| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立嘉義大學 === 家庭教育研究所 === 90 === The purpose of this research was to study the volunteers of Taiwan Area Family Education Centers on their personal background variables, sex roles, and contribution level of volunteering to learn the influence on their marriage accommodation. This research as well included a further exploration for these variables’ predictive function on their marriage accommodation. There were five objectives in this research:
1.To understand current status of the volunteers’ sex roles, contribution level of volunteering and their marriages accommodation.
2.To research the relation between the variables of volunteers’ personal background and their marriage accommodation.
3.To understand if there was any correlation on volunteers’ marriage accommodation in terms of their genders and sex roles. If none, a study was made to look for possible variance in their marriage accommodation due to the difference of their genders or sex roles.
4.To research the relation between the volunteers’ contribution level of volunteering and their marriages accommodation.
5.To research the predictive function of the volunteers’ personal background variables, contribution level of volunteering and their sex roles to the marriage accommodation.
This research took total 196 volunteers of Taiwan Area Family Education Centers as effective samples. It also utilized “Sex Role Quantitative Table” and “Marriage Accommodation Quantitative Table” as main research tools. In addition, it adopted the methods of Descriptive Statistics, two-way MANOVA, one-way MANOVA, Hotelling’s T², stepwise multiple regression to proceed with the statistical analysis. Furthermore, focus interviews were held to interactively verify the research result.
The main conclusions obtained by this research were,
1.Current marriage accommodation status of the Family Education Centers’ volunteers:
a)The volunteers’ marks on the overall Marriage Accommodation Quantitative Table are slightly slanting toward the negative side.
b)In the average marks of the questions among the aspects of “Concurrence”, “Condensing Force” and “Marriage Satisfaction”, it was noted : The marks in “ Concurrence” were higher while the ones in “Condensing Force” were lower.
2.The difference situation of marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different background variables:
a)There was no significant difference on each individual aspect of the marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different marriage age.
b)There was significant difference in the marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different education levels. Among them, marriage satisfaction of the volunteers with secondary high school (occupational high) or university (college) background was significantly higher than the one with graduate school background. It was observed that the marriage satisfaction of the volunteers with highest education background (equal and higer than graduate school) was reversely lower than the one with university (college) or secondary high school ( occupational high) background.
c)There was no significant difference in the marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different number of children.
d)There was significant difference in the marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different family support levels. Among them, the volunteers with medium support indicated significantly higher marks than the ones with high support in terms of the three aspects: concurrence, condensing force and marriage satisfaction. It was observed that marriage accommodation’s three aspects of the volunteers with high family support were lower than the ones with medium support.
3.The interaction of gender and sex roles to marriage accommodation:
There is no significant level of difference in the marriage accommodation of each aspect (Concurrence, Condensing Force, Marriage Satisfaction) among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers in interaction of their genders and sex roles.
4.The difference situation of marriage accommodation on each individual aspect among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different genders:
The different genders among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers did not make significant difference to the marriage accommodation in terms of the two aspects: concurrence and condensing force. However, it was significant on the aspect of marriage satisfaction. Female’s average marks was higher than male’s.
5.The difference situation of marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different sex roles:
The different sex roles among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers made significant difference to the marriage accommodation. In this, the masculinity showed higher marks than androgyny ones in the aspects of concurrence, condensing force and marriage satisfaction.
6.The difference situation of marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different variables of contribution level of volunteering:
a)There was no significant difference in the marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different volunteering service seniority.
b)There was no significant difference in the marriage accommodation among the Family Education Centers’ volunteers with different weekly on-duty hours in terms of the two aspects: concurrence and condensing force. However, it was significantly different in marriage satisfaction (The one with 4 weekly on-duty hours was significantly higher than the one with 5 weekly on-duty hours).
7.Based on the volunteers’ personal background variables, their sex roles, contribution level of volunteering, a predictive analysis was made against the marriage accommodation. The result indicated that: High support from family, androgyny or the Masculinity showed predictive power to the three aspects of the marriage accommodation. Their predictive explanatory amount was between 11.2% ~ 14.7%.
In the end, based on above research result, the researcher presented a number of suggestions to the Family Education Centers’ volunteers and the counties’ or cities’ local Family Education Centers for their reference of future researches and tasks in this similar field.
|
|---|
