RESEARCH PAPER
An attempt to assess the accepted model of family in a group of Polish women
 
More details
Hide details
1
Institute of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health in Sosnowiec, Poland Head: P.Z. Brewczyński, MD, PhD
2
Institute of Nursing, University of Applied Sciences in Nysa, Poland Head: prof. A. Brodziak, MD, PhD
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Andrzej Brodziak   

Institute of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health in Sosnowiec, Poland
 
Med Srod. 2015;18(1):54–61
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Introduction:
The authors in their subsequent study on the causes of the fall in the birth rate, based on data obtained by means of questionnaires attempt to verify their next hypotheses, concerning low fertility, observed in most European countries.

Material and Methods:
Data were collected by means of a set of open questions concerning the preferred model of family, and then the characteristic types of responses were identified. Also short complementary questionnaires were used by means of which we tried to assess the pessimistic attitude, low resourcefulness and lack of energy and engagement as well as the intensity of the so-called type D personality pattern.

Results:
The results led the authors to conclude that young people in Poland are not convinced of the benefits from any specific pattern of the family. The various possible arguments against having children or against having two children discourage easily young couples.

Conclusions:
The authors think that today there is no “source” of message convincing young people of the proper model of the family in Poland. Theoretically, desirable model of the family (parents + 2 children) is not convincingly promoted by any sources such as parents, school, neighbours or media.

FUNDING
Internal financing of the Institute of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health in Sosnowiec
 
REFERENCES (35)
1.
Brodziak A., Wolińska A., Ziółko W.: Próba weryfikacji interdyscyplinarnej hipotezy wyjaśniającej spadek liczby urodzeń i niską dzietność. Medycyna Środowiskowa, 2012; 15:104-115.
 
2.
Brodziak A., Kutnohorska J., Cicha M., Wolińska A. Ziółko E.: Comparison of fertility ratios, attitudes and beliefs of Polish and Czech women. Medycyna Środowiskowa – Environmental Medicine, 2013; 16: 69-78.
 
3.
Brodziak A., Wolińska A., Ziółko E.: Czy zachodzą okoliczności sprzyjające promowaniu systemu szybkiego przejścia do drugiego dziecka? Medycyna Środowiskowa – Environmental Medicine, 2013; 16: 67-74.
 
4.
Adsera A.: The interplay of employment uncertainty and education in explaining second births in Europe. Demographic Research. 2011; 25: 513-544.
 
5.
Billingsley S.: Economic crisis and recovery: Changes in second birth rates within occupational classes and educational groups. Demographic Research, 2011; 24: 375-406.
 
6.
Perelli-Harris B.: Ukraine: On the border between old and new in uncertain times. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 1145-1178.
 
7.
Dorbritz J.: Germany: Family diversity with low actual and desired fertility. Demographic Research, 2008;19: 557-598.
 
8.
Oláh L., Bernhardt E.: Sweden: Combining childbearing and gender equality. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 1105-1144.
 
9.
Fokkema T., de Valk H., de Beer J., van Duin C.: The Netherlands: Childbearing within the context of a “Poldermodel” society. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 743-794.
 
10.
Toulemon L., Pailhé A., Rossier C.: France: High and stable fertility. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 503-556.
 
11.
Pailhé A., Solaz A.: The influence of employment uncertainty on childbearing in France: A tempo or quantum effect? Demographic research. 2012; 26: 1-40.
 
12.
Sobotka T., Šťastná A., Zeman K., Hamplová H., Kantorová V.: Czech Republic: A rapid transformation of fertility and family behaviour after the collapse of state socialism. Demographic Research 2008; 19: 403-454.
 
13.
Spéder Z., Kamarás F.: Hungary: Secular fertility decline with distinct period fluctuations. Demographic Research 2008; 19: 599-664.
 
14.
Prskawetz A, Sobotka A., Buber I. Engelhardt H., Gisser R.: Austria: Persistent low fertility since the mid-1980s. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 293-360.
 
15.
Delgado M, Meil G., Zamora - López F.: Spain: Short on children and short on family policies. Demographic Reserarch, 2008; 19: 1059-1104.
 
16.
Klesment M., Puur A.: Effects of education on second births before and after societal transition: Evidence from the Estonian Generations and Gender Survey. Demographic Research, 2010; 22: 891-932.
 
17.
Stropnik N., Šircelj M.: Slovenia: Generous family policy without evidence of any fertility impact. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 1019-1058.
 
18.
Pilinská VB., V., Jurčová D., Potančoková M.: Slovakia: Fertility between tradition and modernity. Demograpgic Research, 2008; 19: 973-1018.
 
19.
Sobotka T., Toulemon L.: Changing family and partnership behaviour: Common trends and persistent diversity across Europe. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 85-138.
 
20.
Sobotka T., Štastná A., Zeman K., Hamplová D., Kantorová V.: Czech Republic: A rapid transformation of fertility and family behaviour after the collapse of state socialism. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 403-454.
 
21.
Kotowska I., Jóźwiak J., Matysiak A., Baranowska A.: Poland: Fertility decline as a response to profound societal and labour market changes? Demographic Research, 2008; 19:795-854.
 
22.
Stankuniene V., Jasilioniene A.: Lithuania: Fertility decline and its determinants. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 705-742.
 
23.
Zakharov S.: Russian Federation: From the first to second demographic transition. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 907-972.
 
24.
Frejka T. Determinants of family formation and childbearing during the societal transition in Central and Eastern Europe. Demographic Research, 2008; 19: 139-170.
 
25.
Brodziak A., Kutnohorska J., Cicha M., Białkowska B.: Preliminary trial to ascertain the feeling of uncertainty between young women in Poland and the Czech Republic in the context of their intention to have a child. Medycyna Środowiskowa – Environmental Medicine, 2014; 17: 60-68.
 
26.
Bachrach Ch.A., Morgan Ph.: A Cognitive–Social Model of Fertility Intentions. Population and Development Review, 2013; 39: 459-485.
 
27.
Denollet J.: DS14: standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality. Psychosom Med. 2005; 67: 89-97.
 
28.
Denollet J., Schiffer AA., Spek V.: A general propensity to psychological distress affects cardiovascular outcomes: evidence from research on the type D (distressed) personality profile. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010; 3: 546-57.
 
29.
Spindler H., Kruse Ch., Zwisler AD., Pedersen S.: Increased Anxiety and Depression in Danish Cardiac Patients with a Type D personality: Cross-Validation of the Type D Scale (DS14). Int J Behav Med. 2009; 16: 98–107.
 
30.
Bagherian-Sararoudi R., Sanei H. , Attari A., Afshar H.: Type D personality is associated with hyperlipidemia in patients with myocardial infarction. J Res Med Sci. 2012; 17: 543-547.
 
31.
Williams L., O’Connor RC., Grubb NR., O’Carroll RE.: Type D personality and three-month psychosocial outcomes among patients post-myocardial infarction. J Psychosom Res. 2012; 72: 422-426.
 
32.
Martens EJ., Mols F., Burg MM., Denollet J.: Type D personality predicts clinical events after myocardial infarction, above and beyond disease severity and depression. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010; 71: 778-83.
 
33.
Kupper N., Denollet J.: Type D personality as a prognostic factor in heart disease: assessment and mediating mechanisms. J Pers Assess. 2007; 89: 265-76.
 
34.
Hausteiner C., Klupsch D., Emeny R., Baumert J., Ladwig KH; KORA Investigators. Clustering of negative affectivity and social inhibition in the community: prevalence of type D personality as a cardiovascular risk marker. Psychosom Med. 2010; 72: 163-71.
 
35.
Sararoudi RB., Sanei H., Baghbanian A.: The relationship between type D personality and perceived social support in myocardial infarction patients. J Res Med Sci. 2011; 16: 627-33.
 
eISSN:2084-6312
ISSN:1505-7054