See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/298442716

Family functioning and their relationship with social support networks in a

sample of families in the city of Morelia, Mexico

Article  in  Salud Mental · March 2012

CITATIONS READS

3 572

5 authors, including:

Maria Elena Rivera Heredia Judith López Peñaloza

Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo
95 PUBLICATIONS   258 CITATIONS    15 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alain R Rodríguez-Orozco
Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo
137 PUBLICATIONS   508 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ANÁLISIS INTERINSTITUCIONAL DE LAS NECESIDADES DE ATENCIÓN ACADÉMICA, AFECTIVA Y SOCIAL DE LOS ESTUDIANTES UNIVERSITARIOS View project

Promoción de la salud y fortalecimiento de los recursos psicológicos individuales, familiares y sociales cómo estrategias de intervención ante la migración View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maria Elena Rivera Heredia on 30 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Salud Mental 2012;35:139-145 Family functioning and its relationship with social support networks

Family functioning and its relationship

with social support networks
in a sample from Morelia, Mexico
Martha M Medellín Fontes,1 María Elena Rivera Heredia,1 Judith López Peñaloza,1
ME Gabriela Kanán Cedeño,1,2 Alain R Rodríguez-Orozco2,3

Original article

SUMMARY
This study was conducted with the objective of evaluating whether a
relationship between family functioning and social support networks
exists in a sample of parents from the city of Morelia, Michoacán.
fication of resources and specific strategies for clinical and psychoso-
cial interventions with families.
Key words: Family functioning, social support networks, FACES II
and Scale Network Quality, Morelia.

Methods
A total of 192 adults participated; 17% were men and 83% were
women with a mean of age of 42 years. They answered two self-
administered questionnaires: the adapted Nava Network Quality and
the FACES II scale. ANOVA with the Bonferroni post hoc test and
Spearman’s correlation were applied.
Results
Only 12 out of 16 types of families proposed by Olson were found.
The family functioning types that were found are 29% connected-cha-
otic, 20% emmeshed-chaotic, 19% connected-flexible, and in the re-
maining 32% all the other types of family functioning. Family support
networks followed by friend networks provide the most support to the
majority of family types. Statistically significant differences were found
in the variance analysis among the different family types and their
perception of family support networks with an F(11.180)= 8.573,
p<.001, and the perceived lack of support from social networks with
an F(11.180)= 4.501, p<0.001.
The correlations between family functioning and social support
networks were significant, but low in most of the cases.
Conclusions
Family support networks, followed by friend support networks, were
found to provide the greatest support to the majority of family types.
However, this pattern changes depending on the typology and level of
family functioning. The chaotic-connected followed by enmeshed-cha-
otic were family functioning types frequently found in this sample.
Significant and low, differences were found in the correlations
of the different levels of family functioning and their social support
networks.
The characterization of family functioning in relation to the per-
ception of support provided by social networks is useful for the identi-
RESUMEN
El objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la relación existente entre el
funcionamiento familiar y las redes de apoyo social en una muestra
de padres de familia de la ciudad de Morelia, Michoacán, México.
Método
Participaron 192 adultos, 17% hombres y 83% mujeres, con 42 años
en promedio, quienes respondieron la escala de Calidad de Red
adaptada de Nava y complementada por López-Peñaloza y la escala
FACES II de Olson et al. Los análisis estadísticos fueron ANOVA con
post hoc de Bonferroni y correlaciones de Spearman.
Resultados
Sólo se encontraron 12 de los 16 tipos de familia que propone Ol-
son; el 29% de los participantes presentó un tipo de funcionamiento
familiar conectado-caótico, el 20% aglutinado-caótico y 19% conec-
tado-flexible. En el 32% restante se ubicaron los otros tipos de funcio-
namiento familiar. En su mayoría las correlaciones entre el funciona-
miento familiar y las redes de apoyo social fueron estadísticamente
significativas, pero bajas. Las redes de apoyo familiar y las redes
de amigos son las que más apoyo social aportaron a la mayoría
de los tipos de familia. Se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente
significativas entre los tipos de familia y la percepción de las redes de
apoyo familiar [F(11.180)=8.573, p<.001], así como en la falta de
apoyo de la red [F(3.188)=6.48, p<.001].
Conclusiones
Las familias extensas seguidas por las redes de amigos son las redes
de apoyo social más utilizadas; las menos utilizadas son las de veci-
nos. Sin embargo, este patrón cambia dependiendo de la tipología y
el nivel de funcionamiento familiar.

1
Department of Psychology. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo. Morelia, Michoacán. Mexico.
2
Institute of Scientific Research on Topics of Family, Allergy and Immunology. Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico.
3
Postgraduate Division. “Dr. Ignacio Chávez” School of Medicine. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo. Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico.
Correspondence: Alain R. Rodríguez-Orozco. División de Posgrado, Facultad de Medicina “Dr. Ignacio Chávez”. Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás
de Hidalgo, Morelia, Michoacán, México. Rafael Carrillo esquina Salvador González Herrejón s/n. Bosque Cuauhtémoc. Col. Centro, 58000, Morelia,
Michoacán, México. Phone: (+ 52-443) 340-0513. E-mail arorozco69@yahoo.com.mx
First version received: January 17, 2011. Second version: July 18, 2011. Accepted: September 13, 2011.

Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 2012 139

 Medellín Fontes et al.
El tipo de familia encontrado con mayor frecuencia fue el conec-
tado-caótico, seguido del aglutinado-caótico.
El conocimiento del funcionamiento familiar y las redes de apo-
yo social son recursos para el desarrollo de estrategias específicas
INTRODUCTION
Social support is a protective factor for human health.1,2 The
family is the natural context for growth and support, which
over time develops its own patterns of interaction, which
constitute the family structure.3 This structure is defined
as the way a family organizes the interactions between its
members according to the functional demands of the fam-
ily and the repetitive patterns of interaction. In the face of
changes in the life cycle and in stressful events occurring
throughout life, families change and meet these challenges
according to different styles of family functioning.4
Cohesion is defined as the distance and proximity that
exists between the members of a family,5 made up of two as-
pects: the emotional ties shared by members of the family,
and the level of autonomy of each member. In the circumplex
model of family assessment developed by Olson, Rusell and
Sprenkle,4-6 a classification is performed based on level of co-
hesion in the following way: bonded: this refers to excessive
bonding, due to very close proximity between family mem-
bers, and thus a very high level of cohesion; connected: this
refers to the existence of a high or moderate level of proximity
between family members, and so the level of cohesion is also
moderate or high; separated: where the level of proximity is
moderate or low between family members, and so cohesion
is categorized as moderate or low; detached: this refers to the
existence of very little proximity, which can be translated as
a detachment between family members, thus manifesting a
very low level of cohesion, or no cohesion at all.
Of these four levels of cohesion, the levels “connected” and
“separated” are considered to facilitate family functioning, due
to the fact that families are able to achieve a balance between
independence and union. The families that achieve these levels
of closeness are able to balance personal autonomy with prox-
imity and connection between their members, while families
in which cohesion is detached or bonded tend to more dys-
functional. Families that have a bonded cohesion are character-
ized by excessive identification of the family members, as well
as a generation of strong feelings of loyalty, which produces
problems among family members in achieving individuality,
hindering the development of one’s own personal identity.
Likewise, families that have detached cohesion tend to show
a low level of commitment and adherence among members,
where each one develops his/her own plans, without taking
into account the other members of the family.7
The circumplex model4-6 alludes to two other useful
categories in evaluating family functioning: flexibility and com-
munication. Flexibility is defined as “the ability to the system
140
para las intervenciones tanto clínicas como psicosociales en familias
con diferentes tipos de funcionamiento familiar.
Palabras clave: Funcionamiento familiar, redes de apoyo social
FACES II, escala de Calidad de Redes, Morelia.
to change its power structure, the dynamic between roles, and
the rules of family relationships in response to developing and
situational stressors.” As in the aforementioned cohesion mod-
el, there are four levels of flexibility: rigid (very low flexibility),
structured (low to moderate flexibility), flexible (moderate to
high flexibility) and chaotic (very high flexibility).
Family communication is interpreted as a modifiable
element, based on the position of families across the other
two dimensions (cohesion and adaptability); that is to say, in
changing communication styles and strategies within a fam-
ily, this will likely also change the type of cohesion and flex-
ibility of this family.
Recently, a brief 20-question scale was developed in
Spain for analyzing family functioning based on the Family
Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES II), with
strong psychometric qualities (Chronbach’s alpha of 0.89
and 0.87, respectively, for the sub-dimensions of Cohesion
and Adaptability).7
Family systems are immersed in larger systems,8 such
as social systems. For this reason one must take an ecologi-
cal approach,9 allowing us to acknowledge the influence of
the social context on family life.
This study was conducted with the objective of evalu-
ating whether there is a relationship between family func-
tioning and social support networks in a sample of families
from the city of Morelia, Michoacán, Mexico, as a basis for
allocation of useful resources for psychosocial and clinical
interventions with families.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Participants
192 adults, 17% men and 83% women, with an age range
of 21 to 70 years and an average age of 42. The number of
women who decided to participate was higher than that
of men, due to the fact that women attended more school
events than fathers, and were more willing to give their
signed consent to participate in the study. An inclusion cri-
terion was that there must be children in the family.
The families had between one and eight children, with
an average of two. 76% were married, 8.5% divorced, 5% sep-
arated, 5% single, and 3.5% were cohabitating (free union).
Regarding academic level, 15% had postgraduate degrees,
45% had bachelor’s degrees, 23% studied a technical degree,
9% completed high school, 5% completed middle school,
and 3% completed primary school only. Occupations var-
Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 2012
 Family functioning and its relationship with social support networks

ied: 26% were professionals, 24% were employees, 17% were Statistical Analysis
homemakers, 14% were teachers, 9% were merchants and
4% were students. 83% reported themselves as Catholics. An ANOVA variance analysis was conducted to compare
the averages from the social support networks with the type
Instruments and level of family functioning, while Bonferroni post hoc
test was used to identify significant differences between
To evaluate the family typologies and the types of family groups, and Spearman’s correlation was used to understand
functioning, the FACES II scale was used, which is based on the level of relationship existing between social support net-
the circumplex model proposed by Olson et al. and has been works and the type and level of family functioning. The SPSS
validated and standardized for the Mexican population.10 It social sciences statistical software was used, version 17.
contains 30 questions: 16 correspond to the cohesion dimen-
sion, and 14 correspond to adaptation, while the commu-
nication indicator is included among them. The questions RESULTS
have Likert style response reformat, consisting of five levels
ranging from “never” to “all the time.” The reliability of the Regarding cohesion, 51% of the participating families
scale in the sample for this study was .836. showed connected cohesion type, followed by bonded at
As a network of social support, participants defined the 23%, separated 18%, and 8% detached. Regarding flexibil-
way in which they perceive their organized social environ- ity, 51% of participating families showed chaotic flexibility,
ment, to receive assistance in situations of crisis. To evaluate followed by flexible at 32%, structured 11%, and 6% rigid.
this component, Nava’s Network Quality Scale11 was used, Of the 16 types of families proposed by Olson, based
which refers to the perception of emotional, instrumen- on the combination of the four possible types of cohesion
tal, and communicative assistance available to the family and four types of flexibility, only 12 types were found. 29%
through social ties or networks made up of people, groups, of participating families had a connected-chaotic family func-
and institutions in times of adverse conditions, which have tioning, followed by 20% that showed a bonded-chaotic fam-
a positive impact on the individual’s adjustment to their en- ily functioning. In third place, with 19% of participating
vironment. The original instrument is made up of 35 ques- families, was the connected-flexible family functioning. The
tions. However, the scale used was modified by López-Pe- remaining 32% were among all other types of families not
ñaloza,12 who added 10 questions, four of which have to do mentioned above, with the exception of detached-chaotic, con-
with religious support, two corresponding to support from nected-rigid, bonded-rigid and bonded-structured, for which no
extended family, and four to support from neighbors, thus family corresponded (Figure 1).
totaling 45 questions. The response format is Likert style, From the perspective of the circumplex model, the lev-
with five levels ranging from “totally agree” to “totally dis- els of family functioning are divided into four groups. 52.6%
agree,” measuring five factors: Support from friends: This re-
fers to the presence of strong and lasting friendships, based
on mutual understanding, trust, care, and shared time and Cohesion
activities. Support from family: This alludes to unity, commu- Detached Separated Connected Bonded
8% 18% 51% 23%
nication, trust, coexistence and support that exists between
Detached Bonded
members of the family, including parents, siblings, spouse chaotic chaotic
Chaotic Separated Connected
and children. Lack of support: This refers to the negative or 51% 0%
chaotic chaotic
20%
2% 29%
deficient perception of interaction with family and friends,
due to a lack of mutual understanding, lack of trust, criti- Detached Bonded
flexible
cism, fighting and violence. Support through religion: This Flexible flexible
1% 3%
32%
refers to the support and strength that faith and religious Separated
flexible
Connected
flexible
practices provide in overcoming problems. Support from
Flexibility

8% 19%

neighbors: This refers to the presence of a cordial and friend- Separated Connected
ly relationship with neighbors, resulting in offering and Structured structured structured
11% 6% 3%
providing assistance when needed. The questionnaire had Detached Bonded
structured structured
a Chronbach’s reliability coefficient of 0.81. 3% 0%

Separated Connected
Procedure Rigid rígid rígid
6% Detached 2% 0% Bonded
rigid rígid
4% 0%
Parents that agreed to participate were asked to come to
their children’s schools, and it was there that the instru- Figure 1. Types of family functioning in the sample studied accord-
ments were applied, which were self-administered. ing to the circumplex model by Olson et al.

Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 2012 141

 Medellín Fontes et al.

Networks of social support

Balanced
Moderately balanced
Mid-range
Extreme
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Moderately
Extreme Mid-range balanced Balanced
Percentage 4.7 38.6 56.2 0.05
Figure 2. Level of family functioning in the sample.
of participants evaluated their families as having a moder-
ately balanced level of functioning, with 38.6% in the average
range level, while 4.7% showed an extreme level of function-
ing (dysfunctional) and just 0.5% showed a balanced level
(functional) (Figure 2).
The perception of the level of support provided by the
different social networks is shown in Figure 3. Participants
perceived the most support from their families, followed by
friends and religious institutions, while neighborly support
they perceive as least developed. It bears mention that they
also show high scores in the dimension for lack of overall
support.
Family support networks, followed by networks of
friendships, provided more support to most family types,
with the exception of separated-rigid, detached-structured
and detached-rigid families, who perceived more support
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Religious Family Friend Neighbor Lack
support support support support of
networks networks networks networks support
Figure 3. Perception of social support in the different types of social
networks in the sample.
from friendships, followed by family networks. Families
with detached-flexible functioning tended to perceive them-
selves as having more support from religious networks and
from friends. Bonded-chaotic families perceived greater lack
of support from their networks than those with other types
of family functioning (Figure 4).
Table 1 shows the Spearman correlations found be-
tween levels of family functioning and social support net-
works. We can see that the level of family functioning had a
weak positive correlation, statistically significant, with fam-
ily support networks (r=.352, p=.01), while with the feeling
of lack of support there was a very weak negative correla-
tion, also statistically significant (r=-.270, p=.01). We also
found a weak statistically significant positive correlation be-
tween networks of family social support and the network of
social support from friends (r=.444, p.=.01), a weak correla-
tion, statistically significant, between the network of family

Types of families and social support networks

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5
Religious support networks
2.0

1.5 Family support networks

1.0
Friend support networks
0.5

0.0
Neighbor support networks
tic

tic

ed

tic

le

red

ed

id
ibl

ibl

ibl
i
xib

rig

rig
ao

ao

ao
tur

tur
ctu
x

x
fle

fle

fle

fle
ch

ch

ch
uc

uc
d

d
u

ate

he
str

str

str
d

ted

ted

d
ed

ted

Lack of support
tac
de

he
cte

ar
d

ted

d
nd

ec

ra
ra
te

he
tac
n

p
ne

De
Bo
Bo

pa
pa

Se
nn

ec

ra

tac
on

De
pa
nn
Co

Se
Se

De
Co

Co

Se

Figure 4. Types of families according to family functioning and social support networks.

142 Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 2012

 Family functioning and its relationship with social support networks

Table 1. Relationship between the types and levels of family functioning with the social support
networks

Level of
family Support networks Lack
functioning family friend Neighbor religious of support

Support networks
• family .352** -------- .444** -------- .202** .377**
• friend -------- .444** -------- .242** .329** .350**
• neighbor -------- -------- .242** -------- -------- --------
• religious -------- .202** .329** -------- -------- --------
Lack of support -.270** -.377** .350** -------- -------- --------
** Level of significant of .01
* Level of significant of 0.05.
Spearman correlation test was used for statistical analysis.

social support and the network of religious social support
(r=.202, p.=.01) and a statistically significant weak negative
correlation between the network of family social support
and feelings of lack of support (r= -.377, p=.01).
Networks of social support from friends, in addition to
correlating with networks of family social support, had very
weak but statistically significant positive correlations with
networks of support from neighbors (r= .242, p=.01), while
for religious support networks, a weak statistically signifi-
cant correlation was found (r=.329, p=.01). With the feeling
of lack of support and networks of support from friends,
there is a weak negative correlation, statistically significant
(r= -.350, p=.01).
The family support network and feelings of lack of sup-
port from social networks had a more direct correlation with
level of family functioning, while the networks of social
support from friends, neighbors and religion could be indi-
rectly related with family functioning. Figure 6 summarizes
the map of correlations between the different social support
networks in the families studied.
Of all the types of networks evaluated, statistically sig-
nificant differences were found only in the family network
scale [F(11.180)= 8.573, p<.001] and in the lack of network
support scale [F(3.188)=6.48, p<.001]. Likewise, statisti-
cally significant differences were found when contrast-
ing the levels of family functioning in the family network
[F(3.188)=10.064,p<.001] and in the lack of support from the
network [F(3.188)=6.48, p<.001].
Figure 5 shows that people that evaluated their level
of family functioning as balanced also perceived greater
balance in social support networks. Similarly, they showed
lower scores in the perception of lack of support from their
networks, while the participants that evaluated their fam-
ily functioning at an extreme level used neighborly support
networks most, followed by religious support networks.
Family support networks were the least used, and their per-
ception of lack of support from social networks was greater
than that reported by individuals that evaluated their fami-
lies with balanced functioning. In summation, the detached-
rigid families used family support networks the least,
using neighborly networks much more, while bonded-cha-
otic families used family support networks the most, and
neighborly support networks the least. However, in both
groups, the feeling of lack of support prevails, in contrast
to connected-flexible, connected-structured, separated-flex-
ible and separated-structured families, where support is re-
ceived from all social networks, and most importantly, that
support is perceived.

Level of family functioning and social support networks

3.5

3.0

2.5
Family support networks
2.0
Neighbor support networks
1.5

1.0 Friend support networks

0.5 Religious support networks

0.0
Balanced Moderately Mid-range Extreme Lack of support
balanced
Figure 5. Levels of family functioning and level of perception of support from social networks.

Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 2012 143


Family Family support
functioning   network





Friend support

Feelings  network
of lack
of support from

social networks


 
Weak correlation Religious
support network
 
Very weak correlationl
Figure 6. Relationship of family functioning with social support net-
works.
DISCUSSION
While family functioning is determined primarily by a
family’s structure, relationships with other social sup-
port networks are also important, given that, as this study
found, family functioning is related primary to the network
of family support and with the feeling of lack of support
on the part of social networks. Greater perception of fam-
ily support networks and decreased perception of feelings
of lack of support are related to better family functioning,
which coincides with the literature,1-9 thus reaffirming the
importance of family resources13 to resolve conflicts, reduce
situations caused by ongoing and/or unexpected stress, as
well as to prevent the change that can result in a crisis in the
family system.
The only social support network that is directly related
(and in a statistically significant way) to family functioning
was the family support network. Networks of friendships
are associated in turn with the religious and neighborly
support networks (Figure 6), while it is notable that greater
perception of networks of support from friends is related
to greater perception of religious and neighborly networks.
This reaffirms the concept proposed by Aquilino and Mar-
tínez8 regarding the existence of an interdependency be-
tween the different social systems, that is, a change or event
in one of the social sub-structures directly or indirectly im-
pacts the performance of other social sub-structures. For this
reason, interactions the family has with other networks of
social support also impact family functioning.
According to Olson’s circumplex model,4-6 most of the
families studied show a connected level of cohesion, where
there is considerable affective union, loyalty, fidelity and in-
terdependence between members, although leaning toward
dependency; they tend to perform activities together, they
have interests in common, and the prefer to make decisions
144
Medellín Fontes et al.
collectively. The second most frequent type of cohesion in
the families studied is bonded, described by the authors as
a style of maximum family unity, bringing them to require
fidelity and loyalty of all members, and showing a high
level of dependency on decisions made collectively. Like-
wise, this type of family shows a lack of generational limits,
where when one of its members comes to conduct activities
separately, often they are seen by the family as disloyalty,
and so collective interests are obligatory.
Many of the participants evaluated their families within

the chaotic flexibility type. This means that they are families

that show a confused environment, with an apparent lack
Neighbor
support network of leadership, random changes in roles, irregular discipline,
too many changes, inconsistently enforced rules, impulsive
decisions, and unsuccessful paternal control.
In combining the cohesion and flexibility categories
from the circumplex model of Olson et al.,5 we found that
the most common family types in Morelia were chaotic con-
nected families and chaotic bonded families. These families
tend to be united (connected families) or extremely united
(bonded families), within a change management style that is
disorganized and confused (chaotic). As suggested in prior
studies,13 the flexibility and cohesion dimensions are not in-
dependent from one another. That is to say, flexibility and
emotional ties are associated within the family system in
such way that very often, families with high levels of emo-
tional ties are also more flexible families, arriving at times
to the extreme of this dimension, which corresponds to a
chaotic environment.
Based on these high levels of cohesion and flexibility,
we can deduce that these family systems tend to be more
closed, which increases the possibility that they be resistant
to change and have greater difficulty adapting, in addition
to poor social networks.12
The vast majority of families showed a level of fam-
ily functioning that is moderately balanced, with adequate
cohesion. Flexibility was largely chaotic, which combined
situates these families, according to Olson et al.,5 at a mod-
erately functional level of functioning. Chaotic flexibility
causes high levels of anxiety and low achievement, which
can counteract the benefits of this family being part of a
community network that provides social support. High lev-
els of cohesion tend to decrease the level of permeability of
the family system. This is one of the reasons that could jus-
tify that the network of support from neighbors is the least
used social network, and that of the family is perceived as
providing the most support, which supports Valdés,14 who
points out that the family is related to the context in which
it exists, depending on the level of permeability. So, where
there is high cohesion, this may not allow access to external
support networks, such as neighbors, which is related to the
feeling of lack of support that is perceived as being high.
Even when social networks and family functioning
form part of the conceptual tools necessary for psychosocial
Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 2012
 Family functioning and its relationship with social support networks
and even clinical work with families, there are still aspects
that have been little studied in Mexico. For this reason, one
of the main contributions of this research is in expanding
our understanding of the relationship between family func-
tioning and social networks in the Mexican population, in
particular that of Morelia.
The limitations to this study include the lack of control
over certain socio-demographic characteristics of the study
population, social as social status and sex of the participants;
for this reason we suggest that in the future there me a larg-
er sample size and greater representativeness, in addition to
studying networks separated according to socio-economic
level. We also propose using quote sampling to guarantee
equal participation of men and women. Another aspect to
be improved is the use of self-applicable instruments, and
so in future research direct observation techniques could be
included, such as observational registries or in-depth inter-
views. Given that statistically significant but low correlations
were found between the variables studied, there are many
elements yet to be discovered and analyzed that could al-
low for a more precise understanding of what happens with
family functioning and social support networks, as well as
the interactions between these and other variables. To this
end, Sluzki’s proposal15 could be taken up, which includes:
size of the network, connections between members, distri-
bution of members in the different networks, geographic
distance between the people that make up networks, demo-
graphic and socio-cultural homogeneity or heterogeneity,
activities performed together, level of social control, level
of commitment or privacy of the relationship, frequency of
contact, history of the relationship, as well as the social net-
works that arise in the community, such as cultural insti-
tutions and health services. In addition to that, we suggest
performing transcultural research,16 which includes social
groups that exist within a more individualistic context and
with lower levels of cohesion, to contrast the social support
networks with their family functioning.
CONCLUSIONS
The level of family functioning and the type of family de-
fined with the circumplex model by Olson et al.5 have a pos-
itive correlation with the family support network and with
the feeling of lack of support from social networks. While
significant, this correlation is weak.
Declaration of conflict of interests: None
Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 2012
View publication stats
The predominant type of cohesion found was connect-
ed, followed by bonded, while the predominant type of flex-
ibility was chaotic. Combining both dimensions, the type of
family found most often in Morelia was the connected-cha-
otic family, followed by bonded-chaotic. The average level of
functioning found most often was moderately balanced. The
social support networks most used in these families are the
families themselves, followed by friends. To the contrary,
the networks least used are those of neighbors.
The understanding of family functioning and the social
support networks allow us to identify resources that facili-
tate the development of specific strategies for implementa-
tion of clinical and psychosocial interventions in families
with different types of family functioning.
REFERENCES
1. Hobfoll SE. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review
General Psychology 2002;6(4):307-24.
2. Velasco ML, Sinibaldi J. Manejo del enfermo crónico y su familia. Méxi-
co: Manual Moderno; 2001.
3. Minuchin S, Fishman H. Técnicas de terapia familiar. México: Paidós; 2009.
4. Olson D, McCubbin H, Barnes H, Muxen M et al. Families: What makes
them work. USA: Sage; 1989.
5. Olson DH, Russell CS, Sprenkle DH. Circumplex model of marital and
family systems: VI. Theoretical update. Fam Process 1983;22:69-83.
6. Olson DH. Circumplex model of marital and family systems. J Family
Therapy 2000;22(2):144-167.
7. Martínez A, Iraurgi L, Gladíndez E, Sanz M. Family Adaptability and
Cohesion Evaluation Scale (FACES): Desarrollo de una versión de 20 ite-
ms en español. J Clinical Health Psychology 2005;6(2):317-338.
8. Aquilino L, Martínez, P. Evaluación psicológica y psicopatológica de la
familia. España: Instituto de Ciencias para la Familia; 2003.
9. García E, Musitu G. Psicología social de la familia. España: Paidós; 2000.
10. Calleja, N. Inventario de escalas psicosociales en México 1984-2005. Uni-
versidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Facultad de Psicología, 2011.
Available at: http://planeacion.psicol.unam.mx/cake/inventario-de-
escalas. Access date: July 16, 2011.
11. Nava C, Reyes-Lagunes I, Vega CZ. La escala de calidad de red social.
Revista Psicología Social Personalidad 2001;27(2):149-159.
12. López-Peñaloza J. Resiliencia familiar ante el duelo. Tesis de Doctorado
en Psicología. México: UNAM, Facultad de Psicología, 2008.
13. Rivera-Heredia ME, Andrade P. Recursos individuales y familiares que
protegen al adolescente del intento suicida, Revista Intercontinental Psi-
cología Educación 2006;8(2):23-40.
14. Valdés AA. Familia y desarrollo. Intervenciones en terapia familiar.
México: Manual Moderno; 2007.
15. Sluzki C. La red social: Frontera de la práctica sistémica. España: Gedisa;
2002.
16. Hofstede G, Hofstede GA. Cultures and organizations. Software of the
mind. Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival. New
York: McGraw Hill; 2005.
145