簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 宋博鳳
論文名稱: 成年前期手足關係之研究
Sibling Relationships in Early Adulthood
指導教授: 林如萍
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 人類發展與家庭學系
Department of Human Development and Family Studies
論文出版年: 2003
畢業學年度: 91
語文別: 中文
中文關鍵詞: 成年前期手足質化研究
英文關鍵詞: sibling relationships, early adulthood, qualitative study
論文種類: 學術論文
相關次數: 點閱:436下載:98
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 本研究之目的為瞭解成年前期手足關係之特質,並進而分析影響手足關係之因素。研究方法採質化研究的取向,資料搜集的方式為半結構式的深度訪談。研究對象以「性別 ×出生序」之手足組合為立意依據,選取:兄弟、兄妹、姊弟、及姊妹等四對配對樣本,年齡介於25至35歲間,處於成年前期階段之男女。
    研究發現此一時期的手足關係,包含:親密所引發的支持、自主所選擇的疏離與衝突因應以及忠誠與義務所衍生的互助三項特質。其中,親密所引發的支持,其親密性不僅是彼此的同理與陪伴,更因瞭解而有著懂得彼此的默契,也因此主動或被動地成為家人間溝通的橋樑,並透露出對於手足放不掉的掛心。而自主所選擇的疏離與衝突因應,個體伴隨著年齡的增長,相對地凸顯彼此在態度與行為上的差異,使得手足關係較為疏離;當雙方產生衝突時,則有著點到為止的自控意識。另就,忠誠與義務所衍生的互助,當個體在成年前期已有能力提供手足協助時,顯現在:雙方對彼此生活的關照(如:經濟方面的借貸、日常事務的幫助等)、為對方後盾的義氣以及自家人的暗扛。
    影響成年前期手足關係之因素,主要可由個體與雙人關係、家庭經驗以及規範三個面向切入。就個體與雙人關係討論,包含:年齡、性別、個性、手足性別組合、出生序以及手足居住空間之距離等因素。論及家庭經驗,包含著早期共同成長的記憶、親子關係、家庭之非預期重大生命事件以及家庭事務的參與;並因著個體生殖家庭的組成,亦引發著手足關係的變化。而所謂規範層面的認知則相對地延伸個體對於手足關係意義的詮釋,其認知的基礎包括:生物面、生活面以及文化面(父子軸所延伸之重男輕女),往往在父母教養與手足相處的互動歷程中發酵。
    透過八位受訪者的手足互動經驗,本研究對於成年前期的手足關係做一初探性的描繪,著重本土性的文化脈絡。研究結果凸顯,傳統文化價值規範依舊牽動著現今社會中成年人的手足關係。最後,則於研究討論提供未來手足相關議題的研究建議。

    One of the essential topics in human development is sibling relationships in early adulthood. It is hard to provide a clear picture regarding how early adults handle their sibling relationships because the relationships exist so naturally and what results from the relationships is easy to be ignored. The study revealed that early adulthood could be profiled through three dimensions and three possible factors that may influence the sibling relationship in early adulthood.
    There were two main goals in this study, which were (1) to profile the characteristics of sibling relationships in early adulthood, and (2) to determine factors that affect early adulthood sibling relationships. In order to have the data truly represent the study population, early adults in Taiwan, the study was done using a qualitative design and using semi-structured interview methods to collect data. Eight adults, four sibling pairs (gender x order of birth), participated in this study and they were between 25 to 35 years old.
    The study found that early adulthood relationships might be able to be profiled through the following three dimensions: (1) support and closeness, (2) disaffection and conflict handling, and (3) loyalty and obligation. Specifically, the support and closeness dimension includes emotional and psychological support, connection and communication channels between family members, and caring. The disaffection and conflict-handling dimension includes awareness, acceptability, and respect to individual differences, and flexibility under conflict situations. The loyalty and obligation dimension includes being loyal to family members as well as fulfilling obligations for the roles people play in their families.
    Based on the study results, there were three factors that affected the sibling relationships in early adulthood. These three factors are: (1) individual and interpersonal relationships, (2) family experiences, and (3) norm and value preferences of the culture. The individual and interpersonal factor was generalized from the impact of age, sex differences, personality similarity, birth order, and geographic proximity. The family factor might influence early adulthood relationships due to family-of-origin experiences, which include different memories result from his/her family, parent-child relationships, family nonnormative life events, and family affairs. The family-of-procreation experiences (i.e., marriage, having child/children, divorce) also might influence sibling relationships in early adulthood. Based on the traditional Chinese patriarchic culture, most Chinese believe: Men are better than women. Because of this belief, the study found that the norm/value preferences of the culture could be a factor that would also affect relationships in early adulthood. In this factor, issues such as recognition on individual identity, sexual modeling, and responsibilities and expectations in different sibling roles, are essential.
    The study is important because few studies have been done in this area. This study, in particular, provides an overview regarding the topic on sibling relationships in early adulthood as well as the issue on indigenous cognition. The results of the study may offer guidelines for future related studies on the same issue.

    第一章 緒論.....................................1 第一節 研究動機.................................1 第二節 研究目的.................................3 第三節 名詞釋義.................................6 第二章 文獻探討.................................8 第一節 手足與手足關係...........................8 第二節 成年前期的手足關係......................13 第三節 影響成年前期手足關係之相關因素..........22 第三章 研究設計................................33 第一節 研究方法................................33 第二節 研究歷程................................36 第三節 研究信賴度..............................43 第四章 研究發現................................45 第一節 家家有本自己的經........................45 第二節 成年前期手足關係的特質..................56 第三節 影響成年前期手足關係之因素..............92 第五章 討論與建議.............................140 第一節 研究結論...............................140 第二節 研究省思...............................146 第三節 對未來研究的建議.......................148 後記...........................................149 參考文獻.......................................151 附件一.........................................160 附件二.........................................161 附件三.........................................163

    一、中文資料
    王慧玲譯(1999)。再婚/Ihinger-Tallman,M.,& Pasley,K.,Remarriage。台北:揚智。
    王文娟(2001)。"家"對智障者之成年手足的意涵。 慈濟大學社會工作研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    王釗文(2001)。單親家庭成年子女手足關係互動行為及其互動意義之建構。國立台灣師範大學家政教育研究所碩士論文,未出版。
    王舒芸(1996)。奶爸難為—雙薪家庭之父職角色初探,台灣大學社會學研究所碩士論文,未出版。
    朱瑞玲(1998)。中年人的手足關係:親情或友情。行政院國家科學委員會研究報告。
    朱柔若譯(2000)。社會研究方法 – 質化與量化取向。台北:揚智。
    行政院主計處(2001)。中華民國統計月報。行政院主計處編印。
    余巧芸(1998)。兒童之手足關係研究-知覺、期待、問題、對策(I)。行政院國家科學委員會研究報告。
    余德慧(1991)。中國社會的人際苦痛及其分析。楊中芳、高尚仁合編,《中國人、中國心—人格與社會篇,「中國本土心理學新紀元研討會」論文集》。台北:遠流。
    呂俊甫(2001)。華人性格研究。台北:遠流。
    呂素幸(1994)。他是我兄弟-談幼兒的手足關係。國教之聲,第27卷,第3期,18-23。
    利翠珊(2002)。婆媳與母女:不同世代女性家庭經驗的觀點差異。女學學誌:婦女與性別研究,13(1),179-218。
    李美枝(1993)。從有關公平判斷的研究結果看中國人之人己關係的界線。本土心理學研究,第一期,267-300。
    李美枝(1999)。手足與朋友關係的內涵與功能。第五十七屆國際心理學人年會。
    李麗玲(1995)。智障兒童青少年手足與一般家庭青少年親子關係與生活適應之比較研究。文化大學兒童福利研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    沙依仁(1998)。第六章 成年期,人類行為與社會環境(二版)。台北:五南。
    林正福譯(2001)。人際關係/Dwyer,D.,Interpersonal Relationships。台北:弘智。
    林安麗(2000)。白血病兒童手足之壓力源及因應行為。國立臺灣大學護理學研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    林如萍(2001)。第七章 家庭擴展期。黃迺毓、林如萍、唐先梅、陳芳茹編著,家庭概論。台北縣:空大。
    林如萍(1998)。農家代間情感之研究—老年父母與其最親密的成年子女。中華家政,第二十七期,68-83。
    林松齡(1999)。家庭,社會學與台灣社會。台北:巨流。
    林明慧(1990)。家庭因素與學齡兒童攻擊行為關係之研究-以台北國小學童為例。中國文化大學兒童福利研究所,未出版。
    吳芝儀、李奉儒譯(1995)。質的評鑑與研究/Patton, M.Q., Qualitative evaluative and research methods。台北:桂冠。
    吳秋雯(1996)。手足變項、父母教養態度與子女手足攻擊行為之相關研究。文化大學兒童福利研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    洪碧芬(1990)。慢性病童手足之親子關係與生活適應研究。東吳大學社會學研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    胡幼慧(民85)。質性研究---理論、方法及本土女性研究實例。台北:巨流。
    莊耀嘉(1998)。中國人角色關係的認知結構。行政院國家科學委員會科學技術資料中心報告。
    陳其南(1988)。中國人的家族與企業經營。文崇一、蕭新煌主編,中國人:觀念與行為。台北:巨流。
    陳若男(1993)。兒童手足關係與友誼關係之研究。國立臺灣師範大學家政教育研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    陳佩妏(2002)。自閉症兒童之手足-手足關係之探討。國立台北師範學院教育心理與輔導學系研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    喬健(1990)。關係芻議。楊國樞主編,中國人的心理。台北:桂冠。
    張宏哲(1999)。第十章 成年前期,人類行為與社會環境。台北:雙業。
    張素貞(1999)。"智障者手足"自我概念與生活適應之研究。國立高雄師範大學輔導研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    張定綺譯(1998)。天生反骨:家庭內的演化戰爭/Sulloway, F.J..Born to Rebel。台北:平安文化。
    詹佩宜(民89):智障學生之國小正常手足的親子互動關係、手足關係、社會支持與生活適應之相關研究。國立新竹師範學院國民教育研究所碩士論文。
    廖文如(民90):智障者成人手足之手足關係與壓力知覺研究。國立嘉義大學家庭教育研究所碩士論文。
    鄭偉琪(民83):自閉症兒童之手足的自我概念與生活適應。國立台灣師範大學特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
    鍾易錚(1999)。高雄市啟智學校高職班學生之正常青少年手足家庭適應與相關因素之研究。靜宜大學青少年兒童福利學研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    梁淑娟(1991)。智障者同胞手足心理需求之研究。國立彰化師範大學輔導研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    趙詩瑄(1998)。父母親介入子女衝突之方式與手足攻擊行為相關研究。中國文化大學兒童福利研究所,未出版之碩士論文。
    曹中瑋(1996)。大專學生嫉妒心理之分析。本土心理學研究,第五期,P.72-112。
    黃富順(1993)。成人心理。台北:國立空中大學。
    黃朗文(1999)。青少年與手足互動關係之研究。東吳社會學報,第八期,123-154。
    黃光雄主譯(2001)。質性教育研究:理論與方法/ Bogdan,R.C., & Biklen,S.K. (1998).Qualitative Research For Education:An Introduction to Theory and Methods。嘉義:濤石文化。
    楊國樞、張春興(1984)。成人心理學(修訂六版)。台北:桂冠。
    楊國樞(1992)。中國人的社會取向:社會互動觀點。楊國樞、余安邦主編,中國人的心理與行為—理念及方法篇。台北:桂冠。
    楊國樞(1993)。我們為什麼要建立中國人的本土心理學?本土心理學研究,第一期,P.6-88。
    楊國樞主編、黃慧真譯(1995)。成人發展/Papalia, D.E., & Olds, S.W.,Adult Development.。台北:桂冠。
    楊懋春(1981)。中國家庭與倫理。台北:中央文物。
    楊宜音(2000)。「自己人」:一項有關中國人關係分類的個案研究。本土心理學研究,13。P.277-316。
    鄒川雄(1998)。中國社會學理論。台北:洪葉文化。
    廖文如(民90):智障者成人手足之手足關係與壓力知覺研究。國立嘉義大學家庭教育研究所碩士論文。
    廖鳳瑞(1994)。幼教課程研究的趨勢—生態系統理論的應用。家政教育,第十二卷,第六期,23-34。
    熊瑞梅(1999)。核心網絡的性別特質。台灣社會的個人網絡:第三次社會變遷基本調查研討會論文。中央研究院社會學研究所。
    蔡文輝(2000)。第十二章 家庭制度,社會學。台北:三民。
    蘇建文、程小危、柯華葳、林美珍、吳敏而、幸曼玲、陳李綢、林惠雅、陳淑美(1994)。發展心理學,第十七章 成人發展的轉變:由早成人期到中年期。台北:心理。
    費孝通(1991)。鄉土中國。香港:三聯。
    陸洛譯(1995)。日常生活社會心理學/ Argyle,M.,The Social Psychology of Everyday Life。台北:巨流。
    游恆山譯(2001)。發展心理學/ Sigelman,C.K. & Shaffer,D.R., Life-Span Human Development。台北:五南。
    羅惠筠、陳秀珍編譯(1992)。現代心理學/Morris, C.G.,Contemporary Psychology and Effective Behavior。台北:美亞。
    郭靜晃、吳幸玲譯(1994)。發展心理學:心理社會理論與實務/Newman, B.M. & Newman, P.R.。台北:揚智。
    二、西文資料
    Allen, K.R., Blieszner, R., & Roberto, K.A. (2000). Families in the middle and later years: a review and critique of research in the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 911-926.
    Bank, S.P., & Kahn, M.D. (1982). In tense Sibling Loyalties. In Lamb,M., & Sutton-Smith,B. (Eds.), Sibling relationships: their nature and significance across the life span. pp.251-267.Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Bedford, V.H. (1994). Sibling relationships in middle and old age. In Blieszner, R. & Bedford, V.H., Handbook of Aging and the Family, p.201-221. NJ: British Library Cataloguing.
    Bedford, V.H.(1998). Sibling relationship troubles and well-being in middle and old age. Family Relations,47,369-376.
    Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds . City, London: Tavistock.
    Brody, E.M. (1990). Women in the middle: their parent care years. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
    Bronfenbrenner,U.(1979). The ecology of Human Development.Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.
    Bronfenbrenner,U.(1986).Ecology of the family as a context for human development : Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology,22,723-742.
    Bank, S.P., & Kahn, M.D. (1982). In Tntense Sibling Loyalties. In Lamb,M., & Sutton-Smith,B. (Eds.), Sibling relationships: their nature and significance across the life span. pp.251-267.Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Bookout,J.C. & Davey,A. & Belliston,L.M.(1999).Longitudinal Analysis of Sibling Support in Parent Care. The Gerontologist,Vol.39 Issue 1, P.166.
    Campbell, L.D., Connidis, I.A., & Davies, L.(1999). Sibling ties in later life: a social network analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 114-148.
    Cicirelli, V.G.(1982). Sibling influence throughout the lifespan. In M.E. Lamb, & Button-Smith B. (Eds.), Sibling relationships: their nature and significance across the lifespan, pp.267-284. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Cicirelli, V.G. (1991). Sibling relationships in adulthood. In Pfeifer S.P., & Sussman, M.B. (Eds.), Families: intergenerational and generational connections, pp.291-310. New York, NY: Haworth Press.
    Cicirelli, V.G. (1992). Life transitions and the adult sibling tie: a qualitative study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 972-982.
    Cicirelli, V.G. (1994). Sibling relationships in cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 56(1), 7-14.
    Cicirelli, V.G. (1995). Sibling relationships across the life span. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
    Connidis, I. A. (1992). Life transitions and the adult sibling tie: A qualitative study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54, 972-982.
    Connidis,I.A.,& Campbell,L.D.(1995).Closeness,confinding,and contact among siblings in middle and late adulthood.Journal of Family Issues,16 Issue 6,p. 722-747.
    Conger, R.D., & Conger, K.J. (1996). Sibling relationships. In Understanding differences between divorced and intact families : stress,interaction,and child outcome, pp.104-121.
    Dunn,J.(1992).Sisters and brothers:Current issues in developmental research. In F.Boer & J.Dunn(Eds.),Children’s sibling relationships: Developmental and clinical issues. Hillsdale,NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
    Dunn, J. (1988). Connection between relationships: Implications of research on mothers and siblings. In R.A. Hinde & Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Relationships within families (pp. 168-180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Goetting, A. (1986). The developmental tasks of siblingship over the life cycle. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 703-714.
    Gold, D.T.(1987). Generational solidarity: sibling ties in later life. Paper Presented at the Meeting of the American Psychological Association. New York.
    Gold, D.T. (1989). Sibling relationships: a typology. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 28,37-51.
    Ihinger-Tallman, M. (1995). Sibling relationships. In Levinson, D.(Ed., Encyclopedia of Marriage and the Family,Volume 2. New York, NY: Macmillan Library.
    Kory,F.(1995).Gender and closeness among friends and siblings.Journal of Psychology,129(2),193-203.
    Lamb, M.E., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1982). Sibling relationships: their nature and significance across the life span. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Mosatche, H. S., Brady, E. M., & Noberini, M. R. (1983). A retrospective fifespan study of the closest sibling relationship. Journal of Psychology, 113, 237-243.
    Mattews, S.H., & Rosner, T.T. (1988). Shared filial responsibility: the family as the primary caregiver. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 185-195.
    Matthews,S.H.(1995).Gender and the Division of Filial Responsibility Between Lone Sisters and Their Brothers. The journals of Gerontoloy. Series B,Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, Vol.50B No.5, P.312.
    Mosatche, H. S., Brady, E. M., & Noberini, M. R. (1983). A retrospective fifespan study of the closest sibling relationship. Journal of Psychology, 113, 237-243.Mosatche, Brady, & Noberini (1984)
    Moss, S.Z., & Moss, M.S. (1989). Death of an elderly sibling. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 94-106.
    Pulakos, J. (1987). Brothers and sisters: nature and importance of the adult bond. The Journal of Psychology, 12, 521-522.
    Pulakos,J.(1989).Young Adult Relationships:Siblings and Friends.The Journal of Psychology,123(3),237-244.
    Pulakos, J. (1990).Correlations between Family Environment and Relationships of Young-Adult Siblings.Psychological Reports,67(3),1283-1286.
    Ross, H.G., & Milgram, J.I. (1982). Important variables in adult sibling relationships: a qualitative study. In Lamb, M.E., & Button-Smith, B. (Eds.), Sibling relationships: their nature and significance across the lifespan, pp.225-249. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Riggio,H.R.(2000).Measuring Attitudes toward Adult Sibling Relationships:the Lifespan Sibling Relationship Scale.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,17(6),707-728.
    Scott, J. P. (1983). Siblings and other kin. In T. Brubaker (Ed.), Family relationships in later life, 47-62. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
    Schibuk,M.(1989).Treating the sibling subsystem :An adjunct of divorce therapy. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 59,226-237.Schneider & Conrad (1980)
    Stewart,R.B.,Verbrugge,K.M., & Beilfuss,M.C.(2001).Sibling Relationships in early Adulthood:A Typology.Personal Relationships,5(1),59-74.
    Stocker, C.M., Lanthier, R.P., & Furman, W. (1997). Sibling relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology,11(2), 210-221.
    Tonti, M. (1988). Relationships among adult siblings who care for their aged parents. In Kahn,M.D., & Lewis, K.G.(Eds.). Siblings in therapy: life span and clinical issues, pp.417-434. New York, NY: Norton.
    Volling, B.L., & Belsky, J. (1992). The contribution of mother-child and father-child relationships to the quality of sibling interactions: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 63,1209-1222.
    Weisner, T.S. (1982). Sibling interdependence and child caretaking: a cross-cultural view. In Lamb, M.E., & Button-Smith, B. (Eds.), Sibling relationships: their nature and significance across the lifespan, pp.305-327. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    White, L. (2001). Sibling relationships over the life course: a panel analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 555-568.
    White, L. K., & Riedmann, A. (1992). Ties among adult siblings. Social Forces, 71(1), 85-102.

    QR CODE