농촌가족의 건강성에 관한 연구 = (A) Study on the Healthiness of Rural Families in Korea

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The family constantly changes and adapts itself to new environments like Proteus (Lifton, 1969). With the urbanization and industrialization that have continued for forty years, Korea's rural family has changed dramatically. Familism is disappearing, but individualism is increasing in the rural family. Therefore divorce rate has increased drastically, along with a large increases in concern about the harmful side effects of the collapse of the traditional family. With this growing concern, an interest in healthy families based on “strong family perspectives” has become widespread, which seemsderive from the understanding that 'the quality of family life is very important to the strength of nations' (Stinnett et al., 1984).
From this point it is significant to clarify the healthy degree of rural families and its related variables. This study examines the problem according to the conjugal system. At the same time, the conjugal cognition differencewas evidenced.For this purpose, 43 villages were selected out of 16 cities and counties in eight provinces through systematic sampling. All the couples of the 43 selected villages whose eldest child's educations' level was at least middle school were surveyed during from May to September 1999. The number of the surveyed families was 216 farming households. Among the surveyed families, the data of 392 individuals of 196 families were analysed by using the SAS program.
Rural family healthiness, the dependent variable in this study, includesconcepts such as family identity, problem coping, communication, family congruence, decision making, social support, family flexibility, and family ritual formation. Independent variables used in this study were social-demographic variables (number of family members, family type, living standard, maritalduration, academic careers of the couples, religion of the couples, farming household type, agriculture type), individual variables (self esteem of the couple), family relation variables (marital satisfaction of the couple, marital problem seriousness of the couple, kin problem seriousness of the couple, children problem seriousness of the couple), and social variables (local society problem recognition of the couple).
The major findings that were drawn from this study were as follows :First, the degree of rural family healthiness was about 71 points. This was generally a good result, but when compared with the researched findings on urban family healthiness (Eo, 1996) it was relatively lower. This means that in rural families there yet remains familism, so interactions among family members are not harmonious. It may also be due to the lower academic levels of the couples than those of urban couples. The difference between conjugal recognitions in rural family healthiness was not significant.
Second, as a result of regression analysis to examine the explanatory power of the independent variables on rural family healthiness, those variables account for 48% (Adj R²).Only family type (β=.17), self esteem of wife (β=.22), self esteem of husband (β=.19), marital satisfaction of wife (β=.32), and marital satisfaction of husband (β=.15) affected the rural family healthinesssignificantly.It turned out that among the variables related torural family healthiness, marital satisfaction of the wife had the most significant influence. It also turned out that the variables related to the wife had more significant influence than those related to the husband. This result means that wives have more effect on the quality of interactions of their family members than husbands do.
On the one hand, the nuclear family type, as opposed to the researched findings on urban family healthiness(Eo, 1996), had a positive and significant effect on the rural family healthiness. This leads to the conclusion that when rural families, already overloaded with agricultural roles, do not have enough resources to cope with the increasing relations, the relations function as a cost rather than benefit and therefore causelower family health in the extended family.
Third, as a result of a hierarchical regression analysis, individual variables, family relation variables, and social variables had more explanatory power than social-demographic variables. This means that social-psychological variables (self esteem of couple, marital satisfaction of couple, etc.) have more explanatory power for rural family healthiness than material and agricultural variables.
Viewing the results of this study, education programs for the improvement in rural family healthiness should be developed, within the consideration of the interaction of family members, resource management, communication skill, decision-making in families, and so forth. Above all, systematic educational programs for the improvement of social-psychological relations among family members must be developed to enhance family healthiness. Also, to developdiagnosis program focused on assessment and improvement of family healthiness may be desirable. It is also considered that these programs may be more efficient when applied to a conjugal system unit or family system unit rather than an individual system unit.
This thesis is the first synthetic and systematic study illuminating rural family healthiness through the conjugal system in Korea. The groundwork of this treatise can be used as basic material to establish a model of healthy rural families and produce programs for the healthiness improvement of rural families.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• I. 서론 = 1
• 1. 문제제기 = 1
• 2. 연구목적 및 의의 = 5
• 3. 연구문제와 모형 = 6
• 1) 연구문제 = 6
• 2) 연구모형 = 7
• II. 선행연구 고찰 = 8
• 1. 농촌가족의 특성 = 8
• 1) 농촌인구 및 가족의 구조 변화 =
• 2) 농촌가족 및 부부 관계의 변화 = 13
• 2. 가족의 건강성 = 17
• 1) 서구의 개념 및 특성 = 18
• 2) 국내의 개념 및 특성 = 21
• 3) 농촌가족의 건강성 = 23
• 3. 농촌가족의 건강성 관련 변인 = 25
• III. 연구방법 및 절차 = 32
• 1. 연구대상 = 32
• 2. 측정도구 = 32
• 1) 농촌가족의 건강성의 개념적인 정의 및 척도 검증 = 33
• 2) 농촌가족의 건강성 관련변인의 내용 및 척도 = 36
• 3. 자료수집 및 분석 = 39
• IV. 연구결과 및 논의 = 42
• 1. 조사대상자의 일반적인 특성 = 42
• 1) 사회인구학적인 특성 = 42
• 2) 개인, 가족관계, 사회적인 변인의 일반적인 특성 = 46
• 2. 농촌 가족의 건강도 = 49
• 3. 농촌가족의 건강성에 대한 관련변인의 분석 = 51
• 1) 농촌가족의 건강성에 영향을 미치는 변인 = 54
• 2) 농촌가족의 건강성에 대한 관련변인들의 상대적인 중요성 = 66
• V. 요약 및 결론 = 71
• 1. 요약 = 71
• 2. 결론 및 제언 = 74
• 참고문헌 = 80