая психология. 2017. Т. 2, № 1 (5). С. 169‒189.
  5. Goswami H. Social Relationships and Children’s Subjective Well-Being // Social Indicators Research. 2012. Vol. 107, iss. 3. P. 575–588. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11205-011-9864-z
  6. Leto I. V., Loginova S. V., Varshal A., Slobodskaya H. R. Interactions between family environment and personality in the prediction of child life satisfaction // Child Indicators Research. 2021. Vol. 14, iss. 1. P. 1345–1363. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s12187-020-09798-6 
  7. Журавлев А. Л. Психология совместной деятельности. М. : Изд-во «Институт психологии РАН». 2005. 640 с.
  8. Левкович В. П. Роль родительской семьи во взаимоотношениях молодых супругов // Психологический журнал. 2008. Т. 29, № 3. С. 41‒47.
  9. Андреева Т. В. Семья в современной России: структурные и функциональные особенности // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия 6. Философия, политология, социология, психология, право, международные отношения. 2006. № 2. С. 80‒87.
  10. Зайкова С. А. К вопросу типологии современной семьи // Современные проблемы науки и образования. 2012. № 6. С. 701. URL: https://science-education.ru/ ru/article/view?id=7806 (дата обращения: 10.05.2022).
  11. Верещагина А. В. Типологическая характеристика семьи в современном российском обществе // Вестник института истории, археологии и этнографии. 2012. Т. 8, № 2. С. 79‒91. https://doi.org/10.32653/CH8279-91
  12. Иванова Е. В. Эмоциональное благополучие детей дошкольного возраста и жизнестойкость родителей // Вестник Костромского государственного университета. Серия: Педагогика. Психология. Социокинетика. 2020. Т. 26, № 1. С. 96‒103. https://doi. org/10.34216/2073-1426-2020-26-1-96-103
  13. Lawler M. J., Newland L. A., Giger J. T., Roh S., Brockevelt B. L. Ecological, relationship-based model of children’s subjective well-being: Perspectives of 10-year-old children in the United States and 10 other countries // Child Indicators Research. 2017. Vol. 10, iss. 1. P. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-016-9376-0
  14. Konca A. S., Tantekin Erden F. Young children’s social interactions with parents during digital activities at home // Child Indicators Research. 2021. Vol. 14, iss. 4. P. 1365–1385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187- 020-09800-1
  15. Vaz de Macêdo C. M., Gil M., Wachholz Strelhow M. R. Urban mobility and subjective well-being among Brazilian children // Child Indicators Research. 2022. Vol. 15, iss. 2. P. 467–485. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-021- 09888-z
  16. Вялых Н. А. Трансформация института семьи в российском обществе: социальные противоречия и социологические иллюзии // Векторы благополучия: экономика и социум. 2021. № 2 (41). С. 125‒138. https://doi.org/10.18799/26584956/2021/2(41)/1061
  17. Евграфова Ю. А. Ролевая структура в молодой супружеской паре // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Психология. 2019. Т. 9, вып. 4. С. 411‒423. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu16.2019.407
  18. Алешина Ю. Е. Индивидуальное и семейное психологическое консультирование. М. : Класс, 2000. 203 с.
  19. Клецина И. С. Гендерный подход в психологических исследованиях современных семейных отношений // Вестник Ленинградского государственного университета им. А. С. Пушкина. Психология. 2011. Т. 5, № 4. С. 107–119.
  20. Edlund J., Öun I. Who should work and who should care? Attitudes towards the desirable division of labour between mothers and fathers in fi ve European countries // Acta Sociologica. 2016. Vol. 59, iss. 2. P. 151‒169. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0001699316631024
  21. Lalli M. Urban-related identity: Theory, measurement, and empirical fi ndings // Journal of Environmental Psychology. 1992. Vol. 12, iss. 4. P. 285–303. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0272-4944(05)80078-7
  22. Фанталова Е. Б. Диагностика и психотерапия внутреннего конфликта. Самара : Бахрах-М, 2001. 128 с.
  23. Лукашин Ю. В., Черняева Т. Н. Риски социализации детей и подростков в условиях выраженной самоизоляции (в период пандемии короновируса) // Общество: социология, психология, педагогика. 2021. № 9. C. 111‒118. https://doi.org/10.24158/spp.2021.9.18
  24. Опекина Т. П., Шипова Н. С. Семья в период самоизоляции: стрессы, риски и возможности совладания // Вестник Костромского государственного университета. Серия: Педагогика. Психология. Социокинетика. 2020. Т. 26, № 3. С. 121‒128. https://doi. org/10.34216/2073-1426-2020-26-3-121-128
  25. Дети в городе. Глобальные и локальные инициативы создания среды для детей в мегаполисе. Moscow Urban Forum 2021. URL: https://mosurbanforum. ru/business-program/2021/deti-v-gorode-globalnyei-lokalnye-initsiativy-sozdaniya-sredy-dlya-detey-vmegapolise/ (дата обращения: 01.02.2022).
  26. Иванов Д. О., Орел В. И. Современные особенности здоровья детей мегаполиса // Медицина и организация здравоохранения. 2016. Т. 1, № 1. С. 7‒11.
  27. Ракитина Н. Э. Доброжелательность городской среды к детям: социологический анализ: дис. … канд. социол. наук. Хабаровск, 2017. 184 с.
  28. Лебедева Е. В., Купряшкина Е. А., Ракитина Н. Э. Дети и город: на пути к соучаствующему проектированию // Комплексные исследования детства. 2019. Т. 1, № 3. С. 189‒199. https://doi.org/10.33910/2687- 0223-2019-1-3-189-199
  29. Козлов В. А., Филипова А. Г. Участие детей в решении городских вопросов: анализ зарубежного опыта (на примере европейских стран и Австралии) // Комплексные исследования детства. 2020. Т. 2, № 3. С. 141‒151. https://doi.org/10.33910/2687-0223-2020- 2-3-141-151
Received: 
13.05.2022
Accepted: 
13.06.2022
Published: 
30.09.2022