| Literature DB >> 24847296 |
Abstract
Families are central to the social and emotional development of youth, and most families engage in musical activities together, such as listening to music or talking about their favorite songs. However, empirical evidence of the positive effects of musical family rituals on social cohesion and emotional well-being is scarce. Furthermore, the role of culture in the shaping of musical family rituals and their psychological benefits has been neglected entirely. This paper investigates musical rituals in families and in peer groups (as an important secondary socialization context) in two traditional/collectivistic and two secular/individualistic cultures, and across two developmental stages (adolescence vs. young adulthood). Based on cross-sectional data from 760 young people in Kenya, the Philippines, New Zealand, and Germany, our study revealed that across cultures music listening in families and in peer groups contributes to family and peer cohesion, respectively. Furthermore, the direct contribution of music in peer groups on well-being appears across cultural contexts, whereas musical family rituals affect emotional well-being in more traditional/collectivistic contexts. Developmental analyses show that musical family rituals are consistently and strongly related to family cohesion across developmental stages, whereas musical rituals in peer groups appear more dependent on the developmental stage (in interaction with culture). Contributing to developmental as well as cross-cultural psychology, this research elucidated musical rituals and their positive effects on the emotional and social development of young people across cultures. The implications for future research and family interventions are discussed.Entities:
Keywords: culture; emotional well-being; family rituals; music; peer groups; social cohesion
Year: 2014 PMID: 24847296 PMCID: PMC4021113 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00392
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Culture-sensitive developmental model of music in families and peer groups and their effects on family cohesion, peer group cohesion, and on emotional well-being.
Sample descriptive.
.
Gray values refer to sub-sample sizes (in the Philippines and New Zealand) that are too small for age-group analysis.
Mean values, standard deviations (in brackets), and internal consistencies.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Musical family rituals | 4.27 (1.71) | 4.42 (1.54) | 3.63 (1.41) | 3.02 (1.45) | 1 | ||||
| 2. Musical peer rituals | 4.75 (1.44) | 5.34 (1.25) | 4.65 (1.14) | 4.56 (1.43) | 0.44 | 1 | |||
| 3. Family cohesion | 4.80 (1.76) | 5.50 (1.29) | 5.50 (1.51) | 4.32 (1.54) | 0.34 | 0.09 | 1 | ||
| 4. Peer group cohesion | 3.78 (1.78) | 4.18 (1.42) | 5.81 (1.07) | 5.01 (1.17) | −0.01 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 1 | |
| 5. Affective well-being (sum score) | 32.69 (9.13) | 34.76 (6.99) | 33.73 (7.16) | 34.84 (6.72) | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.15 | 0.12 | 1 |
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001.
Figure 2Confirmatory factor analysis on overall sample data including all five study variables (standardized estimates for factor loadings and error terms).
Results of musical rituals models [standardized regression weights β incl. 95% confidence intervals (95% CI); Wald χ.
| FAM 1 | β | 0.43 | 0.24 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.40 | 2.47 | |
| 95% CI | 0.34/0.51 | 0.08/0.40 | 0.24/0.51 | 0.1/0.64 | 0.24/0.57 | |||
| FAM2 | β | 0.06 | 0.27 | −0.03 | 0.13 | −0.04 | 4.81 | |
| 95% CI | −0.05/0.18 | 0.04/0.50 | −0.25/0.19 | −0.17/0.44 | −0.22/0.15 | |||
| PEER 1 | β | 0.28 | 0.03 | 0.40 | 0.28 | 0.31 | 5.47 | |
| 95% CI | 0.16/0.39 | −0.22/0.27 | 0.17/0.63 | −0.03/0.58 | 0.12/0.49 | |||
| PEER 2 | β | 0.17 | 0.23 | 0.35 | 0.39 | 0.35 | 2.19 | |
| 95% CI | 0.08/0.26 | 0.08/0.38 | 0.18/0.52 | 0.2/0.58 | 0.18/0.51 | |||
| FAM 1 | β | 0.42 | 0.25 | 0.38 | 0.55 | 0.41 | 1.72 | |
| 95% CI | 0.33/0.5 | 0.09/0.41 | 0.24/0.51 | 0.33/0.78 | 0.25/0.57 | |||
| FAM 2 | β | 0.20 | 0.16 | −0.13 | 0.62 | −0.09 | 9.44 | |
| 95% CI | 0.1/0.3 | −0.02/0.35 | −0.55/0.3 | 0.31/0.93 | −0.32/0.14 | |||
| PEER 1 | β | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.41 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 5.43 | |
| 95% CI | 0.05/0.25 | 0.08/0.38 | 0.23/0.58 | 0.18/0.57 | 0.21/0.54 | |||
| PEER 2 | β | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.43 | −0.19 | 0.25 | 6.54 | |
| 95% CI | −0.04/0.16 | −0.18/0.17 | −0.02/0.88 | −0.50/0.13 | −0.02/0.52 | |||
| DIRECT | β | 0.01 | 0.25 | −0.07 | −0.02 | −0.07 | 4.41 | |
| 95% CI | −0.12/0.14 | 0.02/0.49 | −0.36/0.22 | −0.39/0.34 | −0.29/0.16 | |||
| INDIRECT | point est. | 0.020 | 0.018 | 0.044 | 0.185 | 0.034 | – | |
| 95% bCI | 0.004/0.040 | −0.053/0.095 | −0.157/0.282 | 0.003/6.614 | −0.152/0.227 | |||
| DIRECT | β | 0.27 | 0.03 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.29 | 4.42 | |
| 95% CI | 0.15/0.39 | −0.22/0.28 | 0.08/0.68 | 0.04/0.71 | 0.07/0.51 | |||
| INDIRECT | point est. | 0.002 | −0.078 | 0.024 | −0.119 | 0.020 | – | |
| 95% bCI | −0.006/0.012 | −0.007/0.043 | −0.203/0.302 | −5.269/0.017 | −0.103/0.236 | |||
p < 0.10,
p < 0.05,
p < 0.01,
p < 0.001.
Figure 3Indirect effects models including total and direct effects in the four cultural samples. †p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Model fit.
| Overall sample | 608.61 | 221 | 0.92 | 0.91 | 0.052 | 0.047 |
| (0.047/0.056) | ||||||
| Multi-group analysis | 1413.69 | 884 | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.060 | 0.070 |
| (0.054/0.066) | ||||||
| Overall sample | 701.54 | 224 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.057 | 0.068 |
| (0.052/0.062) | ||||||
| Multi-group analysis | 1449.77 | 892 | 0.91 | 0.89 | 0.062 | 0.083 |
| (0.056/0.067) | ||||||
CI—90% Confidence Interval of Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA);
p < 0.001.