|
KMID : 0381219840160020100
|
|
Journal of RIMSK
1984 Volume.16 No. 2 p.100 ~ p.123
|
|
|
A Discriminant Function Analysis of the School Adolescent´s Frustration by Their Family Variables
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
The present study was intended to investigate the relationship between the subtypes of frustration of adolescent schoolers and their structural, demographic, and psychological climate of family. It was then aimed to establish effectively preventive measures to resolve against their frustrated wishes through in-depth analysis of its causal structures and resolutions untoward their frustrating situation.
A questionnaire survey was performed to a total 1, 404 boys and girls including 747 cases in Seoul area and 657 cases in rural area, aged 12 through 21 inclusive.
Collected data were analysed by CDC-174 Computer of KAIST, using SPSS program. Statistical methods employed were Chi-square method and multiple discriminant function analysis (MDFA).
Data were presented by the following three step analysis; First, subtypes of frustration were analysed by sex, age, area, school categories and categories of student´s school performance. second, 8 subtypes of frustation being arbitrarily classified were analysed by 6 kinds of family variables such as family socio-demographic variables, paternal and maternal childrearing practices, family stability, parent-child relationship, and family-member´s family satisfaction.
Finally, MDFA was adapted to select some of the 42 kinds of family variables which could best discriminate and efficiently classify subtypes of school adolescent´s frustration.
Summary of the Major Findings
1. Three out of five students experienced various kinds of frustration, and these trends were predominantly observed in the late adolescent (74.4%) and the rural adolescent (60.8%) comparing with the early adolescent and the Seoul adolescent.
2. In their attribution mode of frustration, the intropunitive styles of frustration (42.0%) were predominantly observed either in the late adolescent or in the Seoul adolescent, while the extra-punitive styles of frustration (15. 1%) were higher in the early adolescent and rural adolescent.
3. Of the dealing styles of frustration, the rate of the rational and adequate types of control was the highest (44.7%), and these trends were more predominantly observed either in the Seoul adolescent or in the late adolescent. On the contrary, the rates of the withdrawal or the inadequate types of frustration were more frequently observed both in the middle adolescent and in the rural adolescent.
4. Among subtypes of frustration, the intropunitive adequate response took the lead with 34.4%, the extra-punitive adequate response with 10.7%, the intro-punitive inadequate response with 5.5%, the intro-punitive withdrawal response with 3.3%, the extra-punitive inadequate response with 2.8%, the impunitive response with 1.6%, and the extra-punitive withdrawal type with 1.6%. The rate of the extrapunitive adequate responses were found conspicuous among Seoul students, and the rate of the extra-punitive or intra-punitive adequate responses were increased according to increment of their age level.
5. The eight kinds of frustration had more significantly correlated with the family member´s family satisfaction, the family stability such as family tension, family atmosphere or family harmony, and the parent-child relationship such as parental affection or parental respect for their children´s opinion comparing with the parent child rearing practice or the sociodemographic variables of family.
6. Comparison of both parents in the degree of influence revealed that father was more influential to affect their children´s frustration than mother.
7. For the relative strength of influence in terms of the predictability by eta value which those 42 kinds of family variables exercise on the 8 types of school adolescent´s frustration, we found the following results;
1) The extra-punitive withdrawal type of frustration showed significant correlations with the tense and disharmonious family climate due to the dissatisfaction toward their authoritative father.
2) The extra-punitive inadequate type of frustration showed significant correlations with the psychological instability of family.
3) The extra-punitive adequate type of frustration showed significant correlations with the all family member´s family dissatisfaction due to parental marital friction between the lower educated father and the working mother.
4) The intro-punitive withdrawal type of frustration showed significant correlations with the rejecting parents who showed the lower level of education and the punish-oriented or mistrusting attitudes toward their children.
5) The intro-punitive inadequate type of frustration showed significant correlations with inflexible parental child rearing practice.
6) The impunitive type of frustration showed significant correlations with the tense family climate due to dissatisfaction toward the rejecting parents, and these trends were similar with the withdrawal types of frustration.
7) Either the intro-punitive adequate type of frustration or the non-frustration type showed
significant correlalions with the accepting family climate such as the family member´s satisfactions with home, the harmonious parent-child relationships, and the psychologically stabilized family climate.
8. Multiple discriminant function analysis (MDFA) was employed to examine the discriminant validities of the 42 family variables in the prediction of 5 subtypes of frustrations. Major findings of the study were presented below.
1) In the step-wise multiple discriminant function analysis, the 21 variables were selected out of the 42 kinds of family variables used.
2) Principal axes solution was undertaken with an attempt to extract discriminant factor structures from the family variables. The obtained discriminant coefficients of the first three factors among four factors extracted showed statistical sigfnificance at 5% level.
3) To test for the equality of the 4 group centroids, these three functions were found to discriminate 90.2% of all variables.
4) From the analysis of the frustration group difference by the univariate analysis of variance, all types of frustration except the intra-punitive solution group showed significant difference at 5% level. Theses findings were also proved true in the comparison of each group centroids of the three functions. From these results, we concluded that the above mentioned 3 functions can be effectively discriminated from each other by 4 subtypes of frustration.
5) The labelling of these three functions were given on the basis of the examinations of the group centroids and the correlation coefficients between the functions and subtest of family variables. The name of the three functions respectively are as follows:
Function I : The accepting family factor with stable and satisfied family climate; It can be effectively discriminated from the absense or presence of the frustration. It was positively correlated with the non-frustration types, while it was negatively correlated with the frustration group.
Function II : The paternal family satisfaction factor; It can be effectively discriminated from the extrapunitive attribution to their motivation of frustration. It was positively correlated with the extrapunitive solution type, while it was negatively correlated with the extra-punitive withdrawal type.
Fuction III : The paternal mistrusting attitude toward their children; It can be effectively discriminated from the withdrawal response to deal with their solution of frustration. It was positively correlated with the intrapunitive withdrawal type of frustration, while it was negatively correlated with the extra-punitive withdrawal type.
6) To test the accuracy of the classification and to confirm the degree of group separation as a means of predicting subtypes of frustration by the three functions related with family variables, the proportion of cases correctly classified their group membership were counted. This is 36.84% accuracy. We can see that the classification based on the discriminating variables made 21.0% fewer error than would be expected by random assignment. In particulary, these accuracy rate were higher both in the extra-punitive withdrawal type and in the intropunitive withdrawal type of frustration.
Conclusion
First, To discriminate subtypes of frustration by family variables, the family member´s
dissatisfaction with home and the tenseness of family psychological climate function as the most important determinants of frustration perceived by adolescent schoolers.
Second, The more were family member´s satisfaction with their home, harmonious parentchild relationships, and psychological stability of family climate, the lower experienced frustration and the higher experienced the intro-punitive adequate type of frustration.
Third, The more were their family member´s dissatisfaction with home, disharmonious parent-child relationships, and psychological instability of family climate, the higher experienced the extra-punitive withdrawal type of frustration. Particularly, the tense and disharmonious family climate due to adolescent schooler´s conflict with their authoritative father exerted strong influence on the extra-punitive withdrawal type of frustration.
To help dissipate the frustration of the adolescents, the comprehensive guidance programs such as the establishment of family stability through refreshment of family climate, the improvement of human relations through frank exchange of dialogue between parents and children, the resolution of motivational factors of domestic worries, and the providing opportunities for constructive and sublimatory outlets through sound recreational and sports activities should be provided.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|
|