Vol.3, No.1

2013

National Foundation ofBrief Therapy
August 2013

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
 

International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family ScienceVol. 3, No. 1, 2013
	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
 

CONTENTS
Original Papers (Research and Experiment) :Husbands’ Forms of Address for Wives Predict Intimate Partner Violence against Women……………. 1-13

YOKOTANI, K.

Cumulative Family Relationship with Family Relationship History Graph
WAKASHIMA, K.

……………. 14-32

Comparative Study on Adolescents’ Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict in Japan and China
ZHANG, X.

……………. 33-40

Short Case Reports :Collaboration in the Time of Graduation
KONNO, H.

……………. 41-42

International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science
2013, Vol. 3, No.1, 1-13.
< Original Paper: Research and Experiment >Husbands’ Forms of Address for Wives Predict Intimate Partner Violence against
Women
Kenji Yokotani1)
1)

Graduate School of Clinical Psychology, Niigata Seiryo University________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT. Intimate Partner Violence against women [IPV] is a serious human right abuse, so early intervention in IPV is sociallyrequired. Previous study found that several forms of address predicted physical IPV. Hence, I aimed to predict physical IPV fromhusbands’ forms of address for wives. Participants were 76 married women in Japan. They aged 53.6 (S.D. = 13.5) and married 25.3
(S.D. = 13.3) years on average. They reported their husbands’ forms of address to them. The forms were converted into arrogant andintimacy scores based on Semantic Scores of Japanese Forms of Address. They also answered the Communication Patterns
Questionnaire and shortened version of the Conflict Tactics Scales. Results showed that arrogant and intimate scores of forms ofaddress were significantly correlated with mutual constructive communication and physical IPV. Still, physical IPV was predicted
only by arrogant scores. These findings were discussed from the perspective of context specifier.
KEY WORDS: Arrogant forms, Spousal Forms of Address, Physical Intimate Partner Violence against Women, Mutual Constructive
Communication, Communication Patterns Questionnaire.

Introduction

24000 women in the 10 countries and found

Intimate Partner Violence against womenthat 13 to 61 percent of the women experienced[IPV] is defined as an intimate male partner’s

physical IPV (Ellsberg, Jansen, Heise, Watts,

violence against women from physical (e.g.,

Garcia-Moreno, & The WHO Multi-country

pushing, hitting), psychological (e.g., shouting,

Study, 2006). In the same line, 12.9 percent of

ignoring), and sexual aspects (e.g., forcing

the Japanese women experienced physical IPV

women to have sexual intercourse) [Johnson, &(Garcia-Moreno, Ellsberg, Heise, Watts, & The

Ferraro, 2000; Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy,

WHO Multi-country Study, 2006). Furthermore,& Sugarman, 1996]. IPV is a serious human

the women who experienced the IPV reported

right abuse and lots of studies found that IPV ishigher rates of suicidal thought and attempts

common throughout the world. World Healththan those who did not (Ellsberg et al., 2008).

Organization (WHO) interviewed around

Because physical IPV violates women’s basic
human right and aggravates their mental health,

CORRESPONDENCE TO YOKOTANI, Niigata Seiryo

WHO requires intervention in physical IPV at

University, Room 5210, Suidocho, 1, 5939, Chuo district,an initial phase (Ellsberg et al., 2008;

Niigata city, Niigata prefecture, 951-8121, Japan.

Garcia-Moreno et al., 2006).
To intervene in physical IPV efficiently,

E-mail: yokotani@n-seiryo.ac.jp

many assessment tools were developed, such as

1

2

YOKOTANI

the Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA)

women’s partners (Neff, Holamon, & Schluter,[Kropp & Hart, 2000], Ontario Domestic

1995; Pan et al., 1994; Van Hightower et al.,Assault Risk Assessment (ODARA) [Hilton,

2000). Several researches also required toHarris, Rice, Lang, Cormier, & Lines, 2004],

consider ethnic differences of couples, before

Domestic

researchers weigh these indexes (Neff et al.,Violence

Screening

Instrument

Revised (DVSI-R) [Williams, 2012], Historical,

1995).

Actually,

frequency

Clinical and Risk Management (HCR-20)

communication decrease risk of physical IPV in[Douglas, Ogloff, Nicholls, & Grant, 1999],

Bangladesh (Naved & Persson, 2005), but

and Danger Assessment (DA) [Campbell,

increase in Cambodia (Eng, Li, Mulsow, &Webster, & Glass, 2009]. These tools have

Fischer, 2010). Although previous studies

good predictive validities, so they were

found many important indexes, most of indexes

extensively used in justice or correction

were unchangeable by early intervention. For

facilities. Still, they were not used widely inexample,health-care centers. This is because they wereeducational level, and history of observation of

mainly applied for women whose husbands

physical IPV cannot be changed by intervention.

were arrested or prosecuted on physical IPV, so

Their drug/alcohol problems might be changed

several questions of them ask criminal or

but it requires great deal of time to change.

pathological histories of their husbands (e.g.,

Therefore, these indexes surely told the risks of

Past assault of strangers or acquaintances

physical IPV, but not the way of intervention in[SARA], Prior domestic assault in police record

physical IPV at early phase.

husbands’

age,

of

spousalincomelevel,

management system [ODARA], Prior violation

On the other hand, family communication isof orders of protection [DVSI-R], Earlya changeable trait of the predictive indexes

maladjustment [HCR-20], Prior history of(Navedattempts of suicide [DA],). These questions dointervention in family communication also

not fit well with women whose husbands weredecreased family violence. For example, Henry

violent but not arrested. Therefore, even though(2012) sampled 1062 sixth-grade students withthese tools have good predictive validities, theyhigh levels of aggression and half of themcannot be utilized as a tool to predict general

received 15 weekly family group meeting

physical IPV.

including 4-6 families per group (See Smith etMany researchers found predictive indexes&

Persson,2005).

Furthermore,al., 2004 for more detail). Henry found thatof general physical IPV, such as migrant statusfamilygroup(Van Hightower, Gorton, & DeMoss, 2000),

closeness and parents’ discipline practice, bothyoung age, low income level (Pan, Neidig, &of

O'Leary, 1994), low educational level, history

behaviors in family. Kumpfer and Alvaradoof their parent’s physical IPV (Naved &(2003) also reviewed prevention program of

Persson, 2005), and drug/alcohol problems ofyouth problem behaviors and found thatwhich

meetingdecreased

increased

students’familyaggressive

FORMS OF ADDRESS PREDICT INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE	
 

	
  3

effective family program required strategies forcouples without physical IPV (Babcock et al.,improving family communication. Alexander &1993; Sagrestano et al., 1999). On the other

Parsons (1973) also conducted randomized

hand, mutual constructive patterns (Partner

control trials to 86 families with at least one

communicates constructively with each other)delinquent child. Treatment group received

were infrequently occurred among couples withintervention, which “aimed at systematicallyphysical IPV, compared to couples without

extinguishing maladaptive interaction patterns

physical IPV (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998).

and instituting reciprocity instead (p. 220)”.

Hence couple communication could be an

The treatment group showed lower level ofindex of physical IPV and a point to berecidivism rates compared to control groups.

intervened.

These studies were theoretically supported by

The present study focused on spousal form

many researchers (Bateson, Jackson, Haley, &of address as couple communication. This is

Weakland, 1956; De Shazer et al., 1986;

because forms of address in family reflected

Wakashima,

Ikuta,

Watzlawick,

Beavin,&Hasegawa,

1999;

frequency of family communication (Yokotani,

Jackson,1967;2012) and family violence (Yokotani, 2008).

Zimmerman, Prest, & Wetzel, 1997) andEspecially, husbands’ forms of address forsuggested that family communication changed

wives predicted couple communication patterns

violent act of a family member.

in

&

Japan

(Yokotani,inpress).

Intimate

Previous studies also suggested that couple

husbands’ forms predicted mutual couple

communication patterns are the best predictor

communication patterns positively, whereasof physical IPV among family communication

arrogant husbands’ forms of address predictedvariables (Naved & Persson, 2005). Couple

mutualcommunication

negatively

patterns

weredefinedascouplecommunication(Yokotani,inpress).

patterns
Becauserepetitive patterns of couple communication

mutual couple communication patterns were

(Christensen & Shenk, 1991; Yokotani &negatively

Hasegawa, 2011) and were different between(Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998), intimate

couples with and without physical IPV (e.g.,husbands’ forms of address would predict

Babcock, Waltz, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993;

physical IPV negatively, whereas arrogant

Sagrestano, Heavey, & Christensen 1999;

husbands’ forms of address would predict

Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Stuart, 1998).

physical IPV positively.

correlated

withphysical

IPVFor example, demand/withdraw patterns (Thedemanderpressures

thepartnerthroughemotional requests and criticism, whereas the

MethodParticipants

withdrawer retreats through defensiveness andI accessed two local Christian churches inpassive inaction) were frequently occurredJapan to sample long-lasting couples. Because

among couples with physical IPV, compared to

the long-lasting couples also could have

4

YOKOTANI

long-lasting forms of address, their forms of

Each scale was derived from data of semantic

address could have more relevant with couple

differential method: intimacy ranges between 1

communication patterns. The participants were(distant) to 7 (close): arrogance ranges between

76 married women. Their average age was 53.6

1(humble) to 7 (arrogant). (See Yokotani in(SD 13.5). Average years of their education andpress, for more detail).

marriage were 12.6 (1.9) and 25.3 (13.3),

Couple communication patterns: I used therespectively. The average size of their familyscale of Mutual Constructive Communication

was 3.8 (1.1) members.

from the Japanese back-translated version

Procedure(Yokotani&

Hasegawa,

Communication

Patterns

ethics by three faculty members from A(Christensen

Sullaway,

University and two ministers of the churches.

Constructive Communication includes 5 items

The first author and the ministers greeted the(e.g., “Both members try to discuss thepotential participants and explained the aims ofproblem.”). Items were rated on a 1- 9 scale (1the study and the content of the questionnaire.

very unlikely, 9 very likely), so a high score

Participation was voluntary, and their responses

predicted a high frequency of constructive

were anonymous. Most participants answered

communion.

theSeveralConstructive Communication was .83, which isparticipants could not read the questionnaire

similar to original version (Christensen &becauseShenk, 1991).

The present study was acknowledged forquestionnaireofbyvisualthemselves.
problems.

For

their

accommodation, I read aloud the questionnaire&

Cronbach’s

2011)

of

the

Questionnaire1984).

αofMutualMutualCouple satisfaction: The Couple Satisfaction

and wrote down their answers.

Scale (Moroi, 1996) was used, which is a

Measurestranslation of part of the Quality Marriage

Spousal forms of address: Husbands’ forms

Index (Norton, 1983). The Couple Satisfactionof address for wives had four choices, Okahsan

Scale has 6 items rated on a scale of 1 – 4 (e.g.,(kinship term, mother), Kahsan (kinship term,

I am satisfied with my marriage). The sum of

mother, plain), Oi (interjection for address),the items was the couple satisfaction score, soand “Other”. If participants found a daily-usedthat a higher score reflected greater couple

form of address among the choices, they circled

satisfaction. The alpha coefficient of thethe form of address. If not, they circled “Other”

Couple Satisfaction Scale was .95: the scale

and wrote down the daily-used form of address.

had satisfactory reliability.

When someone had many forms of address,

Intimate

Partner

Violence:The

they wrote down the most used ones. These

psychological and physical violence scores

forms of address received intimacy andwere used fromarrogance score so that a higher score of each

Screening Inventory [DVSI] (Ishii, Asukai,

scale reflected a higher sense of each value.

Kimura, Suenaga, Kurosaki, & Kishimoto,the Domestic ViolenceFORMS OF ADDRESS PREDICT INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE	
 

	
  5

2003). DVSI was a shortened version of theconflict tactics scale 2 for couples (Straus et al.,Table 1 shows basic statistics of the spousal

1996). The psychological violence had 3 items

forms(e.g., shouted or yelled at my partner) andpatterns,

physical violence had 8 items (e.g., Used a

Participants’ age, educational levels, years ofknife or gun on my partner). If theymarriage, and family sizes were not correlated

experienced these violence during the last year,with these primary variables, except for threethey rated frequency between 1(one time) tocorrelations. Participants’ years of marriage had7(over 20 times). If not, they reported “theya significant positive correlation with husbands’

never experienced” or “they experienced before

arrogant scores (r = .32, p < .05, n = 53). Theirthe last year”. The alpha coefficients ofage was also positively correlated with physicalpsychological and physical violence were .76,

IPV (r = .26, p < .05, n = 59). The number ofand .87, respectively. I regarded psychologicalfamily members was also correlated withand physical violence score as frequency ofmutual constructive communication (r = .31, p

psychological, and physical IPV, respectively.

< .05, n = 60). Participants’ traits had a few

Statistical Analysis

correlations with either couple communication

Pearson’s correlation was used to analyze
relationships

betweentwovariables.

ofaddress,
couplecouplecommunication

satisfaction,

and

IPV.

or IPV, but their traits were not correlated withTo

both couple communication and IPV. Hence,evaluate predictive validity, multiple regression

these traits cannot be a common component ofanalysis with stepwise fashion was used. The

the correlations between couple communication

SPSS 21.0 in Japanese edition was also used.

and IPV. Therefore, following analysis between
couple communication and physical IPV cannot

Results

be contaminated by these traits.

Preliminary analysis

Table 1. Basic statistics of primary variables
M

SD

n

α

Intimacy of husbands’ forms of address

5.2

0.8

55

-

Arrogance of husbands’ forms of address

3.9

0.7

55

-

Mutual constructive communication

5.9

2.3

61

.83

Couple satisfaction

17.8

5.4

65

.95

Frequency of psychological IPV

4.0

5.8

65

.76

Frequency of physical IPV

0.6

1.9

65

.87

Note: IPV: Intimate Partner Violence against Women

6

YOKOTANI

Correlations among primary variables were

50).

These

data

suggestedthat

couplealso fit well with previous studies (See Table 2).

communication had significant relationships

Frequency of physical IPV was negatively

with physical IPV.

correlated

Hypothesis testingwithmutualconstructive

communication (r = -.29, p < .05, n = 59) andTo evaluate predictive validity of couple

couple satisfaction (r = -.31, p < .05, n =communication on physical IPV, I used61).The frequency of physical IPV wasstepwise regression on the frequency of

positively correlated with the frequency ofphysical IPV. The independent variables werepsychological IPV (r = .43, p < .01, n = 65).

mutual constructive communication, intimacy

Furthermore, as expected, intimacy of husbands’of husbands’ forms of address, and arroganceforms of address was negatively correlated withof husbands’ forms of address. Because my aim

the frequency of physical IPV (r = -.32, p < .05,

was to predict physical and psychological IPV

n = 50), whereas arrogance of husbands’ forms

basedof address was positively correlated with thesatisfaction, physical IPV and psychologicalfrequency of physical IPV(r = .55, p < .01, n =IPV were not used as independent variables.

on

couplecommunication,

coupleTable 2. Correlations among intimacy score of husbands, arrogance score of husbands, mutual
constructive communication, psychological violence from husbands, and physical violence fromhusbands
2
1.Intimacy of husbands’ forms of address
2.Arrogance of husbands’ forms of addressd-.47 **

3
a

.28

4

5

6

e

-.28 *

f-.32 *

e

a

f

a

g

a

g

-.21

-.39 **

3.Mutual constructive communication.21a.53c**

4.Couple satisfaction

.17

f

f

.55 **-.23c-.29c*-.38b**-.31b*a.43a**

5.Frequency of psychological IPV
6.Frequency of physical IPV

Note: IPV: Intimate Partner Violence against Women, a: n = 65, b: n = 61, c: n = 59, d: n = 55, e: n =52, f: n = 50, g: n = 49, **: p < .01, *: p < .05.
Table 3. Stepwise regression of couple communication on physical intimate partner violence against
womenβIndependent variableF(1, 45)
Adjusted R

2

Note: **: p < .01.

Arrogance of husbands’ forms of address

.45

t=

3.4

**

11.9

**

.19

FORMS OF ADDRESS PREDICT INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE	
 

	
  7

aishiteru [Bastard, I love you]” nor “Aishiteru,
Table 3 shows that arrogance of husbands’bakayaro [I love you, bastard]”. This is because

forms of address explained 19 % of physicalthe form of address of “Anata [my honey]”2

1

IPV (Adjusted R = .19 ). Furthermore,

specifies intimate couple context, so the phrase

arrogance of husbands’ forms of addressof “aishiteru [I love you]”, which signals his

predicted physical IPV better than mutual

intimacy to his wife, fit well with the context ofconstructive communication and intimacy of“Anata [my honey]”. On the other hand, thehusbands’ forms of address. The regression

form of address of “bakayaro [bastard]”

analysis implied that husbands’ forms ofspecifies insulting couple context, so the phrase

address could be a predictive index of physicalof “aishiteru [I love you]” hardly matched withIPV.

the context of “bakayaro [bastard]”. In otherwords, as far as husband use the forms of

Discussion

address of “bakayaro [bastard]” to his wife,

Husbands’ forms of address to their wives“bakayaro [bastard]” do not allow him towere correlated with mutual constructive

express his intimacy to his wife and might

communication. Because children’s forms offoster insulting couple communication patterns2.

address to their parents also had relevance withparent-child communication (e.g., Yokotani,2012), husbands’ forms of address could reflect
couple communication patterns (Yokotani, inpress). Based on the present and previous
findings, Husbands’ forms of address might
have a function to specify a context of couple
communication. For example, husband can say“Anata aishiteru [My honey, I love you]” and“aishiteru Anata [I love you, my honey]” to his
wife. However, he can neither say “Bakayaro,

2

Surely, “bakayaro [bastard], aishiteru [I loveyou]”can be realized, as far as the husband
specifies his couple context in a skilled way.
For example, he can specify “bakayaro” asfalse information and at the same time“aishiteru” as true information with his vocal
tone and facial expression. Still, without his
skillful communication, “bakayaro aishiteru”
cannot be realized and might cause severe
misunderstanding in the couple. In other words,
realization of “bakayaro aishiteru” requires

2

The score of adjusted R is not high, but

him energies and risks. To minimize them, heseveral studies considered that the similar

prefers to use “Anata [My honey] aishiteru” inscores maintained a certain level of fitting

daily couple communication than to use(Komarraju,“bakayaro

1

Karau,&

Schmeck,

2009;

aishiteru”.

The

present

study

Plotnikoff, Trinh, Courneya, Karunamuni, &focused on daily couple communication, so I

Sigal, 2009; Swenson, Saylor, Powell, Stokes,

limited

Foster, & Belter, 2010), so I regarded the scorefrequent-used type of forms of address.

maintained a certain level of fitting.

Because the intentionally-used forms of address

discussion

onlywithinthe8

YOKOTANI

These findings and implications suggested that(Johnson, & Ferraro, 2000). Hence, manyhusbands’ forms of address for wives predict

women who have conflicts with their husbands

couple communication patterns.

might experience psychological IPV, like their

Furthermore, arrogance of husbands’ forms

husbands experience. On the other hand,of address for wives predicted physical IPV.

physical IPV (hitting) might be used to control

Previous study found that several forms ofwomen and was as likely to escalate over time,

address in family predict family violence

and was not likely to be mutual (Johnson, &(Yokotani, 2008). The present study elaborated

Ferraro, 2000). Hence, women who were

the previous study in marital relationships.

controlled by their intimate partner might

Arrogance of husbands’ forms of addressexperience physical IPV. The arrogant forms ofspecified the arrogant context of couple

address might reflect husbands’ control overcommunication patterns (Yokotani, in press),

women, so the arrogant forms predicted

so the arrogant form might encourage husbands

physical IPV rather than psychological IPV.

to be arrogant to their wives. Their arrogant

The intimacy of husbands’ forms of address

attitude to their wives might foster physicalwas also positively correlated with mutual

IPV (Eng et al., 2010). However, arrogance ofconstructive

husbands’ forms of address for wives did notconstructive communication predicted physicalpredict psychological IPV. Their arrogant

IPV (Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1998). Hence,

attitude could be relevant with psychologicalthe intimacy of husbands’ forms of address

IPV, so their arrogant attitude is likely tomight predict physical IPV indirectly. However,predict psychological IPV, but not in actual.

the intimacy did not predict physical IPV

Previous study suggested that psychologicaldirectly. One of the reasons was that several

IPV might not occur in the same way the

wives with physical IPV maintained their

physical IPV occurs, so the psychological IPV

intimacy with husbands (Sagrestano et al.,might be related with different communication

1999). Therefore, the intimacy might not

patterns (Johnson, & Ferraro, 2000). For

predict physical IPV among these women.

example, psychological IPV (e.g., shouting)

Furthermore, husbands’ intimate forms of

could

so

address, such as “mama”, might foster their

psychological IPV was not as likely to escalatedemanding behavior. For example, the phrase

over time, and was more likely to be mutualof “mama, please raise my allowance” is better

occur

in

generalargument,

communication;

mutualthan “please raise my allowance”. This isincluded many important features (Crozier,& Dimmock, 1999; Crozier, & Skliopidou,
2002; Keltner, Young, Heerey, Oemig, &Monarch, 1998; ), I cannot discuss them in thislimited spacebecause the former specifies the intimate
couple context, so she might feel difficulty to
say simply no. As a result, their demanding
behavior might not be restricted. Several
studies reported that the demanding behaviors

FORMS OF ADDRESS PREDICT INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE	
 

	
  9

might be linked with couple dissatisfaction

Bateson et al., 1956; Kumpfer & Alvarado,(Christensen & Shenk, 1991; Yokotani &2003; Watzlawick et al., 1967; Wakashima et

Hasegawa, 2011) and physical IPV (e.g.,al., 1999). On the other hand, if the forms are

Babcock et al., 1993). Therefore, husbands’

linked in virtuous cycle, reinforcement of theintimate forms of address might have a positive

forms could be productive (De Shazer et al.,correlation with physical IPV among several

1986; Henry, 2012; Smith et al., 2004;husbands, which weakened the predictability ofZimmerman et al., 1997). These implications

the intimacy on physical IPV.

suggested that spousal forms of address could

The links between arrogant forms of address

indicate not only the risk of physical IPV, but

and physical IPV were found in general sample,

also the way of intervention in physical IPV.

so the arrogant forms of address could apply

The present study was based on wives’general physical IPV, like many indexes, such

perspectives,

as migrant status (Van Hightower et al., 2000),

investigate

husbands’

perspectives.

young age, low income level (Pan et al., 1994),

Furthermore,

the

study

low educational level, history of their parent’s

cross-sectional design, so the study could not

physical IPV (Naved & Persson, 2005), andindicate causal relationships between arrogant

drug/alcohol problems of husbands (Neff et al.,forms of address and physical IPV. From

1995; Pan et al., 1994; Van Hightower et al.,theoretical perspective, the forms of address

2000). Integration of these indexes might

indicated the way of intervention in physicalpredict general physical IPV at the similar level

IPV (Alexander & Parsons, 1973; Bateson etas the SARA (Kropp & Hart, 2000), ODARA

al., 1956; De Shazer et al., 1986; Henry, 2012;(Hilton et al., 2004), DVSI-R (Williams, 2012),

Kumpfer & Alvarado, 2003; Smith et al., 2004;

HCR-20 (Douglas et al., 1999), and DA

Watzlawick et al., 1967; Wakashima et al.,(Campbell et al., 2009) predicted severe

1999; Zimmerman et al., 1997). Future study

physical IPV. These findings imply thatneeds to examine intervention effect witharrogant forms of address could be an indicatorlongitudinal design.

of general physical IPV.

sofuture

study

needs

present

tois

In conclusion, the present study found the

Furthermore, arrogant forms of address are alink between spousal forms of address andtype of communicative behaviors, so the forms

physical IPV. Because forms of address areof address can be changed by intervention (Engaccessible without expertise, time and energy,

et al., 2010; Naved & Persson, 2005). Because

the forms of address could be a usefulforms of address could represent couple

assessment index for front-line detector, such

communication patterns (Yokotani, in press), if

as close relative, job mates and class mates ofthe forms are linked in vicious cycle, break out

victims of physical IPV. Moreover, the formsof the vicious cycle could be effectiveofintervention (Alexander & Parsons, 1973;

intervention in physical IPV, so clinical	
 address

also

indicated

the

way

of

10

YOKOTANI

psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, andinterpersonal violence, 24(4), 653-74.

school teachers also could utilize the forms ofChristensen, A., & Sullaway, M. (1984).

address as a guide of their intervention.

Communication

Utilization of forms of address for physical IPV

University of California, Los Angeles.

could help to intervene in physical IPV at early

Unpublished.

phase, to protect women who suffered from

Patterns

Questionnaire.

Christensen, A., & Shenk, J. L. (1991).

physical IPV (Ellsberg et al., 2008), and to

Communication,

conflict,andreduce the number of serious human-rights

psychologicaldistanceinviolations (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2006).

clinic, and divorcing couples. Journal of

nondistressed,

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59(3),Acknowledgement458-63.

The present study was granted by Japan
SocietyforthePromotion(Grant-in-Aid

for

Young

of

Science

Scientists(B)[24792597] ).

Crozier, W. R., & Dimmock, P. S. (1999).
Name-calling and nicknames in a sample ofprimary school children. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 69, 505-516.
Crozier, W. R., & Skliopidou, E. (2002). Adult

References

recollections of name-calling at school.

Alexander, J. F., & Parsons, B. V. (1973).

Educational Psychology, 22, 113-124.

Short-term behavioral intervention withdelinquent families: Impact on family
process

andrecidivism.

JournalofAbnormal Psychology, 81(3), 219-225.
Gottman, J. M. (1993). Power and violence:
relation

betweenE.,

Molnar,Weiner-Davis,
focusedBabcock, J. C., Waltz, J., Jacobson, N. S., &theDe Shazer, S., Berg I. K., Lipchik, E., Nunnally,A.,M.

solution

Gingerich,(1986).

W.,

&

Brief

therapy:development.

FamilyProcess, 25(2), 207-21.
Douglas, K. S., Ogloff, J. R. P., Nicholls, T. L.,communication& Grant, I. (1999). Assessing risk forpatterns, power discrepancies, and domestic

violence among psychiatric patients: theviolence.

HCR-20 violence risk assessment scheme

JournalofConsultingandClinical Psychology, 61(1), 40-50.

and the psychopathy checklist: screening

Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., &Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory ofschizophrenia. Behavioral Science, 1(4),251-64.

Version. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 67(6), 917-30.
Ellsberg, M., Jansen, H. A. F. M., Heise, L.,
Watts, C. H., Garcia-Moreno, C., & The

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., Glass, N.

WHO Multi-country Study on Women's(2009). The Danger Assessment: validation

Health and Domestic Violence againstof a lethality risk assessment instrument for

Women Study Team (2008). Intimate

intimate

partner violence and women's physical andpartnerfemicide.

JournalofFORMS OF ADDRESS PREDICT INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE	
 

	
  11

mental health in the WHO multi-country

Kurosaki, M., & Kishimoto, J. (2003). The

study on women's health and domestic

reliability and validity of the Domestic

violence: an observational study. Lancet,

Violence

371(9619), 1165-72.

Clinical Psychiatry, 45, 817-23.

Eng, S., Li, Y., Mulsow, M., Fischer, J. (2010).
Domestic

violence

againstwomen

Screening

Inventory(DVSI).

Johnson, M. P., & Ferraro, K. J. (2000).

in

Research on domestic violence in the 1990s:

Cambodia: husband’s control, frequency of

Making distinctions. Journal of Marriage

spousal discussion, and domestic violenceand Family, 62(4), 948-963.

reported by Cambodian women. Journal of
Family Violence, 25(3), 237-46.

Keltner, D., Young, R. C., Heerey, E. A.,
Oemig, C., & Monarch, N. D. (1998).

Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H.A., Ellsberg,

Teasinginhierarchicalandintimate

M.,Heise, L., Watts, C.H., & The WHO

relations. Journal of Personality and Social

Multi-country Study on Women's Health

Psychology, 75(5), 1231-47.

and Domestic Violence against Women

Komarraju, M., Karau, S. J., & Schmeck, R. R.

Study Team. (2006). Prevalence of intimate(2009). Role of the Big Five personality

partner violence: findings from the WHO

traitsinpredicting

collegemulti-country study on women's health andacademic

motivation

anddomestic

Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1),violence.

Lancet,368(9543),

1260-69.

achievement.

47-52.

Henry, D. B. (2012). Mediators of effects of a
selective

students'

family-focused

Kropp, P. R., & Hart, S. D. (2000). The

violence

Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA)

prevention approach for middle school

Guide: Reliability and validity in adult malestudents. Prevention Science, 13(1), 1-14.

offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1),Hilton, N. Z., Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., Lang,101-18.

C., Cormier, C. A., & Lines, K. J. (2004). A

Kumpfer, K. L., & Alvarado, R. (2003).

brief actuarial assessment for the prediction

Family-strengthening approaches for theof wife assault recidivism: the Ontario

prevention of youth problem behaviors.

Domestic

American Psychologist, 58(6-7), 457-65.

Assault

Risk

Assessment.

Psychological Assessment, 16(3), 267-275.

Moroi, K. (1996). Perception of equity ofHoltzworth-Munroe, A, Smutzler, N., Stuart, G.

household labor. Japanese Journal ofL.

(1998).

communication

Demandandamong

withdraw

Family Psychology, 10, 15-30.

couples

Naved, R. T., & Persson, L. K. (2005). Factors

experiencing husband violence. Journal of

associated with spousal physical violence

Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(5),against women in Bangladesh. Studies in

731-43.

Family Planning, 36(4), 289-300.

Ishii, A., Asukai, N., Kimura, Y., Suenaga, T.,

Neff, J. A., Holamon, B., & Schluter, T. D.

12

YOKOTANI(1995). Spousal violence among Anglos,

Development and preliminary psychometricBlacks, and Mexican Americans: the role ofdata. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3),demographic

283-316.

predictors,

variables,

psychosocial

alcoholconsumption.

andSwenson, C. C., Saylor, C. F., Powell, M. P.,

Journal of Family Violence, 10(1), 1-21.

Stokes, S. J., Foster, K. Y., & Belter, R. W.

Norton, R. (1983). Measuring marital quality:(2010). Impact of a natural disaster on

A critical look at the dependent variable.

preschool children: Adjustment 14 months

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 45,

after a hurricane. American Journal of

141-151.

Orthopsychiatry, 66(1), 122-130.

Pan, H. S., Neidig, P. H., & O'Leary, K. D.
(1994).

Predicting

husband-to-wife
Journal

of

mild

and

physicalConsulting

Van Hightower, N. R., Goron, J., & DeMoss, C.

severeL. (2000). Predictive models of domestic

aggression.

violence and fear of intimate partners

andClinical

Psychology, 62(5), 975-981.

among migrant and seasonal farm worker
women. Journal of Family Violence, 15(2),Plotnikoff, R. C., Trinh, L., Courneya, K. S.,
Karunamuni, N., & Sigal, R. J. (2009).

137-54.
Wakashima, K., Ikuta, M., Hasegawa, K.

Predictors of aerobic physical activity and(1999).

resistance training among Canadian adults

communication in the scene of conflictingwith type 2 diabetes: An application of theconversation:

protection motivation theory. Psychology ofmodification of the problem-interaction

Sport and Exercise, 10(3), 320-328.

model. Japanese Journal of Family Therapy,

Sagrestano,

L.

M.,

Heavey,

C.

L.,

&

Christensen, A. (1999). Perceived power

A

Study

of

The

trans-contextualconfirmation

and16(3), 187-95.
Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D.

and physical violence in marital conflict.

(1967).

Journal of Social Issues, 55(1), 65-79.

Communication. New York: W. W. Norton

Smith, E. P., Gorman-Smith, D., Quinn, W. H.,
Rabiner, D. L., Tolan, P. H., Winn, D-B, &Multisite

Violence

Prevention

Pragmatics

of

Human

& Company.
Williams, K. R. (2012). Family violence risk

Project.

assessment: A predictive cross-validation(2004). Community-based multiple family

study of the Domestic Violence Screening

groups to prevent and reduce violent andInstrument-Revised (DVSI-R). Law andaggressive behavior: the GREAT families

Human Behavior, 36(2), 120-129.

program. American Journal of Preventive
Medicine, 26(1), 39-47.

Yokotani, K (2008). An empirical study of
deviant

Straus, M., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., &familynicknames

andfamilyviolence: Deviant family nicknames “bind”

Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised

deviant

Conflict

Journal of Family Psychology, 22(1), 14-27.

Tactics

Scales(CTS2):

familyrelationships.

Japanese

FORMS OF ADDRESS PREDICT INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE	 Yokotani, K.(2012). How young adults address
their parents reflects their perception ofparenting.

Asian

JournalofSocial

Psychology, 15(4), 284-89.
Yokotani, K. (in press). Acknowledged spousal
forms

of

address

predict

spousalcommunication patterns. Psychologia.
Yokotani,

K.,&

Hasegawa,

K.

(2011).

Investigation of the Japanese version ofCommunication

Patterns

Questionnaire(CPQ): The reliability and validity of thequestionnaire.

Japanese

JournalofCounseling Science, 44(3), 244-53.
Zimmerman, T. S., Prest, L. A., & Wetzel, B. E.
(1997). Solution-focused couples therapy
groups: An empirical study. Journal of
Family Therapy, 19(2), 125-44.

	  13

International Journal of Family Science
2013, Vol. 3, No.1, 14-32.
< Original Paper: Research and Experiment >Cumulative Family Relationship with Family Relationship History Graph
Koubun Wakashima 1)
1)

Graduate School of Education, Tohoku University_________________________________________________________________________
Introduction_

FRHG was presented. Furthermore Usami et al.

Parent-child relationship in the past produces(2011) investigated the validity and credibility

problems in the present has been a traditionalof FRHG. In the investigation of its validity,

point of view in psychological therapy andthe comparison of cohesion of FRHG and theclinical psychology since Freud. Parent-child“quality of relationship” of NFRJ98 was

and/or family relationship were seen as

conducted.

pathogenic. However empirical knowledge offather-child/mother-child cohesion of FRHG ofwhat type of family relationships relates toages 3 to 18 has correlations with the NFRJ98

problems

therelationship quality of the same ages of 0.92

cumulative effect of family relationships fromand 0.76, and it can be said to show results forthe past to the present day is sparse.

the

and

conditions

based

on

Wakashima el al.（2011）reported on new
researchmethods

which

The

transitionofresults

showedcumulative

theparent-childrelationship recalled at the present time to be nocomprehensively

different

from

the

transition

createdbyunderstands the family based on simultaneous

accumulating the results on parent childfamily relationships such as what covariant

relationship measured at each age. Based on

associations

this FRHG has a fixed validity as a measure ofarehusband-wife,

possessedparentbymaritalrelationships

orgauging the family relationship from the past to

multi-generational relations, or, as per thethe present. Next we move on to the validity ofnarrative, based on the cumulative family

re-testing. In the consideration of 1-month

relationships from the past to the present. In it,

re-test credibility, the correlation of associationin order to capture the cumulative family

from age 3 to 20 is high and in terms of therelationships, family relationship history graphs

power, the correlation between age 9 and 20(FRHG) was utilized and a research using

was high. The 4-month re-test credibility
showed a stable correlation above age 15

WAKASHIMA, Graduate

mostly and the power showed an unstable

School of Education, Tohoku University, 27-1 Kawauchi,

correlation relationship. In other words, whenAoba-ku, Sendai-city, 980-8576, Japan.

the validity and credibility were considered, it

E-mail: rxv11606@hotmail.co.jp

can be thought that a particularly good option is

CORRESPONDENCE

TO

to utilize relationships as a variable.

14

Also ifFAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  15
the result of the power is considered, it can be

SDS was implemented on these 100 people

supposed that the results from beyond the

only.

primary school stage should ideally be used.

The data of the clinical group was in effect in

From all of the above, the report suggests the

A counseling facility・ B counseling facility

direction for the research using FRHG with afrom before November 2009 to January 2012.

focus on the relationship variable during the

The evaluators of the clinical group were three

primary school period onwards. With this inmen and six women. Mean age 41.00. Theremind, the following four points are consideredwere two IP people, six mothers and one father.

and reported.

They were all Japanese.

1. Two-person relationship and time period

Measure	 associated with current relationship and the

The measures used were FRHG and SDS.

transition of family relationships utilizing(Moreover SDS was only implemented on the

FRHG (105 women, 70 men, total 175)

100 people (48 women, 52 men) in the 2013

2. Association between current SDS score
and the family relationship utilizing FRHG
(48 women, 52 men, total 100)internet survey data).
It is noted that this research has been auditedby the university ethics committee and approval

3. Association between current SDS score

given.

and the variability of family relationshiputilizing FRHG

(48 women, 52 men, total

100)

Results
The four analyses results are reported below.

4. Comparison between clinical group andDyadic relationship and time period associatedgeneral group of family relationship transition

with current relationship and the transition ofusing FRHG

family relationships of FRHG (105 women, 70
men, total 175)

Method	  The results are shown in Figure 1-3 andParticipants

Table 1-3.

FRHG data reported by Wakashima et al.
(2011)(October

2009.

University

In general family relationships, in the present

andday, father-child relationship appears to be a

vocational school students targeted. Average

little lower. In mother-child relationship, there

age 20.64) excluding those targeted who

is a decline during the junior high school period

provided incomplete answers - 75 people (57butwomen, 18 men), and data from 100 people (48Father-mother relationship is also relatively

women, 52 men) from the FRHG implemented

stable. If men and women are studied

through internet survey in February 2013

separately, there is a trend for men to generally(University students aged 18 to 28 were

give strong acknowledgement to the current

targeted. Mean age was 21.74) were analyzed.

relationship.

isrelatively

stableatothertimes.

16

WAKASHIMA
relationship. This is similar to the findings of	 Figure 1. Average of each dyadic cohesion in all respondents (N=175)

Note. “LG age of E” means Low Grade of Elementary school, “HG age of E” means High
Grade of Elementary school, “MSS age” means Middle School Student age, “HSSage” means High School Student age, and “CS age” means College Student age
in this paper.

Although females show a decline toward the

Wakashima et al. (2010) and Usami et al.

mother in the junior high school period there is(2011). However when this is considered,a perception that there is a strong relationshipseveral other characteristics can be seen.

which is relatively stable. Moreover it appears

Current father-child relationship shows an

to be perceived that the relationship with theassociation with the husband-wife relationshipfatherday.

at present or at a time close to the present. The

Husband-wife relationship declines a little

current mother-child relationship shows aduring the junior and senior high school periods

strongbut is perceived, in the present day, to berelationship in the primary school lower years

similar to that in the previous period with a(r=.61).

strong relationship.

relationship at present also shows a relatively

declinesinthepresent

association
Moreover

with
the

the

father-childfather-mother

It is the relationship just prior to the timehigh association with lower primary school

concerned and other two-party relationships atyears (r = .53), higher primary school years (rpresent

day

relationship

which
with

the

strongest= .56) and junior high school period（r = .50）.

current

two-party

In the case of males, the characteristic is that

show

the

Father-child

0.53**

0.56**

0.61**

0.73**

0.77**

0.61**

0.67**

0.66**

0.76**

0.78**

0.25**

0.51**

0.68**

0.93**

0.56**

0.61**

0.65**

0.74**

0.76**

0.58**

0.65**

0.67**

0.74**

0.73**

0.35**

0.62**

0.78**

0.93**

0.50**

0.57**

0.60**

0.57**

0.52**

0.42**

0.53**

0.52**

0.49**

0.46**

0.52**

0.87**

0.78**

0.68**MSS age

Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01

CS ageFather-mother

HSS age

Father-mother

MSS age

Father-mother

HG age of E

Father-motherLG age of E

Father-mothe

CS ageMother-child

HSS age

Mother-child

MSS age

Mother-child

HG age of E

Mother-childLG age of E

Mother-childCS ageFather-child

HSS age

Father-child

MSS age

Father-child

HG age of E

Father-childLG age of E

Father-child

Father-child

Father-childLG age of E HG age of E

0.49**

0.57**

0.55**

0.48**

0.44**

0.35**

0.45**

0.41**

0.36**

0.34**

0.67**

0.87**

0.62**

0.51**HSS age

Father-child

0.35**

0.38**

0.31**

0.27**

0.23**

0.30**

0.19*

0.18*

0.11

0.08**

0.67**

0.52**

0.35**

0.25**

CS ageFather-child

0.46**

0.41**

0.47**

0.61**

0.70**

0.74**

0.80**

0.83**

0.97**

0.08

0.34**

0.46**

0.73**

0.78**

0.48**

0.44**

0.49**

0.62**

0.69**

0.77**

0.82**

0.88**

0.97

0.11

0.36**

0.49**

0.74**

0.76**

0.45**

0.43**

0.48**

0.54**

0.57**

0.79**

0.90**

0.88**

0.83**

0.18*

0.41**

0.52**

0.67**

0.66**MSS age

Mother-child Mother-childLG age of E HG age of E

Mother-child

0.45**

0.44**

0.48**

0.51**

0.55**

0.88**

0.90**

0.82**

0.80**

0.19*

0.45**

0.53**

0.65**

0.67**HSS age

Moher-child

0.47**

0.43**

0.45**

0.51**

0.52**

0.88**

0.79**

0.77**

0.74**

0.30**

0.35**

0.42**

0.58**

0.61**

CS age0.64**

0.66**

0.77**

0.93**

0.52**

0.55**

0.57**

0.69**

0.70**

0.23**

0.44**

0.52**

0.76**

0.77**

0.70**

0.76**

0.87**

0.93**

0.51**

0.51**

0.54**

0.62**

0.61**

0.27**

0.48**

0.57**

0.74**

0.73**

LG age of E HG age of E

0.80**

0.92**

0.87**

0.77**

0.45**

0.48**

0.48**

0.49**

0.47**

0.31**

0.55**

0.60**

0.65**

0.61**MSS age

0.83**

0.92**

0.76**

0.66**

0.43**

0.44**

0.43**

0.44**

0.41**

0.38**

0.57**

0.57**

0.61**

0.56**HSS age

0.83**

0.80**

0.70**

0.64**

0.47**

0.45**

0.45**

0.48**

0.46**

0.35**

0.49**

0.50**

0.56**

0.53**

CS ageMother-child Father-mothe Father-mothe Father-mothe Father-mother Father-mother

FAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  17

Table 1. Correlation matrix of dyadic cohesion in all respondents (N=175)

18

WAKASHIMA

Figure 2. Average of each dyadic cohesion in male respondents (N=70)

the present day relationship indicates a relation

whole, and it can be said to show an association

to all periods and relationship. Furthermore thewith father-mother relationship close to thepresent day father-child relationship indicates apresent day. The present day mother-child

low relationship to the past mother-childrelationship relates to the whole of the time

relationship and high relationship with theperiods and relationships but what can bepresent day mother-child and father-motherthought of as particularly important are therelationship.

mother-childfather-mother relationship in the initial period

relationship relates highly with the wholeand father-child relationship in the lower

period/relationship. Present day father-motherprimary school years (r=.69) and higher

relationship also relates to overall periods ofprimary school years (r=.64). The present

father-childfather-mother relationship relates to all periods

Present

andday

mother-childrelationship(Figure 2 and Table 2).
In

women,

relationshipdidand relationships (Figure 3 and Table 3).

thecurrent

father-childnotindicatea

association with time or relationship as astrong0.57**

0.62**

0.63**

0.75**

0.75**

0.40**

0.41**

0.45**

0.67**

0.67**

0.38**

0.46**

0.58**

0.90**

0.67**

0.68**

0.73**

0.80**

0.78**

0.42**

0.46**

0.50**

0.68**

0.64**

0.47**

0.60**

0.71**

0.90**

Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01

CS ageFather-mother

HSS age

Father-mother

MSS age

Father-mother

HG age of E

Father-motherLG age of E

Father-mothe

CS ageMother-child

HSS age

Mother-child

MSS age

Mother-child

HG age of E

Mother-childLG age of E

Mother-childCS ageFather-child

HSS age

Father-child

MSS age

Father-child

HG age of E

Father-childLG age of E

0.61**

0.68**

0.72**

0.63**

0.49**

0.47**

0.57**

0.47**

0.37**

0.30*

0.62**

0.92**

0.71**

0.58**MSS age

Father-child

0.55**

0.66**

0.67**

0.56**

0.44**

0.49**

0.61**

0.45**

0.27*

0.21

0.69**

0.92**

0.60**

0.46**HSS age

Father-child

0.50**

0.55**

0.48**

0.46**

0.34**

0.60**

0.36**

0.33**

0.16

0.11

0.69**

0.62**

0.47**

0.38**

CS ageFather-child

0.48**

0.41**

0.46**

0.67**

0.77**

0.53**

0.56**

0.70**

0.97**

0.11

0.21

0.30*

0.64**

0.67**

LG age of E

Mother-child

0.54**

0.48**

0.53**

0.71**

0.80**

0.57**

0.61**

0.76**

0.97**

0.16

0.27*

0.37**

0.68**

0.67**

0.50**

0.51**

0.51**

0.54**

0.58**

0.72**

0.88**

0.76**

0.70**

0.33**

0.45**

0.47**

0.50**

0.45**MSS age

Mother-child Mother-child
HG age of E

0.48**

0.52**

0.50**

0.50**

0.52**

0.73**

0.88**

0.61**

0.56**

0.36**

0.61**

0.57**

0.46**

0.41**HSS age

Moher-child

0.63**

0.58**

0.54**

0.57**

0.51**

0.73**

0.72**

0.57**

0.53**

0.60**

0.49**

0.47**

0.42**

0.40**

CS age0.74**

0.70**

0.75**

0.91**

0.51**

0.52**

0.58**

0.80**

0.77**

0.34**

0.44**

0.49**

0.78**

0.75**

LG age of E

0.83**

0.86**

0.89**

0.91**

0.57**

0.50**

0.54**

0.71**

0.67**

0.46**

0.56**

0.63**

0.80**

0.75**

HG age of E

0.81**

0.95**

0.89**

0.75**

0.54**

0.50**

0.51**

0.53**

0.46**

0.48**

0.67**

0.72**

0.73**

0.63**MSS age

0.84**

0.95**

0.86**

0.70**

0.58**

0.52**

0.51**

0.48**

0.41**

0.55**

0.66**

0.68**

0.68**

0.62**HSS age

0.84**

0.81**

0.83**

0.74**

0.63**

0.48**

0.50**

0.54**

0.48**

0.50**

0.55**

0.61**

0.67**

0.57**

CS ageMother-child Father-mothe Father-mothe Father-mothe Father-mother Father-mother	 Father-child

Father-child

HG age of E

Father-childLG age of E

FAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  19

Table 2. Correlation matrix of dyadic cohesion in male respondents (N =70)

20

WAKASHIMA

Figure 3. Average of each dyadic cohesion in female respondents (N=105)

0.49**

0.52**

0.59**

0.72**

0.78**

0.69**

0.75**

0.71**

0.77**

0.80**

0.22*

0.53**

0.70**

0.94**

0.49**

0.56**

0.61**

0.70**

0.74**

0.64**

0.71**

0.71**

0.75**

0.75**

0.32**

0.63**

0.80**

0.94**

0.42**

0.51**

0.52**

0.52**

0.52**

0.38**

0.50**

0.52**

0.52**

0.49**

0.49**

0.85**

0.80**

0.70**MSS age

Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01

CS ageFather-mother

HSS age

Father-mother

MSS age

Father-mother

HG age of E

Father-motherLG age of E

Father-mothe

CS ageMother-child

HSS age

Mother-child

MSS age

Mother-child

HG age of E

Mother-childLG age of E

Mother-childCS ageFather-child

HSS age

Father-child

MSS age

Father-child

HG age of E

Father-childLG age of E

Father-child

Father-child

Father-child

Father-childLG age of E HG age of E

0.45**

0.51**

0.47**

0.42**

0.42**

0.27**

0.38**

0.39**

0.39**

0.38**

0.68**

0.85**

0.63**

0.53**HSS age

Father-child

0.29**

0.29**

0.22*

0.15

0.17

0.16

0.13

0.14

0.11

0.09

0.68**

0.49**

0.32**

0.22*

CS age0.43**

0.39**

0.45**

0.59**

0.67**

0.83**

0.87**

0.86**

0.97**

0.09

0.38**

0.49**

0.75**

0.80**

0.44**

0.41**

0.46**

0.59**

0.65**

0.84**

0.88**

0.90**

0.97**

0.11

0.39**

0.52**

0.75**

0.77**

LG age of E HG age of E

0.42**

0.39**

0.46**

0.53**

0.56**

0.82**

0.90**

0.90**

0.86**

0.14

0.39**

0.52**

0.71**

0.71**MSS age

Father-child Mother-child Mother-child Mother-child

0.42**

0.40**

0.46**

0.50**

0.55**

0.92**

0.90**

0.88**

0.87**

0.13

0.38**

0.50**

0.71**

0.75**HSS age

Moher-child

0.39**

0.35**

0.40**

0.47**

0.52**

0.92**

0.82**

0.84**

0.83**

0.16

0.27**

0.38**

0.64**

0.69**

CS age0.57**

0.63**

0.77**

0.94**

0.52**

0.55**

0.56**

0.65**

0.67**

0.17

0.42**

0.52**

0.74**

0.78**

0.62**

0.70**

0.86**

0.94**

0.47**

0.50**

0.53**

0.59**

0.59**

0.15

0.42**

0.52**

0.70**

0.72**

LG age of E HG age of E

0.79**

0.90**

0.86**

0.77**

0.40**

0.46**

0.46**

0.46**

0.45**

0.22*

0.47**

0.52**

0.61**

0.59**MSS age

0.82**

0.90**

0.70**

0.63**

0.35**

0.40**

0.39**

0.41**

0.39**

0.29**

0.51**

0.51**

0.56**

0.52**HSS age

0.82**

0.79**

0.62**

0.57**

0.39**

0.42**

0.42**

0.44**

0.43**

0.29**

0.45**

0.42**

0.49**

0.49**

CS ageMother-child Father-mothe Father-mothe Father-mothe Father-mother Father-mother

FAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  21

Table 3. Correlation matrix of dyadic cohesion in female respondents (N=105)

22

WAKASHIMA

Association between current SDS score and thefamily relationship utilizing FRHG

(48

senior high school periods.
Next, although there are fewer participants,

women, 52 men, total 100)among the men, a significant link was seen	  The results are shown in Table 4-8.

between present day SDS score and father-child

The association between current SDS scoreand family relationship utilizing FRHG wasconsidered.

Moreoverclassifications

relationship during the later years of primaryschool.

wereMoreover, the present SDS score andmade into the high group, middle group andfather-mother relationship during senior highlow group based on the SDS score andschool period showed a significant association.

correlation analysis with the FRHG relationship

Next, among the females, there was ascore was conducted. As a result association

significant association between the present SDS

was seen with FRHG relationship score only inscore and father-child relationship during

the SDS high group.

senior high school period.

Firstly, in the SDS high group (all target

Moreover the present day SDS score andpopulation) a significant link was shown

father-mother relationship at junior high school

between the present day SDS score andperiod showed a significant association.

father-mother relationship during junior andTable 4. Correlation coefficient between father-mother cohesion in each age
and SDS points at present (high SDS participants : N=11).

 
 





















Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01

Table 5. Correlation coefficient between father-child cohesion in each age
and SDS points at present (high SDS male participants : N=5).

 
 



Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01 













FAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  23

Table 6. Correlation coefficient between father-mother cohesion in each age
and SDS points at present (high SDS male participants : N=5).

 












 

 

 Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01

Table 7. Correlation coefficient between father-child cohesion in each age
and SDS points at present (high SDS female participants : N=6).

 












 

 

 Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01

Table 8. Correlation coefficient between father-mother cohesion in each age
and SDS points at present (high SDS female participants : N=6).

 













 





Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01

24

WAKASHIMA

Association between current SDS score and thethevariability of family relationship utilizing

relationship from the senior high school period

FRHG(48 women, 52 men, total 100)to the present day showed a weak association to	  Next, the relationship between the variability

the present day SDS score. Furthermore,of family relationships and the current SDS

although not significant, the decline of thescore was investigated. The results are shown

mother-child relationship from primary schoolin Table 9-10. The variability of family

lower years to higher years show the relation ofrelationships was calculated, as per Usami et al.

r=-.24 in men and r=-.22 in women. In future it(2011), as (the score at each point) – (scoreis desired that a similar analysis be conducted

immediately prior). The results are as below.

with additional data supplemented.

	  Significant relationship was seen only among

men.

The

declineoffather-motherchild cohesion

child cohesion child cohesion (LG age child cohesion (HG

child cohesion

child cohesion

mother cohesion (LG mother cohesion (HG mother cohesion

0.12

0.03

0.08

-0.11

-0.24

0.07

0.11

-0.11

SDS

-0.12

0.08

-0.08

-0.30*

child cohesion

child cohesion child cohesion (LG age child cohesion (HG

child cohesion

child cohesion

mother cohesion (LG mother cohesion (HG mother cohesion

mother cohesion

0.08

0.17

-0.09

-0.04

-0.22

0.09

0.09

-0.08

0.06

-0.09

-0.11

-0.02

of E to HG age of E) age of E to MSS age) (MSS age to HSS age) (HSS age to CS age) of E to HG age of E) age of E to MSS age) (MSS age to HSS age) (HSS age to CS age) age of E to HG age of E) age of E to MSS age) (MSS age to HSS age) (HSS age to CS age)child cohesion (LG age child cohesion (HG

Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of mother- Variability of mother- Variability of mother- Variability of mother- Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of father-(N=49)

Table 10. Correlations between variability of dyadic cohesion and SDS in female respondents	 mother cohesionof E to HG age of E) age of E to MSS age) (MSS age to HSS age) (HSS age to CS age) of E to HG age of E) age of E to MSS age) (MSS age to HSS age) (HSS age to CS age) age of E to HG age of E) age of E to MSS age) (MSS age to HSS age) (HSS age to CS age)child cohesion (LG age child cohesion (HG

Note. *:p<.05, **:p<.01

SDS

	
 

Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of mother- Variability of mother- Variability of mother- Variability of mother- Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of father- Variability of father-

Table 9. Correlations between variability of dyadic cohesion and SDS in male respondents (N=51).

FAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  25

26

WAKASHIMA

Figure 4. Average of father-child cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.

Comparison

betweenclinical

group

and

were acknowledged to decline because ofnon-clinical group (general group) of family

occurrence of issues or else to decrease or haverelationship transition using FRHG (datadecreased by beyond the senior high school

contains 6 women, 3 men, total 9 people)

period.

This is a comparison between the clinicalMother-childrelationship

is

lower

or

group and non-clinical group (general group) of

perceived to be lower on the whole in thethe transitions of the family relationshipclinical group compared with the non-clinicalutilizing FRHG. The breakdown of the targetedgroup.

population is: school truancy 7, depression 1,

	  Father-mother relationship also drasticallyrelationship with family 1. The results are

declines or is perceived to decline from theshown in Table 11-19 and Figure 4-6.

occurrence of issues or over the time period

In

the

clinicalgroup

relativetonon-clinical group, father-child relationships

thefrom senior high school to the present day.

FAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  27

Table 11. Average of father-child cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.

  
 



 






 


 


Table 12. Standard deviation of father-child cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.

  
 !



 !




  

Table 13. Number of respondents on each time points.








28

WAKASHIMA

Figure 5. Average of mother-child cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.

Table 14. Average of mother-child cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.

  
 



 









 


Table 15. Standard deviation of mother-child cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.

  
 !
 


 !
 

 





Table 16. Number of respondents on each time points.







FAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  29

Figure 6. Average of father-mother cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.

Table 17. Average of father-mother cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.

  
 



 












Table 18. Standard deviation of father-mother cohesion in clinical and non clinical groups.



 






 














Table 19. Number of respondents on each time points.









30

WAKASHIMA

Discussion

In this review the following has beenThis research is a challenging researchunderstood. Firstly, as far as first point isutilizing FRHG which is a method capturingconcerned, the fact that it is the period

the cumulative family relationships from theimmediately prior to or else a different 2-party

past to the present day. In it the following four

relationship at present day which relates mostpoints were considered.	
 with the present day 2-party relationship isFirst is two-person relationship and time

similar to Wakashima et al.（2011） and Usami

period associated with the current relationshipet al.（2011）, but if the associations were

and the transition of family relationships

studiedutilizing FRHG.

characteristics were observed. For example, ininconsideringtheseseveralSecond is association between current SDS

men, the father-child relationship relates to ascore and the family relationship utilizing

different present dyad relationship, and in the

FRHG.

case of women, the father-child relationship has

Third is association between current SDS

a moderate relationship with father-motherscore and the variability of family relationshiprelationship in the time period close to theutilizing FRHG.

present. Moreover in the case of mother-child

Fourth is comparison between clinical group
and non-clinical group(general group) of

family relationship transition utilizing FRHG.

relationship, on the one hand among men there
is an association as a whole to other two-party
relationships and each time period, among

This report indicates a method approaching awomen there is association with father-motherclinical research utilizing FRHG, and therelationship in the initial period or father-childresults actually shown here are not complete. It

relationship in the lower・higher primary school

is of utmost importance to present the method

years, hence, showing a difference in theof use of FRHG and the methodology of the

cumulative family relationships among men

research. Moreover the development of FRHG

and women or else a difference in its

allows the family system to be captured fromperception.

the cumulative family relationships. The family

Next in second point, the association

system theory tends to reserve the time concept

between FRHG and SDS was considered. For

including the past and the present, and there

this the SDS scores were divided into the high

was a strong tendency to understand the familygroup ・ middle group ・ low group and thesystemcorrelation of each with FRHG were analyzed.

based

relationships.

on

FRHG

synchronic
is

also

familyin

As a result, an association with FRHG was seen

andfamilyonly in the SDS high group. For example, a(for

examplesignificant association was shown, in men, with

Hiraizumi et al., 2011; Wakashima et al.,the father-child relationship in the higher

2011b).

primary school years, and in women, with theresearchesofself-decisions

caregiving

of

the

elderly

appliedFAMILY RELATIONSHIP HISTORY GRAPH	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  31
father-child relationship in the senior highfrom the point of view of life history. Hereschool period and father-mother relationship inavoidance consciousness from the mother to thethe junior high school period. The association

father is seen with the background of mistrust,

between the variability of third point and SDS

reticence and avoidance behaviour of the fatherscore was also shown. Among men, the declinewith work as a reason and increase in theof father-mother relationship from senior highrequired care by the mother for the truanting

school period to the present day showed a weakchild. Hence there are reports that truancy

association with the present day SDS score.

understanding and reinterpretation may makeMoreover, although this was not significant, thethe father late to come on board and results indecline of mother-child relationship from lower

them not participating in new family strategies.

primary school years to higher years showed an

The clever point with Aoki(2007)’s research is

association in men of r=-.24 and in women ofthat family relationship is not considered as the

r=-.22.

cause of the problem of truancy but instead

Above results may not be direct associations.

researches from the point of view of how

However it suggests re-examination with anfamily is involved in the problem of truancy.

increased sample size and using another

This will no doubt ease the interpretation of theappropriate measure other than SDS.

aforementioned optional supposition.

Furthermore

infourthpoint,

itwasunderstood that in the clinical group general

Acknowledgements

historical family relationships as considered inThis study was supported by grants to thefirst analysis was not drawn and instead quite aauthor from Japan society for the Promotion ofsevere family relationships can be illustrated.

Science (2010-2012).

The sample size is small and there aredifferences in the target population viewpoints

References

so conclusions cannot be drawn but questions

Aoki, Y. (2007). Nonattendance as a family

can be raised. We suppose any of the following.

strategy. The Abstract of the Presentations

Is the family relationship constructed as a resultof Annual Meeting of The Japan Society ofof a problem arising, or else should family

Educational Sociology, 59, 279-280. 21-32.

relationship be perceived negatively.

Else[in Japanese] (青木泰明. (2005).「学校に行

there is the supposition family relationship isかない」という家族戦略－文化的実践と

constructed such that it attracts problems or

しての不登校Ⅳ－	
  日本教育社会学会

generates them. Aoki（2007）conducts interview

大会発表要旨集録, 59, 279-280.)

surveys on the association among family
members

Hiraizumi, T., Kozuka, T., Noguchi, S., Itakura,

as well as the understanding ofN., Wakashima, K., & Hasegawa, K.  

truancy by three types of family members(2011). Correlates of Family Structure(child/mother/father)

Transition with Depression in Family

experiencing

truancy

32

WAKASHIMA
Caregiversof

Dementia.

International

Journal of Brief Therapy and Family
Science, 1(2), 123-128.
Usami,

T.,

Kozuka,T.,

Hiraizumi,

T.,

Morikawa, N., Furuyama, A., & Wakashima,
K. (2011). Examining Family Transition
with the Current Narratives. International
Journal of Brief Therapy and Family
Science, 1(2), 111-116.
Wakashima, K., Kozuka, T., Itakura, N., &Usami, T    (2011a).    Simultaneous andCumulative

FamilyRelationship:

Examining with ICHIGEKI. International
Journal of Brief Therapy and Family
Science, 1(2), 104-110.
Wakashima, K., Noguchi, N., Usami, T., Yu,
K., Zhang, Z., Nagayama, Y., Asai, K.,
Nakajima, N., Hiraizumi, T., Furuyama, A.,
Morikawa, N., Sato, M., Shimizu, A., &Kozuka, T. (2011b). A Study of ExaminingtheEffectof

both

Self-determinative

behaviors and Family Relationship History
to the Current Basic Psychological Needs ofChild. -Comparison between China, Korea
and Japan-. International Journal of Brief
Therapy and Family Science, 1(2), 98-103.

International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science
2013, Vol. 3, No.1, 33-40.
< Original Paper: Research and Experiment >Comparative Study on Adolescents’ Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict inJapan and China
Xinhe Zhang 1)
1)

Graduate School of Education, Tohoku University________________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT. The Adolescents’ Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict Scale was developed and administered to 602 high-school
students in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade in order to examine its constructs and internal consistency. A multiple-group confirmatory
factor analysis showed that the scale had a common structure across the Japanese and Chinese samples. To some extent, the internalconsistency of the Adolescents’ Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict Scale was confirmed. When encountering a parents’ maritalconflict, women scored higher than men on “depression/anxiety,” “irritation/anger,” and “interventional behavior” in both countries.
Moreover, 3rd grade (high-school) students scored higher on “parents’ conflict resolution” than 1st and 2nd grade students in bothcountries. There were some differences between the two countries in the adolescents’ response: Japanese adolescents scored high on“coping efficacy toward self,” and “avoidance behavior,” and Chinese adolescents scored high on “parents’ conflict resolution,”“depression/anxiety,” “irritation/anger,” and “interventional behavior.” The differences of adolescents’ response between the twocountries were discussed from the perspective of cross-cultural psychology.
KEY WORDS: Adolescents’ Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict Scale, Chinese adolescents, Japanese adolescent.

Introduction

children’s psychological adjustment. Grych andResearches on young adolescents have

Fincham (1993) focused on the framework of

indicated the association between parents’children’smarital conflicts and internalizing problems

conflicts, claiming that the cognition of the(Amato & Afifi, 2006; Davis & Windle, 2001).

“conflict properties,” “threat,” and “self-blame”

The cognitive-contextual framework proposedis the intermediary mechanism that underlies

by Grych and Fincham (1990), and thethe association between children’s internalizing

emotional security hypothesis proposed byand externalizing problems and parents’ marital

Davis and Cummings (1994) have drawn

conflicts.

attention

proposed an intermediary mechanism in whichforinterpretingtheassociation

between parents’ marital conflicts andchildren’s

cognitionofparents’maritalDavis and Cummings (1994) have	 psychologicaladjustment

isinfluenced by parents’ marital conflicts through
CORRESPONDENCE TO ZHANG, Graduate School of

the threats on that child’s or the family’ s

Education, Tohoku University, 27-1 Kawauchi, Aoba-ku,

emotional security.

Sendai-city, 980-8576, Japan.

examined the association between parents’E-mail: guhong15_qiaoxinka@yahoo.co.jp

marital conflicts and children’s internalizing

Davis and Cummings

and externalizing problems by estimating

33

34

ZHANG

emotional

response

interventional/avoidance

andbehavior

towardparents’ marital conflicts as the indexes of
emotional security.

standardized based on the Japanese andChinesesocialsystems

andculturalbackgrounds.

However, Turner andThis study aimed to develop a scale to

Barret (1998) have claimed that both theinvestigate

emotional

theparents’ marital conflict and to examine its

cognitive-contextual framework are important

constructs, and internal consistency in Japaninchildren’sand China. Upon verifying the homogeneity ofadjustment, indicating that both children’s

the data and the constructs of the scale, ancognition of parents’ marital conflicts andinternationalemotional security toward their parents have aweighing the subscale scores of the adolescents’unique impact on children’s adjustment. This

response to parents’ marital conflict in Japansuggests that it is important to consider not only

and in China.

thesecurity
processofhypothesis
explaining

andadolescents’comparison

responsewastowardmadebycognitive response but also emotional andbehavioral responses of children.

Methods

A number of studies related to the influence

Proceduresof parents’ marital conflicts on children’s

A questionnaire survey was conductedadjustment have been conducted in the Westernseparately in September 2012 and November

countries, while the number of empirical2012 at a private high school located in the

research on this area has been limited in Japan

Tohoku District of Japan and at a public highand China. (Yamamoto & Ito, 2012; Chi, 2008).

schoolThe existing scales for examining children’s

high-school students in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd

perspective on parents’ marital conflicts have

grade

been established mainly for the context of theparticipants without parents (including thoseWestern population. Thus they have not beenwith single parents), those with 5 or more

locatedinparticipatedNorthernin

thisChina.
study.

602
The

Table.1 sample description


Japan



China
grade

1st

2nd

3rd

sum

1st

2nd

3rd

sum

male

29

32

50

111

18

80

19

117

female

43

53

44

140

30

95

23

148

missing

0

0

0

0

2

9

0

11

sum

72

85

94

251

50

184

42

276

genderADOLESCENTS’ RESPONSE TO MARITAL CONFLICT IN JAPAN AND CHINA

35

missing items in their responses, or those

constructs for “child factors” were proposed,

marked “I could not imagine at all” on theand a total of 24 items were developed.

check item involving scene imagination wererelated to emotional response: referring to

removed from the analysis. The total number ofpreviousvalid responses were 527 (251 Japanese andresponses of high school students (Sakano et al.,276 Chinese) (Table 1). The average age of the

1994;

participants was“irritation/anger”

16.73 (SD = 0.82).

Measuresstudies
Zheng,

onpsychological2001),
and

Items

two

stressconstructs,“depression/anxiety”

were proposed, and a total of 10 items were

A Chinese version of the Adolescents’created. Items related to behavioral response:

Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict Scalereferring to previous studies on children’s

was first created, which was later translated incoping strategies and parents’ marital conflicts

to Japanese version. The author independently(Grych et al., 1993; Cummings et al., 1994;

performed the basic translation, and then

Xiao & Li, 2010), it was hypothesized two

requested three Chinese students majoring inconstructs for “interventional behavior” andPsychology to perform a back-translation.

“avoidance behavior,” and developed 11 items.

Afterwards, the scale was revised for fluency,

Check items: 4 items were assumed, including

based on the opinions of Japanese graduate

the item asking how well the participant was

students majoring in Psychology.

able to imagine the described scene. These

Face sheet

items were evaluated on a 4-point scale.

Participants were asked to fill up the basic
demographics (gender, age, and grade-level) of

Results

themselves and their family members.

Exploratory factor analysis by country

Adolescents’ Response to Parents’ Marital
Conflict Scale

After confirming the floor and ceiling effects,
an exploratory factor analysis using theParticipants were asked to imagine theprincipal factor method and promax rotation

described parents’ marital conflict situation it

was performed on the Japanese and Chinese

would as actually be happening in their family

responses. The results displayed similarity inand provide answers for the Adolescents’factor structure but a difference in item

Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict Scale. In

structure

the current research, we focused on the parents’participants. In both samples, two factors formarital conflict situation caused by household

cognitive response involving “parental factors”

chaos. Items related to cognitive response:(“threat about parents” and “parents’ conflictaccording to the CPIC (Children’s Perception

resolution”), two factors for cognitive responseof Interparental Conflict Scale) by Grych et al.

involving “child factors” (“threat about oneself”(1992), and other previous studies (Chi, 2008),

and “coping efficacy toward self”), two factors

three constructs for “parental factors” and three

for emotional response (“irritation/anger” andbetweenJapaneseandChinese

36

ZHANG

“depression/anxiety”), and two factors forscale employed 33 items including: 31 items

behavioral response (“interventional behavior”

that were common among the Japanese,and “avoidance behavior”) were extracted. The

Chinese, and the combined data; one item thatinternal consistency of the subscales was α

was common among the Japanese and the= .54–.89. While the “coping efficacy toward

combined data; and one item that was common

self” among cognitive response involving

among the Chinese and the combined data.

“child factors” was relatively low in Chinese

Examining the factor structure and the internal

sample (α = .54), others showed .62 or higher.

consistency

Exploratory factor analysis using all dataA

The Japanese and Chinese data wereconfirmatory

factoranalysiswasperformed to examine the homogeneity of the

combined, confirming the floor and ceilingJapanese

effects, an exploratory analysis using theAdolescents’ Response to Parents’ Marital

principal factor method and promax rotation

Conflict Scale.

was performed. The results displayed similar

by country. The results are shown in Table 2.

factor structure with the results of the

From these results, it was indicated that the

exploratorybycompatibilities of the model with the data werecountry, but showed a difference in item

reasonable among all of the subscales. The

structure. The internal consistency of themodels did not fit the data well with thesubscales was α = .59–.85 using the combined

Japanese data, yet the study proceeded todata. While the “coping efficacy toward self”

examine the factorial invariance.

factoranalysisconducted

among cognitive response involving “childandChinesesamplesfortheFirst, the data was analyzed

Next, in order to examine the factorial

factors” was relatively low (α = .59), others

invariance,ashowed .73 or higher. The scale was createdfactorbased on both the results from the exploratory

following three models were compared andfactor analysis by country and from theexamined; the pattern invariant model (model

combined data, while taking the content of each0), the measurement invariant model (model 1),

factor and the items into consideration. The

and the strong factorial invariant model (model

analysis

multiple-groupwas

confirmatory

conducted,

and

the

Table.2 The results of confirmatory factor analysis by country
Japan

China

GFI

AGFI

RMSEA

GFI

AGFI

RMSEA

Cognitive response(parental )

.92

.87

.10

.96

.93

.06

Cognitive response(child)

.90

.83

.11

.95

.92

.07

Emotional response

.96

.91

.09

.96

.91

.09

Behavioral response

.90

.81

.13

.96

.93

.06

ADOLESCENTS’ RESPONSE TO MARITAL CONFLICT IN JAPAN AND CHINA
2). The results are shown in Table 3. The

37

Comparing Japanese and Chinese scores

results suggested a high possibility that bothA three-way factorial ANOVA of “country,”

populations from Japan and China had the same“gender,” and “grade-level” (2 × 2 × 3) was

factor structure for Adolescents’ Response toperformed on the 8 subscale responses from the

Parents’ Marital Conflict.

Japanese and Chinese participants.

The RMSEA values of confirmatory factor
analysisbycountryandThe main effect of “country” was significant

multiple-groupin a total of six factors; “parents’ conflict

confirmatory factor analysis were relatively

resolution”, F(1,504) = 55.24, p < .001; “coping

high. Theoretically, there is a close fit if theefficacy toward self”, F(1,504) = 28.12, p < .001;

RMSEA is less than 0.05, whereas a value of“depression/anxiety”, F(1,504) = 28.72, p < .001;

RMSEA greater than 0.1 indicates a poor fit.

“irritation/anger ”, F(1,504) = 3.91, p < .05;

An RMSEA in the range of 0.05 to 0.1 is“interventional behavior”, F(1,504) = 236.84, p

considered an indication of fair fit. Although< .001; and “avoidance behavior ”, F(1,504) =the model was preferentially selected according

164.06, p < .001. Japanese adolescents scoredto the author's assumption in this study, it ishigh on “coping efficacy toward self,” andexpected that stable results can be obtained as“avoidance behavior,” and Chinese adolescents

data increase in further research.

scored high on “parents’ conflict resolution,”

The internal consistency of the subscales was“depression/anxiety,”

α = .59-.86. While the “coping efficacy toward“irritation/anger,”and“interventional behavior.”

self” among cognitive response involving

There was main effect of “gender” on“child factors” was relatively low (α = .59),“depression/anxiety”, F(1,504) = 8.12,

p < .01;others showed .70 or higher.

Therefore, to“irritation/anger”, F(1,504) = 7.83, p < .01; andsome extent the reliability of the Adolescents’“interventional behavior”, F(1,504) = 4.98, p

Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict Scale< .05. Women scored higher on “interventional

was confirmed.

behavior” in both countries.
Table.3 The results of multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis

Cognitive response(parental )Cognitive response(child)Emotional response

Behavioral response

model

GFI

AGFI

RMSEA

AIC

BCC

model 0

.94

.90

.06

212.81215.83model 1

.93

.90

.06

219.02221.48model 2

.90

.90

.06

217.09219.47model 0model 1

.93
.93

.88
.89

.07
.06

246.58236.46249.60238.92model 2

.92

.89

.06

241.83244.21model 0

.96

.91

.06

140.68142.57model 1

.95

.91

.06

138.08139.65model 2

.95

.92

.06

136.61138.13model 0

.93

.87

.07

207.16219.96model 1

.92

.87

.07

219.74221.73model 2

.92

.88

.07

218.04219.96

38

ZHANG“depression/anxiety,” “irritation/anger,” andparents’ marital conflict to end in reconciliation,

The main effect of “grade-level” was foundthan 1st and 2nd grade students. This result

only in “parents’ conflict resolution”, F(2,504) =indicates a certain pattern of Adolescents’

5.20, p < .01). The score of the 3rd grade

Response

students was significantly higher than that of

associated with the differences in sex and a

the 1st grade and the 2nd grade students. No

developmental stage, regardless of the cultural

significant differences were found between 2nd

differences.

grade students and 1st grade students.
was

only

significant

Parents’

Furthermore,

The interaction between “country” and“grade-level”

to

the

MaritalConflictassessment

suggested

several differences in the response of Japaneseonand Chinese adolescences. When facing parents’“depression/anxiety”, F(2,504) = 4.35, p < .05.

marital conflict, Japanese adolescents were

Chinese adolescents in the 1st and 2nd grade

more likely to feel that they could stay calm

scored higher than Japanese adolescents of theand to avoid conflict scene than Chinesesame grade-level, but there was no significant

adolescents. On the other hand, Chinese

difference between 3rd grade Japanese andadolescents

Chinese adolescents.

response and were found to be more likely toshowedstrongeremotional

intervene with the conflict scene than Japanese
Discussions

adolescents, even if their parents’ conflict was

The results of this study showed several

predicted to eventually reconcile. According tocommonalities between Japanese and Chinesetheadolescences. Firstly, for the populations ofadolescents

both countries, the measurement invariance ofperceiving parents’ marital conflict as a stressthe

Adolescents’factor than Japanese adolescents. Many couples

Response to Parents’ Marital Conflict were

have been trying to maintain their relationshipconfirmed, suggesting the high possibility offor the sake of their children’s growth in ahaving the same factor structure. In other words,

complete family since China launched the“Adolescents’ Response to Parents’ Marital

one-child policy. However, it results in more

Conflict” is a relatively stable construct infrequent exposure of children in parents’Japan and China. Secondly, when facing

marital conflicts. Chinese adolescents are moreparents’ marital conflict, women, in bothlikely to take responsibility for solving theircountries, are more likely to show stronger

parents’ conflicts, for they view that theiremotional response such as depression, anxiety,parents are staying together only for their sake.

irritation, and anger, and are more likely to

While in Japan, parents’ marital conflicts areintervene with the conflict scene than men.

usually considered as the problems between

Moreover, 3rd grade (high-school) students, incouples in which children are not involved too

both countries, are more likely to predict themuch.

constructive

conceptofpsychologicalmight

Presumably,stressbemodel,

more

there

are

Chinesesensitivetodifferences

ADOLESCENTS’ RESPONSE TO MARITAL CONFLICT IN JAPAN AND CHINA

39

between the two countries in adolescents’Attributes.

72,

coping strategies of parents’ marital conflicts,

1163-1178.

Child

Development,

based on cultural factors. There have been other

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Marital

research, as well, asserting that the selections

Conflict and Children’s Adjustment ： A

on ‘conflict resolution strategies’ are pertinent

Cognitive-Contextual

toPsychological Bulletin, 108, 267-290.

culturalvalues(Ting-Toomey,1994).

Framework.

Although both Japan and China are regarded as

Grych, J. H., & Fincham, F. D. (1993).

collective culture, as with the coping strategies

Children’s Appraisals of Marital Conflict：in conflict situation, Chinese adolescents are

Initialmore likely to intervene in their parents’Cognitive-contextual

marital conflicts which are more like to occur

Development, 71, 1648-1661.

in individualistic culture.

Investigations

of

the

Framework.

Child

Grych, J. H., Seid, M., & Fincham, F. D.

By shedding light on the characteristics of(1992). Assessing Marital Conflict from theadolescents in Japan and China, this study

Child’s

Perspective:

The

Children’s

provides additional clues as to how to protect

Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale.

adolescents from parents’ marital conflicts.

Child Development, 63, 558-572.
Sakano, Y., Shimada H., Miura M., Mori H.,

References

Oda M., & Saruwatari S. (1994). The EffectAmato, P. R., & Tamara, D. A. (2006). Feelingof Individual Differences in

Caught Between Parents: Adult Children's

Responses

Relations With Parents and Subjective

Responses in Senior High School Students.

Well-Being. Journal of Marriage and Family,

Human Science, 7, 75-90.

68, 222–235.

on

PsychologicalCognitive
StressTing-Toomey, S. (1994). Managing conflict inChi, L., & Yu, G. (2008). Cognitive Appraisals

intimate intercultural relationships. In D.

as a Mediator in the Association Between

Cahn(Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships

Marital(pp. 47-77). Hillsdale, N. J: L. Erlbaum.

Conflict

Self-esteem.

andPsychological

Adolescents’
Science,31,1069-1073.

Adolescent Adjustment to Perceived Marital

Davis, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994).
Marital Conflict and Child Adjustment: An
Emotional

Security

Hypothesis.

Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387-411.
Davis,

P.

T.,

Interparental&

Windle,DiscordandM.

Protective

Role

of

Conflict. Journal of Child and Family
Studies, 7, 499-513.
Xiao Q., & Li D. (2010). The Coping Strategies
to Parental Conflicts of Students in Junior(2001).

Adolescent

Adjustment Trajectories: The Potentiating
andTurner, C. M., & Barrett, P. M. (1998).

Intrapersonal

Middle School. Psychological Science, 33,
959-962.
Yamamoto S., & Ito Y. (2012). Relationshipbetween Parents' Marital Conflicts Witnessed

40

ZHANG

by Adolescents and their Psychological
Health.

Japanese

Journalof

FamilyPsychology, 26, 83-94.
Zheng Q., Chen S., Zheng S., & Huang L.
(2001). A Preliminary Study of the Stress of
Middle School Students. Psychological
Science, 24, 212-213.

International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science
2013, Vol. 3, No.1, 41-42<Case Report>

Collaboration in the Time of Graduation
Hiroe Konno1)
1)

Yamagata Branch, National Foundation of Brief Therapy

KEY WORDS: Collaboration, Graduation, Non-attendance at school

Problem

insecurity persisted, his mother brought him to

The client was male sixth-grader who started

his pediatrician (our school doctor) and hemissing school when he was in fourth grade.

trusted this doctor. His study was in retard, andHe rarely missed the school completely, but

he showed signs of immaturity such as his

arrived late or left early depending on his healthinterest in animation for younger kids.

condition (fatigue) and class. He was able toHis family was of six people; father, mother,

spend 3-4 hours every day at school. He could

himself, younger brother (fourth grader) and his

also participate school events such as study

grand parents.

camp. To support him, teachers and I (school
counselor: SC) had discussed what could be

Supporting measures

done for him to grow before his graduation andSo far, measures taken had focused onentering junior high school.

improving his everyday life experience. Hislearning and preliminary study for school

Characteristics of the client

events were not conducted as scheduled

The client tried to work on whatever

because he could not stay school over certain

seriously. When he felt “hard” or “cannot dohours and he left when he felt tired. As thewell” whatever, he told his mother so or cried.

situation had not changed after he went on to

Every time this occurred, his mother contacted

sixth grade, the following two pillars ofschool. He was unable to answer back whenmeasures were established: improving thebeing spoken to harshly and he was suffering

quality of everyday life and preparing forfrom it. His mother was making efforts to solve

graduation/entering junior high school.

the problem with him. When psychological

Regarding the preparation, teachers and I

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
 

especially confirmed with him and his parent

CORRESPONDENCE TO: KONNO, 2-7-4 Matsunami,

about

Yamagata-city 990-0023, Japan.

graduation, considering that he was the firste-mail: brief_therapy_yamagata_nfbt@yahoo.co.jp

child in their family. Hereafter I report focusing

theon the point.

41

necessityofsupporttowards

42

KONNO

A Meeting at June, X.

words. As a result, he started to converse moreAt the time of meeting held in June, plan

often with his teacher and within the class.

towards graduation was shared among his

Furthermore, he could complete his tasks forparents, school doctor, class teacher, andgraduation writings with the help of the teacher

nursing teacher. His family and the teachersand classmates.

asked the school doctor to be present. External

Moreover, he started participating event

organizations (medical or study support, SC)

preparation

were also discussed.

attended school only partially.

Continuing support

anddiscussion

althoughheFinally, His parents wished to have meeting

As a part of continued efforts made from awith SC in December, X, and started monthly

meeting in June until graduation, consultation

meeting (from December, X to March, X+1).

with

They visited SC and received explanation.

familydoctor(school

doctor)andinformation-sharing session with school were
held several times.

Discussion

Moreover, teachers and SC of junior high

By discussing graduation of A, who had beenschool has discussed the client’s transition frommissing the school for a long period of time, atelementary to junior high school.

an earlier stage helped to share an important

In addition, vice-principal and nursing

goal of “graduation” between those who wereteacher answered questions from his parents

concerned. This attenuated family’s anxiety anddirectly or on the phone about what has notallowed them to proceed step by step.

been cleared in the discussion with the class

The linkage of supports within (class teacher,teacher.

school executives, nursing teacher) and outside

A Meeting at January, X+1(school doctor, junior high school adviser,

In January of the next year, his parents, classjunior high school SC) of the school wasteacher, vice-principal and nursing teacher

considered to have contributed to a natural

participated in consultation meeting. Theytransition between elementary and junior highshared and confirmed information on tasks andschool.

schedules towards graduation, and the aim to
improve the rest of the school life.

After the entrance of junior high school, he
did not miss the school but attended the classselectively.

ChangeNo major change occurred until around
September. His class teacher suggested him toconvey his feelings (“hard, do not like it”) withhiswords.

The

teacherandclassmates

supported his independence by accepting such

CALL FOR PAPERS
Publish your paper with us in theInternational Journal of Brief
Therapy and Family Science
The International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science (IJBF) is the official English
language journal of the National Foundation of Brief Therapy, national research institute of brief
therapy and family science in Japan.
Focusing on the clinical practices as well as research and theory, the journal provides an important
forum for practitioners and researchers in brief therapy, family therapy, and family science.
Each issue of IJBF offers broad-based, original researches and experiments, case studies, reviews,
and brief case reports. We especially look forward to brief case reports from clinical practitioners.
The International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science welcomes submissions bypsychologists, teachers, and other related professionals from all over the world.
Submit manuscripts	
  (electronically only — Microsoft Word)
Authors should refer to previously-published issues of the journal for writing format.
Editorial correspondence to: Dr. Koubun Wakashima, Editor-in-chief
International Journal of Brief Therapy and Family Science
Tohoku University, Graduate School of Education 27-1 Kawauchi,
Aoba-ku, Sendai-city 980-8576, Japan.
E-mail: ijbf@nfbt.org
英 文 で の 投 稿 に サ ポ ー ト が 必 要 な 日 本 の 研 究 者 ， 実 践 者 の 方 へ 	 	 英文執筆にサポートが必要な日本の研究者，実践者は，編集委員会にご相談のうえ，和文にて論文を投稿ください。また，英文で執筆される日本の研究者，実践者は，日本語で執筆した原稿も併せて投稿ください。	
 -EDITORIAL BOARDPresident: HASEGAWA, Keizo
Editor-in-chief: WAKASHIMA, Koubun
Editors: L’ABATE, Luciano, SATO, Kohei, SCHLANGER, Karin., SLUZKI, Carlos., and TANG, Yung Lung.
Consulting editor: DECI, Edward
Translation supporting staff: USAMI, Takaaki

44