The Dynamics of the Subject in Sociological and Psychological Studies of the Family and Parenthood in Changing Sociocultural Context

Objectives. To reveal how the subject in sociological and psychological studies of the family and parenthood change depending on sociocultural context. Background. According to social constructivism, all ideas are not determined by the biological foundations of human interaction, but are products of social and cultural construction. That is why the concepts of partnership and family relations in recent decades have been seriously revised. We can see the evolution of approaches in formulation of hypotheses and interpretation of results in studies of partnerships and family relations, attitudes toward parenthood, expected family size, etc. As we show in the article, currently prevailing social ideas about the conditional norm of gender behavior and relationships influence these formulations. Understanding this influence is very important for critical reflection of the relationship between social processes and the focus of research. This reflection acts as a tool to increase the validity of the results and their interpretation, especially in studies carried out in line with the qualitative and mixed methodology. Methodology. The paper includes a substantive (thematic) and quantitative analysis of the subject of sociological and psychological research, as well as a comparative analysis of the dynamics of the subject and sociocultural context in different periods of research. Conclusions. The article shows that objective social processes are reflected in the predominance of certain research topics and theoretical frameworks in interpretation of the obtained data. Reflection of the social context of research is a necessary procedure to increase the validity of the results and allows to create a basis for building prognostic models.

1. Barash M.S. Polovaya zhizn’ rabochikh Moskvy [Sexual life of Moscow workers]. Venerologiya

i dermatologiya = Venereology and Dermatology, 1925, no. 6, pp. 137—147.

2. Gel’man I.I. Polovaya zhizn’ sovremennoi molodezhi. Opyt sotsial’no-biologicheskogo

obsledovaniya [Sexual life of modern youth. The experience of socio-biological examination].

Moscow: Mespoligraf, 1923. 150 p.

3. Golod S.I. Perspektivy monogamnoi sem’i: sravnitel’nyi mezhkul’turnyi analiz [Prospects

for a monogamous family: a comparative intercultural analysis]. Zhurnal sotsiologii i sotsial’noi

antropologii = Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2003. Vol. VI, no. 2, pp. 106—119.

4. Golod S.I. Sovremennaya sem’ya: plyuralizm modelei [Modern family: pluralism of models].

Sotsiologicheskii zhurnal = Sociological Journal, 1996, no. 3—4, pp. 99—108.

5. Golod S.I. Sotsiologo-demograficheskii analiz sostoyaniya i evolyutsiya sem’i [Sociological and

demographic analysis of the state and the evolution of the family]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya =

Sociological research, 2008, no. 1(285), pp. 40—49.

6. Golubova T.N., Makhkamova Z.R., Litvinenko A.I. Fenomen ≪chaildfri≫ i problemy

rozhdaemosti v sovremennoi Rossii [The phenomenon of childfree and fertility problems in modern

Russia]. Tavricheskii mediko-biologicheskii vestnik = Tavricheskiy Mediko-Biologicheskiy Vestnik,

2016. Vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 18—22.

7. Golubova T.N., Makhkamova Z.R., Litvinenko A.I., Sanina G.N. Analiz zhiznennykh tsennostei

predstavitelei techeniya shildfree (chaildfri) [Analysis of life values of the representatives of the flow

of childfree (childfree)]. Innovatsii v nauke = Innovations in science, 2016, no. 11 (60), pp. 57—62.

8. Demograficheskaya modernizatsiya Rossii: 1900-2000 [Elektronnyi resurs] [Demographic

modernization of Russia]. In A. Vishnevskogo (eds.). Seriya “Novaya istoriya” = Series “New History”.

Moscow: Novoe izdatel’stvo, 2006. 601 p. URL: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/modern/

modernizacija.html (Accessed 29.09.2019).

9. Ezhemesyachnyi monitoring sotsial’no-ekonomicheskogo polozheniya i samochuvstviya

naseleniya [Elektronnyi resurs] [Monthly monitoring of the socio-economic situation and wellbeing

of the population]. In Maleevа T.M. (ed.). 2015. 608 p. URL: https://www.ranepa.ru/images/

News/2019-04/08-04-2019-monitoring.pdf (Accessed 29.09.2019).

10. Zakharov S.V. Kuda dvizhetsya supruzhestvo v Rossii? [Elektronnyi resurs] [Where is marriage

going in Russia?]. Demoskop weekly = Demoskop weekly, 2013, no. 545—546. URL: http://www.

demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0545/demoscope545.pdf (Accessed 14.12.2019).

11. Ivanova E.I. Transformatsiya brachnosti v Rossii v KhKh veke: osnovnye etapy [Elektronnyi

resurs] [The transformation of marriage in Russia in the twentieth century: the main stages].

Elektronnaya versiya byulletenya Naselenie i obshchestvo = Electronic version of the bulletin

Population and Society. 2010. URL: http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/konfer/konfer_010.

html (Accessed 14.12.2019).

12. Kazachikhina M.V. Chaildfri kak odna iz form sovremennoi sem’i [Childfree as one of the forms

of the modern family]. Vestnik sotsial’no-gumanitarnogo obrazovaniya i nauki = Bulletin of social and

humanitarian education and science, 2014, no. 3, pp. 10—14.

13. Kaz’mina O.E., Pushkareva N.L. Brak v Rossii XX veka: traditsionnye ustanovki i

innovatsionnye eksperimenty [Marriage in Russia of the XX century: traditional attitudes and

innovative experiments]. In Ushakin S. (ed.). Semeinye uzy. Modeli dlya sborki: sbornik statei.

Kn. 1. = Family ties. Models for assembly: a collection of articles. Book 1. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe

obozrenie, 2004, pp. 185-—219.

14. Kautskii K. Razmnozhenie i razvitie v prirode i obshchestve [Reproduction and development in

nature and society]. St. Petersburg: Lenand, 1923. 163 p.

15. Kletsin A.A. Istoriya sotsiologii sem’i v Rossii. Dis. kand. sotsiol. nauk [The history of the

sociology of the family in Russia. PhD (Sociology) diss.]. St. Petersburg, 1999. 145 p.

16. Kollontai A.M. Tezisy o kommunisticheskoi morali v oblasti brachnykh otnoshenii [Theses on

communist morality in the field of marriage]. Kommunistka = Communist, 1921, no. 12—13, pp. 29—

32.

17. Lebedeva I.V. Chaildfri na Zapade i v Rossii [Childfree in the West and in Russia]. Uspekhi

sovremennoi nauki = Successes of modern science, 2016, no. 1, pp. 11—14.

18. Matskovskii M.S. Sotsiologiya sem’i. Problemy teorii, metodologii i metodiki [Sociology of the

family. Problems of theory, methodology and methodology]. Moscow: Nauka, 1989. 116 p.

19. Polutova M.A., Zhanbaz O.O. Tsennostnye i motivatsionnye ustanovki soobshchestva ≪chaildfri≫

s pozitsii postmodernizma [The value and motivational attitudes of the childfree community from the

perspective of postmodernism]. Vestnik ZabGU = Bulletin of ZabSU, 2015, no. 01 (116), pp. 89—100.

20. Ryazanov D.B. Vzglyady Marksa i Engel’sa na brak i sem’yu [The views of Marx and Engels on

marriage and family]. Moscow: Molodaya gvardiya, 1927. 68 p.

21. Snegireva T.V. ≪Dobrovol’no bezdetnaya≫ sem’ya glazami semeinogo psikhologa [“Voluntarily

childless” family through the eyes of a family psychologist]. Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya =

Cultural-historical psychology, 2010, no. 3, pp. 99—109.

22. Sorokin P.A. Krizis sovremennoi sem’i (sotsiologicheskii ocherk) [Cultural-historical

psychology]. Ezhemesyachnyi zhurnal =Monthly journal, 1916, no. 3, pp. 165—168.

23. Kharchev A.G. Byt i sem’ya v sotsialisticheskom obshchestve [Life and family in a socialist

society]. St. Peterburg: Znanie, 1968. 40 p.

24. Kharchev A.G. Brak i sem’ya v SSSR. 2-e izd., pererab. i dop [Marriage and family in the USSR.

2nd ed., revised. and add.]. Moscow: Mysl’, 1979. 367 p.

25. Khoroshilov D.A. Kriterii validnosti kachestvennogo issledovaniya v sotsial’noi psikhologii.

Diss. kand. psikhol. nauk [Validity criteria for a qualitative study in social psychology. PhD

(Psychology) diss.]. Moscow, 2012. 183 p.

26. Yurkevich N.G. Sovetskaya sem’ya. Funktsii i usloviya stabil’nosti [Soviet family. Functions

and conditions of stability]. Minsk: BGU, 1970. 208 p.

27. Yatsina E.F. K voprosu o chaildfri: otkaz ot materinstva i ottsovstva kak sotsial’nopsikhologicheskii

simptom [To the issue of childfree: rejection of motherhood and fatherhood as

a socio-psychological symptom]. Materialy mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii

“Nauchnaya diskussiya: voprosy pedagogiki i psikhologii” (g. Moskva, 5 avgusta 2013) [Proceedings

of the international scientific-practical conference “Scientific discussion: issues of pedagogy and

psychology”]. Moscow: Nauchnoe obozrenie, 2013, pp. 98—106.

28. Agrillio С., Nelini C. Childfree by choice: a review. Journal of Cultural Geography, 2008, no. 25:3,

pp. 347—363. DOI: 10.1080/08873630802476292

29. Albertini M., Arpino B. Childlessness, parenthood and subjective wellbeing: The relevance of

conceptualizing parenthood and childlessness as a continuum. Brussels, 2018. p. 16. DOI: 10.31235/

osf.io/xtfq6

30. Blake J. Family size and the quality of children. Demography, 1981. Vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 416—421.

DOI: 10.2307/2060941

31. Buss D.M., Kenrick D.T. Evolutionary social psychology. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, G. Lindzey

(ed.). The handbook of social psychology. NY: Oxford, 1998, pp. 982—1026.

32. Christiansen S.L., Palkovitz R. Why the “good provider” role still matters: Providing as

a form of paternal involvement. Journal of Family Issues, 2001, Vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 84—106. DOI:

10.1177/019251301022001004

33. Crosby F.J., Jaskar K.L. Women and men at home and at work: Realities and illusions. In

S. Oskamp, M. Costanzo (eds.). Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology. Vol. 6. Gender

issues in contemporary society. Sage Publications, Inc., 1993, pp. 143—171.

34. Homer C. [et al.]. Does continuity of care impact decision making in the next birth after a

caesarean section (VBAC)? А randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth, 2013,

no. 13:140. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2393-13-140

35. Eagly A.H., Crowley M. Gender and helping behavior. A meta-analytic review of the

social psychological literature. Psychological bulletin, 1986. Vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 283—308. DOI:

10.1037/0033-2909.100.3.283

36. Evers-Kiebooms G. [et al]. Family planning decisions after the birth of a cystic fibrosis child.

The impact of prenatal diagnosis. Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl, 1988, no. 143, pp. 38—46.

37. Goodman A., Greaves E. Cohabitation, marriage and child outcomes. London: The Institute for

Fiscal Studies, 2010. 75 p. DOI: 10.1920/co.ifs.2010.0114

38. Hare-Mustin R.T., Marecek J. The meaning of difference: Gender theory, postmodernism, and

psychology. American Psychologist, 1988, no. 43(6), pp. 455—464. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.43.6.455

39. Hyde J.S., Plant E.A. Magnitude of psychological gender differences: Another side to the story.

Am Psychol, 1995, no. 50(3), pp. 159—171. DOI: 10.1037//0003-066x.50.3.159

40. Nelson S.K. [et al.]. In defense of parenthood: Children are associated with more joy than

misery. Psychological Science, 2013. Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 3—10. DOI: 10.1177/0956797612447798

41. Karraker M.W., Grochowski J.R. Families with futures: family studies into the 21st century.

Oxford: Routledge, 2012. 480 p.

42. Kaufman G., Uhlenberg P. The influence of parenthood on the work effort of married men and

women. Social forces, 2000. Vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 931—947. DOI: 10.2307/3005936

43. Shorten A. [et al.]. Making choices for childbirth: development and testing of adecision-aid for

women who have experienced previous caesarean. Patient Education and Counseling, 2004, no. 52,

pp. 307—313. DOI: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00106-X

44. Massah R., Abushaikha L. The roles of the father during childbirth: the lived experiences of

Arab Syrian parents. Health Care For Women International, 2012. Vol. 33(2), pp. 168—181. DOI:

10.1080/07399332.2011.610534

45. Miller W.B., Pasta D.J. Motivational and nonmotivational determinants of child-number

desires. Population and Environment, 1993. Vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 113—138. DOI: 10.1007/BF02209405

46. Musick K., Bumpass L. Reexamining the case for marriage: Union formation and changes in

well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 2012. Vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 1—18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2011.00873.x

47. Pebley A.R., Westoff C.F. Women’s sex preferences in the United States: 1970 to 1975.

Demography, 1982. Vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 177—189. DOI: 10.2307/2061189

48. Raskin J.D. Constructivist theories. In J.C. Thomas, D.L. Segal, M. Hersen (eds.). Comprehensive

handbook of personality and psychopathology. Vol. 1. Personality and everyday functioning. John

Wiley & Sons Inc, 2006, pp. 212—229.

49. Reinhold S. Reassessing the link between premarital cohabitation and marital instability.

Demography, 2010. Vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 719—733. DOI: 10.1353/dem.0.0122

50. Teachman J.D., Schollaert P.T. Gender of children and birth timing. Demography, 1989. Vol.

26, no. 3, pp. 411—423.

51. Twenge J.M., Campbell W.K., Foster C.A. Parenthood and marital satisfaction: a meta-analytic

review. Journal of marriage and family, 2003. Vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 574—583. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-

3737.2003.00574.x

52. Wethington E., Kessler R.C. Employment, parental responsibility, and psychological distress:

A longitudinal study of married women. Journal of Family Issues, 1989. Vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 527—546.

DOI: 10.1177/019251389010004006