Domestic activity and socialization: the viewpoint of adolescents from different socioeconomic classes

Authors

  • Mayara Barbosa Sindeaux Lima Universidade Federal do Pará
  • Fernando Augusto Ramos Pontes Universidade Federal do Pará
  • Simone Souza da Costa Silva Universidade Federal do Pará
  • Júlia Bucher Maluschke Universidade Federal do Pará
  • Celina Maria Colino Magalhães Universidade Federal do Pará
  • Lília Iêda Chaves Cavalcante Universidade Federal do Pará

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.19881

Keywords:

Socialization, Adolescents, Domestic tasks, Socioeconomic class

Abstract

Family routine plays a fundamental role in socialization, and is an important feature of intimate family culture. Among the routine activities, the study of domestic tasks (DT) has been identified as a key strategy for investigating issues dealing with human development. Thus, meanings associated with DT may be used as indicators of certain socialization processes. The aim of this investigation was to identify and discuss the viewpoints of adolescents from different socioeconomic classes regarding DT. Two groups of adolescents aged between 12 and 15 years participated in the study: 10 adolescents (five of each sex) from lower-income families (LIF), and 11 (3 girls and 8 boys) from middle-income families (MIF). A socio-demographic questionnaire and a semi-structured interview were used, and data were collected through two Focal Groups. Both groups yielded similar themes, such as gender differentiation, domestic sharing, and skill acquisition. However, the DT meanings constructed by LIF adolescents differed from those constructed by MIF adolescents, because those from the former group tended to consider participation in the domestic task as important for family survival and developmental opportunities.

References

Bronfenbrenner U. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives: Developmental Psychology.1996; 22:723-742.

Serpell R, Sonnenschein S, Baker L, Ganapathy H. Intimate Culture of Families in the Early Socialization of Literacy (Special Section: Family Routines and Rituals). J Family Psychology. 2002; 16 (4): 91-405.

Boyce WT, Jensen EW, James SA, Peacock JL. The family routines inventory: Theoretical origins. Social Science and Medicine. 1983; 17 (4): 201-211.

Larson RW, Richards MH, Sim B, Dworki J. How Urban African American Young Adolescents Spend Their Time: Timw Budgets for Locations, Activities, and Companionship. Americam J Community Psychology. 2001; 29 (4): 565-593.

Bastos ACS. Modos de partilhar: A criança e o cotidiano da família. Taubaté: Cabral Editora Universitária; 2001.

Moura, W. A família contra a rua: uma análise psicossociológica da dinâmica familiar em condições de pobreza. Em: A Fausto Cervini (org.) Perspectivas futuras. O trabalho e a Rua: Crianças e adolescentes no Brasil urbano dos Anos 80. São Paulo: Cortez/UNICEF/FLACSO;1991. p. 151-194.

Cohen R. Children’s contribution to house holdlabour on three sociocultural contexts: A Southern Indian Village, a Norwegian town and a canadian City. Int J Comparative Sociology. 2001; 42(4):353-367.

Ferreira EAP, Mettel TPL. Interação entre irmãos em situação de cuidados formais. Psicologia Reflexão e Crítica. 1999; 12(1): 133-146.

McHale SE, Bartko WJ, Crouter AC, Perry-Jankins M. Children’s housework and psychosocial functioning: The mediating effects of parent’s sex role behavior and attitudes. Children Developmental; 1990. 61:1314-1326.

Shelton, A. B. The Division of Household Labor. Annu. Rev. Sociol; 1996. 22: 299-322.

Antill JK, Goodnown JJ, Russel G, Cotton S. The influence of parents and family context on children’s involvemnet in household task. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research. 1996; 34(22): p.215-236.

Coltrane S. Research. Household Labor: Modeling and Measuring the Social Embed deadness odf Routine Family Work. J Marriage and the Family. 2000; 62:1208–1233.

Gupta, S. The Consequences of Maternal Employment During Men’s Childhood for their Adult Housework Performance. Gender Society.2006; 20 (1): 60-86.

Cohen R. Children’s contribution to house holdlabour on three sociocultural contexts: A Southern Indian Village, a Norwegian town and a canadian City. Int J Comparative Sociology. 2001; 42(4): 353-367.

Bowes JM, Chalmers D, Flanagan C. Children’s involvement in household work: Views of adolescents in six countries’. Family Matters. 1997; 46: 26-30.

Blasi A. Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Em B. Puka, et al. (Orgs.). Fundamental research in moral development. 1994. p. 123-167. New York: Garland Publishing.

Rest JR. Moral development: Advances in research and theory. New York: Praeger, 1986.

Bardin L. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70; 1979.

Minayo, M. C. de S. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde.7. ed. São Paulo: Hucitec; 2000.

Lima MBS, Pontes FAR. Tarefas domésticas e socialização na perspectiva de adolescentes de classe economicamente distintas. Rev Científica da UFPA. [periódico online]. 2006. [acesso em 10 de novembro de 2007]. Disponível em.

Punch, S. Household Division of Labour: Generation, Gender, Age, Birth Order and Sibling Composition Work. Employment Society; 2001. 15 (4): 803-823.

Goodnown JJ. Children’s household Work: Its Nature and Functions. Psychological Bulletin;1988. 103 (1): 5-26.

Bastos ACS. O trabalho como estratégia de socialização na infância. Veritat; 2002. 2 (2): 19-38.

Weisner TS, Garnier H, Loucky J. Domestictasks, gender egalitarian values and children’s gender typing in conventional and nonconventional families. Sex Roles: A J Research; 1994. 30: 23-54.

Bowes JM, Chen MJ, San LQ, Yuan L. Reasoning and negotiation about childres ponsibility in urban Chinese families: Reports from mothers, fathers and children. Int J Behavioral Developmen.t; 2004. 28(1): 48-58.

Porto J, Tamayo A. Influência dos Valores Laborais dos Pais sobre os Valores Laborais dos Filhos. Psicologia: Reflexão Crítica; 2006.19 (1): 151-158.

Downloads

Published

2008-08-01

Issue

Vol. 18 No. 2 (2008)

Section

Original Research

License

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis