EATING MEALS TOGETHER: A PERCEPTION OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING THROUGH FAMILY RITUALS AMONG TEENAGERS

EATING MEALS TOGETHER: A PERCEPTION OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING

THROUGH FAMILY RITUALS AMONG TEENAGERS

A Research

Presented to

the Faculty of Department of Psychology

Our Lady of Fatima University Q.C.

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Psychology

by:

Asnan, Rejien Marie Kind D.C

Manalo, Rickee Mae B.

Villanueva, Medalyn April R.

October 2014

Table of Contents

Page

Title Page ……………………………………………………………………………………….

i.

Recommendation

……………………………………………………………………………...ii.

Approval Sheet

……………………………………………………………………………iii.

Acknowledgement

……………………………………………………………………….iv.

Dedication

…………………………………………………………………………...v.

Table of Contents

………………………………………………………………………………..vi.

List of Tables

……………………………………………………………………………………vii.

Abstract

………………………………………………………………………………………...viii.

CHAPTER

1 THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction 1

Statement of the Problem 3

Significance of the Study 4

Scope and Limitation 5

Definition of terms 5

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

FAMILY FUNCTIONING 11

Theoretical Framework 19

Research Paradigm 22

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Design 24

Research Setting 25

Research Subject 25

Research Instrument 25

Validation of Instrument

26

4 PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA 40

5 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of findings 47

Conclusions 50

Recommendations 63

BIBLIOGRAPHY

……………………………………………………………………………………..54

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………

……58

CURRICULUM VITAE

……………………………………………………………………………….

List of Tables

Tables Page

1.1. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Demographic

Profile of the Respondents According to Gender………………………..31

1.2. Demographic Profile of the Respondents in Terms of

Family Socio-Economic Status…………………………………………….32

1.3. Number of Meals that the Respondents had with

their Families in a Day………………………………………………………33

2.1. The Perception of the Respondents towards

Family Functioning in terms of Competence…………………………….34


Family Functioning in terms of Cohesion………………………………..35


Family Functioning in terms of Conflict…………………………………...36


Family Functioning in terms of Leadership……………………………….38


Family Functioning in terms of Expressiveness………………………….39

3.1. Test of Difference in terms of Family Competence When Respondents

are Grouped According to their Demographic Profile

(Frequency of Meals)………………………………………………………40

3.2. Test of Difference in terms of Family Cohesion When Respondents



3.3. Test of Difference in terms of Family Conflict When Respondents



3.4. Test of Difference in terms of Leadership When Respondents



3.5. Test of Difference in terms of Expressiveness When Respondents



Abstract

Frequency of family meals has been said to provide good outcomes to families. As one of the well known family ritual, family meals could help the development of a child especially to teenagers in different aspects of their whole well-being. This research study entitled “Eating Meals Together: A Perception of Family Functioning through Family Rituals among Teenagers.” aims to know the respondents’ profile in terms of their gender, socio-economic status and their frequency of family meals. Also, it aims to identify the teenagers’ perceptions of family functioning in specific areas which are: Family Competence, Cohesion, Conflict, Leadership and Emotional Expressiveness. Furthermore, this study aims to know whether there is a significant difference in the teenagers’ perception towards family functioning whether they perceive their family as more cohesive and more competent when they are grouped according to their frequency of family meals. Moreover, the researchers in this study utilized Analysis of Variance (Anova Single Factor) to further determine the differences in the variables. The theories and interpretations postulated and utilized in this research are adapted and cited from Beavers and Hampson’s SFI Interpretation Guide. Furthermore, the selection of the respondents was based on the method of purposive sampling with which the research considered in the midst of gathering the participants who will undergo the research study. Likewise, the selection of the respondents was ethically and critically considered before the research proper took place. Lastly, the results drawn from the analysis of data concludes that there is no significant difference in the view or perception of the teenagers towards family functioning through family rituals.

Keywords : Family Functioning, Family Meals, Teenagers

Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

This chapter gives the readers an overview of the whole study. This

includes the introduction, statement of the problem, hypothesis, significance of

the study, the scope and delimitation and the definition of terms.

Introduction

Sitting together in one table yet didn’t talk to each other at all, holding

some gadgets seemed to be having their own worlds, living in one roof but one

wall apart. This is the reality with most of the families today. “Happy is said to be

the family which can eat onions together. They are, for the time being, separate,

from the world, and have a harmony of aspiration.” as what stated by the famous

American essayist Charles Dudely Warner (1829-1900). Families are said to be

the basic unit of the society and the first one to shape an individual but as Mom

and Dad got busier , indeed, the families today slowly falls apart because of lack

of connections among its family members.

Family mealtimes have received considerable attention in the popular

media as a barometer of family well-being. Dinnertime, they report, is an

endangered or defunct family ritual that has given way to the demands of

parents’ work and children’s extracurricular activities (RMC Research

Corporation 2005). As one of the well known family ritual, family meals could help

the development of a child especially to teenagers in different aspects of their

whole well-being. According to several studies that the researchers have read,

family meal times can also help lessen the growing population of delinquency

and substance use among teenagers. Few studies consider such factors in

assessing the link between family meals and child well-being. In particular, there

is little work controlling for aspects of family functioning that may jointly account

for the frequency of family meals and child well-being. Studies by Eisenberg and

colleagues are an exception. They find significant associations between family

meals and psychological well-being (2004) and substance use (2008) net of

family connectedness—a composite of adolescent responses to questions about

how much they feel their parents care about them and how much they feel they

can talk with their parents about problems. Most studies assessing the frequency

of family meals and child well-being lack a rich set of controls to rule out potential

confounding factors. The essence of family meals is that families have their

quality time together talking about what’s going on in their lives making it able for

parents to know how to maintain an intimate relationship towards their children

as well as to give guidance to their future adults. In general, both parents and

adolescents viewed family meals in a positive light, with parents being more

positive than adolescents. Although there were differences between the parents

and their children, responses showed that family meals are perceived positively

by both parents and adolescents, suggesting that family meals may be a useful

vehicle for enhancing family togetherness. According to the study of Neumark-

Sztainer 2010, n general, family meal frequency was also positively associated

with socio-economic status.

Moreover, this study investigates the associations between family meals

and the perceived family functioning of an individual. The researchers wanted to

explore and make a study if the frequency of family meal could affect the

perception of the teenagers towards their family functioning, specifically with the

areas of family competence, cohesion, conflict, leadership and their

expressiveness towards family members. Do the teenagers perceive their family

to be well functioning by eating meals together or do they perceive their family to

be more competent or does not have any difference at all?

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to investigate the perception of family members

towards family functioning through eating meals together.

The following specific problems will likewise be answered:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents based on :

1.1. Gender

1.2. Family Socio-economic status

1.3. How does the frequency of meals of the respondents can be

described?

2. What is the perception of the respondents towards family functioning base on

the following areas :

2.1. Competence;

2.2. Conflict;

2.3. Cohesion;

2.4. Leadership; and

2.5. Expressiveness?

3. Is there any significant difference in perception of the respondents towards

family functioning when grouped according to their frequency of family meals?

Hypothesis

Ho: There is no significant difference in perception of the respondents

towards family functioning when grouped according to their frequency of

family meals?

Significance of the Study

In our continuous evolving society and modernized way of living, making

humanity busy, family rituals seemed to be threatened. It is a struggle today for

some families to spend time together especially in eating meals where they

engage in communications making a strong connection between its family

members. The study emphasizes the “Eating Meals Together: A Perception of

Family Functioning among Selected teenagers.

As to the students, researchers seek answers to these problems in order

to know more to open the minds of the students that eating regular meals

together can help the bonding of the family. And to open the minds that students

can help through their everyday lives. To the youth, this serves as their guide to

make their family happy. They will know that eating meals together as a family

help steer kids away from risky behavior. Lastly, to every family to be informed

about the importance of having quality time together for further growth and

development of each individual. This also serves as an example to the students

and future researchers for their future researches and to explain the study of

eating meals together towards perceived family functioning.

Scope and Limitation

The researchers will be having the teenagers, specifically with ages 13-19

years old as the respondents will conduct the study in Tala High School with the

survey Questionnaires of Self-report Family Inventory II test which is composed

of 36 items that measures the perceptions of family functioning in five areas:

Competence, Conflict, Cohesion, Leadership, and Expressiveness. This

instrument is a screening device to assess a teenager's view on family

functioning. The researchers draw a sample population which was the 100

respondents. The Sampling method used in the study is the purposive sampling

method whereas the respondents were according to the criteria of the

researchers.

Definition of terms

The definition of terms aims to define the following variables and

unfamiliar terms . This includes the definition of variables and other terms being

used in the study for further understanding of the readers.

Cohesion The emotional bonding that family members have toward one

another (Olson, Russell, & Sprenkle, 1982). They defined group cohesion as the

group property that emerges from the set of bonds that exist in a group. A

cohesive group is one where a majority of the participants possess a

commitment to the group, to one another, and to the leader (Bruhn, 2009).Family

cohesion is characterized by a feeling of closeness among family members,

enjoyment of family activities, and a style of decision making in which all family

members feel involved (Olson et al.,1985).

Cohesion is one of the factors of the Self-Report Family Inventory Version

II. Cohesion defined as the closeness of a family or any individual to someone.

This will serve as a measurement on how strong the families are bonded

together.

Communication Skills is being able to communicate with others is one

of the best life skills a person can develop.

Competence It involves the ability to meet complex demands, by drawing

on and mobilizing psychosocial resources. It is a potential ability and/or a

capability function in a given situation. Competency focuses on one’s actual

performance in a situation. Competence is the ability to perform a specific task,

action or function successfully. Competencies are used to create unique

standards within disciplines and specialties (Norman 1985).

Competence is one of the factors of Self Report Family Inventory Version II.

Competence scale includes happiness, optimism, problem-solving and

negotiation skills, family love, strength of parental coalitions, emphasis on

autonomy and individuality, and responsibility.

Conflict The perception of threat, or actual occurrence of conflict, is

necessary for the initiation of conflict prevention or management measures, and

hence it is essential to address the concept of conflict before exploring how to

prevent and manage such occurrences (Swanstrom & Weissman 2005 ).

In this study, conflict is being used as a warning or the awareness of risks

or danger in a specific situation. This factor in Self Report Family Inventory

Version II is used in order to measure how the respondents is able to foresee the

existing conflict.

Emotional Intimacy is a warm and personal communication that is

sensitive to deep feelings and cares for another's state (Davis 2012).

Empathy is the "capacity" to share and understand another’s "state of

mind" or emotion. It is often characterized as the ability to “put oneself into

another’s shoes”, or in some way experience the outlook or emotions of another

being within oneself (International Journal of Caring Sciences 2008).

Expressiveness Showing emotions clearly and openly. It is spontaneous

facial, vocal, or verbal displays of emotion, frequency of emotion words in

everyday conversations, or the ability to pose emotions in ways that can be

recognized by others (Dunsmore, 2000). As members of an intimate group, each

one takes personal responsibility for his or her mixed, ambivalent thoughts and

feelings. The family thus displays flexible responses to life events and are able to

focus on their issues with goal-direction and clarity. A deep sense of emotional

security allows these families to resolve conflicts because they have a sense that

“we can work it out.” There is a sense of respect that the needs of the self, and

the needs of the group, can be resolved in a cooperative way. Instead of using

emotionally coercive tactics such as intimidation and guilt, adequate and optimal

families share power and allow for the expression of a wide range of feelings and

thoughts. Differences are welcomed as enriching everyone. Thus intimacy is

safe. Members are free to be both separate and connected ( Beavers 1990 ).

In this study, expressiveness is being used as expressing feelings of an

individual towards family members. Expressiveness was used to refer to family

members’ willingness to discuss problems and say what was on their minds.

Family Functioning is conceptualized according to organizational

principles governing interaction. Such processes involve the integration and

maintenance of the family unit and its ability to carry out essential tasks for the

growth and well-being of its members, such as the nurturance and protection of

offspring (Walsh, 1993). Defined through a variety of emotional attributes, family

governance frameworks, cognitive engagement and development characteristics,

physical health habits. Intra- familial relationships and social connectedness. Is

characterized by emotional closeness, warmth, support and security; well

communicated and consistently applied age appropriate expectations; stimulating

and educational interactions; the cultivation and modelling of physical health

promotion strategies; high quality relationships between all family members; and

involvement of family members in community activities (Pezzullo et al, 2001).

Family Functioning is one of the main variables in the study whereas it is

being defined as building of relationships in every family members and

maintaining connections through establishing activities within the families.

Family Rituals Developmental transitions provide opportunities, as well

as challenges, to negotiate routines and create meaningful rituals that can enrich

family life (Fiese, 2006). Family rituals make people “feel happier, better loved,

and more strongly a part of families.” (Harrar 2003). Family Rituals defined as the

regulation of the activities of the family members whereas it is considered as the

routines given by the member of the family specifically the parents. It is one of

the main variables that are being used in the study.

Leadership the process of influencing others to understand and agree

about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating

individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared objectives (Yuki 2006).

Leadership as one of the factors of Self Report Family Inventory Version II that is

being used in the study to measure how members of the family has the capability

in influencing others in a good manner. Leadership is defined as persuading

individuals by giving an affect with a power of an authority.

Meals Any of the regular occasions in a day when a reasonably large

amount of food is eaten, such as breakfast, lunch, or dinner. The food eaten on

regular occasions.

Perception is more than the sum of static, individual sensory inputs.

Perception clearly involves some integration and, perhaps, some interpretation of

the sensations (SAGE Publications 2009). Perception is closely related to

attitudes. Perception is the process by which organisms interpret and organize

sensation to produce a meaningful experience of the world. In other words, a

person is confronted with a situation or stimuli. The person interprets the stimuli

into something meaningful to him or her based on prior experiences. However,

what an individual interprets or perceives may be substantially different from

reality. (Lindsay & Norman, 1977).

Psychological well-being emphasize the differing challenges

confronted at various phases of the life cycle; the absence of illness, also offer

extensive descriptions of what it means to be in good psychological health (Ryff

et al 1996).

Relationships is a continuing succession of interactions between two

people that are affected by their shared past interactions and that also affect their

future interactions. (Parke et al, 2008)

Social Connectedness is one of many terms used to describe the

intricate relationship between individuals which involves the way that we relate

with others and how we see ourselves in regards to those bonds and

associations. (Smithson, 2011)

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter contains the related literatures, theoretical framework of the

study and the research paradigm that is pertinent to the research. This chapter

begins with the related literature and how appropriate and pertinent the articles

are obtained.

FAMILY FUNCTIONING

Defined through a variety of emotional attributes, family governance

frameworks, cognitive engagement and development characteristics, physical

health habits. Intra-familial relationships and social connectedness. Is

characterized by emotional closeness, warmth, support and security; well

communicated and consistently applied age appropriate expectations; stimulating

and educational interactions; the cultivation and modeling of physical health

promotion strategies; high quality relationships between all family members; and

involvement of family members in community activities (Pezzullo et al., 2001).

In general, both parents and adolescents viewed family meals in a positive

light, with parents being more positive than adolescents. Although there were

differences between the parents and their children, responses showed that family

meals are perceived positively by both parents and adolescents, suggesting that

family meals may be a useful vehicle for enhancing family togetherness . In

general, family meal frequency was positively associated with socio-economic

status

( Neumark-Sztainer et al. , 2010).

“Increased frequency of family dinners (FFD) is associated with lower

probabilities of all substance-use and running away for females; binge-drinking,

physical fights, property-destruction, stealing and running away for males; and

less marijuana use for both genders. In addition, these effects are evident even

when the empirical models control for good family connectedness, close parental

monitoring, and other potential confounders.” By providing structure, stability, and

improving family communication, eating meals together as a family is one aspect

of family life consistently associated with more positive outcomes for young

people. (Bisakha Sen 2010).

Researchers note that family meals may provide a unique context for

parents to connect with and share important information with their children .The

frequency of family meals is also likely related to the quality of family

relationships, which in turn is associated with child well-being into young

adulthood .Greater family meal frequency is indeed associated with higher quality

family relationships. Few researchers have attempted to measure what it is

specifically about family meals that may lead to improved outcomes. Possible

factors include empathy, family cohesion, communication skills, and family

attitudes (Amato & Sobolewski 2001; Musick & Meier, 2012). Researchers note

that family meals may provide a unique context for parents to connect with and

share important information with their children (Musick & Meier). Family dinners

may be part and parcel of a broader package of practices, routines, and rituals

that reflect parenting beliefs and priorities. Interventions aimed at increasing the

frequency of family meals may be successful only if they can change the family

habits that tend to go along with eating as a family (Musick & Meyer 2012.)

As noted by Musick and Meier, the routine of family meals can generate feelings

of closeness and comfort. Even when mealtimes feel hectic or disorganized, take

comfort in the fact that the simple act of regular mealtimes may be providing your

child with stability. While research on family meals is still evolving, and scholars

face challenges in indentifying the “true” effects of family meals, evidence to date

suggests that family meals do provide benefits for children and youth. In sum of

extant studies, many associations between family meals and well-being in

adolescence held up to controls for various aspects of family functioning.

In fact, less frequent family meals are generally associated with lower

socioeconomic status, maternal employment, single parenthood, and poor quality

family relationships; thus it is difficult to separate the effects that family meals

have on positive child outcomes from those of these other factors (Musick &

Meier, 2012)

Most research notes some type of improvement in child outcomes when a

family participated in at least three family meals together each week. Of course

this is not possible for all families. If not, try to substitute family dinners with

shared breakfasts, evening snacks or any similar activity that will allow your

family to gather more regularly.

Teens themselves understand the value of family dinners: nearly three-

quarters of teens think that eating dinner together with their parents is important.

Most teens (60 percent) who have dinner with their parents fewer than five nights

a week wish they could eat dinner with their parents more often. Compared to

teens who don’t talk to their parents about what’s going on in their lives at dinner,

those who do are more likely to think frequent family dinners are important and to

want to have them more often. Dinner isn’t the only time when parents can

engage with their children. Parents who aren’t able to make it to the dinner table

can take advantage of other opportunities for conversation. Wherever these

conversations occur, it’s important for parents to make talking to teens about

what’s going on in their lives routine. Teens who talk to their parents about

what’s going on in their lives at dinner are more likely to think frequent family

dinners are important than teens who don’t talk to their parents about what’s

going on in their lives during dinner. Family Dinners and Academic Performance.

Teens who report typically receiving mostly C’s or lower grades in school are

likelier to smoke, drink and use drugs compared to teens who typically receive all

A’s or A’s and B’s in school. Evidence suggests that children who take part in

family meals are less likely to be overweight, eat more healthy foods, have less

delinquency, greater academic achievement ,improved psychological well-being.

A substantial body of research has demonstrated strong associations between

the frequency of family meals and a range of positive adolescent outcomes,

including healthy body weight, psychological well-being, academic achievement,

and risk behavior avoidance (Council of Economic Advisers, 2000; Eisenberg et

al., 2004; Fulkerson et al., 2006, 2009; CASA, 2010), and positive family

interactions (Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2008; Neumark-Sztainer, Wall, Story, &

Fulkerson, 2004, Jacobs & Fiese, 2007, Fiese, Foley, & Spagnola, 2006)

(Eisenberg, Neumark-Sztainera, Shira Feldman, 2009; CASA, 2010; Council of

Economic Advisers, 2000). But the frequency of family meals is undoubtedly

related to family resources, relationships, and other characteristics that contribute

to well-being, and these may confound associations between family meals and

child outcomes. For instance, lower socioeconomic status, maternal employment,

single parenthood, and poor quality family relationships have all been linked to

less frequent family meals (CASA, 2010; Cawley & Liu, 2007; Eisenberg et al.,

2004; Fulkerson et al., 2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2003; Stewart & Menning,

2009). These factors are in turn closely associated with child well-being (Duncan,

Ziol-Guest, & Kalil, 2010; Fertig, Glomm, & Tchernis, 2009; Morrisey, Dunifon, &

Kalil, 2011; Musick & Meier, 2010; Resnick et al., 1997). Families with older

teenagers, fewer socioeconomic resources, and lower quality family relationships

have been found to eat together less frequently (CASA, 2010; Cawley & Liu,

2007; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Fulkerson et al.,2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al.,

2003; Stewart & Menning, 2009); Prior research was mixed in finding gender

differences in associations between family meals and adolescent outcomes

(e.g.,Eisenberg et al., 2004, and Fisher et al., 2007, reported stronger

associations among girls; Sen,2010, found limited gender differences and

Fulkerson et al., 2006, found no important differences).

Family meals provide a regular context for parent-child conversation and

communication, which may directly influence adolescent mental health and risk-

taking. But the frequency of family meals is also closely related to other aspects

of family resources, organization, relationships, and overall climate that

contribute to adolescent well-being. For example, families in poverty are less

likely to eat together (Neumark-Sztainer et al. 2003), and poverty is in turn

associated with multiple dimensions of child well-being (Duncan et al. 2010).

Conflict is defined as the perception of threat, or actual occurrence of

conflict, is necessary for the initiation of conflict prevention or management

measures, and hence it is essential to address the concept of conflict before

exploring how to prevent and manage such occurrences (Swanstrom &

Weissman 2005 ).

The discussion assumes that family time is quality time. For some

families, shared time is another opportunity for conflict. Indeed, observational

studies of mealtime suggest that effective affect management, interpersonal

involvement, and communication in families relate to child health. The families

that do sit down to meals together may be more likely to be families that get

along and thus contribute to the positive relations presented in this study, in both

the short-term and long-term . However, there is emerging evidence to suggest

that mealtime interactions that include positive forms of communication are not

solely markers of overall family functioning but may represent a unique

contribution to children’s health and well-being Shared family meals may act as a

protective factor for many nutrition-related health problems during childhood and

adolescence. Children and adolescents in families who share meals three or

more times per week are more likely to be in a normal weight range and have

healthier eating patterns than those who share family meals less frequently.

Frequency. Researchers have found varying benefits based on the frequency of

weekly family meal times (i.e, low=0-2, medium=3-4, and high=5-7 meals) Most

studies have found that medium and high levels (i.e., 3 or more days per week)

of frequent meals yield the most positive benefits for children (Hammons, A. J., &

Fiese, B. H. 2011).

As a defined field of study, conflict resolution started in the 1950s and

1960s.This was at the height of the Cold War, when the development of nuclear

weapons and the conflict between the superpowers seemed to threaten human

survival. A group of pioneers from different disciplines saw the value of studying

conflict as a general phenomenon, with similar properties whether it occurs in

international relations, domestic politics, industrial relations, communities or

families or between individuals (Bercovitch et al., 2009).

Increased frequency of all family meals have been associated with many

aspects of adolescent health including positive impacts on vocabulary and

intellectual development, Furthermore ,girls who ate with their parents more often

in Study Years 1 and 3 exhibited higher levels of family cohesion and problem-

and emotion-focused coping in Years 7/8, even after adjusting for these

mediators measured concurrently with family meals (Years 2/3). This finding

suggests that frequent family meals foster closer family ties and may be helpful in

teaching children coping skills. Our data are consistent with Fulkerson, Neumark-

Sztainer, and Story (2006), who found associations between a positive

atmosphere and frequency of family meals, suggesting that family meals may

enhance family communication and provide good role modelling that is important

because as a YA’s age and scheduling become issues, YAs may not be at family

dinners as frequently, however, fostering dyad communication at family dinners

may be an important component to maintaining FDF into adolescence. As the

work of family scholars suggests, the family table, like the broader household, is

a potential arena of conflict (Fulkerson et al., 2011)

It was also hypothesized that greater frequency of family meals would be

positively associated with greater family cohesion in adolescents, and that the

association between family meal frequency and individual food choice would be

partially mediated by family cohesion. However, previous longitudinal research

suggests that frequency of family meals predicts improved family cohesion over

time. These findings suggest that family meals may have a positive impact on all

family members, and not just adolescents. However, evidence for the mediating

role of family cohesion for this relationship was lacking. It was hypothesized that

frequency of family meals was positively associated with perceived family

cohesion, which in turn would be related to healthier dietary intake (Welsh et

al.,2010).

For families characterized by poor quality relationships, gathering regularly

around the table may produce another site for conflict thereby dampening,

eliminating, or reversing any good that may come of the family meal (Wilk, 2010).

Planned family meals also promote regular meal times and routines that

encourage less snacking between meals (Fruh et al. 2011).

Yuki (2006) defines leadership as “the process of influencing others to

understand and agree about what needs to be done and how to do it, and the

process of facilitating individual and collective efforts to accomplish shared

objectives.”

Leadership is defined as a complex process and we have serious

reservations over the extent to which a set of standards, qualities or

competencies can ever fully capture the nature of what makes some

leaders/organisations successful and others unsuccessful ( Bolden, R. et

al.,2003 ).

The term Family Leadership is based on the premise that all family

members are of equal value and that family dynamics change as children move

from one age and stage to another . Family Leadership is based on the premise

that families are the experts in their own lives and demands that the main

function of support agencies is to increase their resilience. Brothers and sisters

usually know each other really well and are able to put forward a different view to

the parental perspective (Murray 2011).

The diversity of disciplinary and organisational members means that the

full range of individual, family, social, economic and environmental factors known

to affect the development of children and young people are integrated into new

knowledge (Sanson 2008).

Consistent with this notion, aspects of the family environment may be

seen as a package of family features that influence youth development, with

shared meals and other family processes reinforcing each other (Furstenberg,

2011).

Theoretical Framework

For the present study of the perception of family functioning among

teenagers through eating meals together, the researchers made use of Social

Identity Theory by Henri Tajfel to support this study. This only shows that in every

situation that every family has will be the result of everyone’s behavior. This will

also cultivate the child’s attitude and behavior depending on what the child

observed by his or her parents. Same with eating meals together, when a parent

or any members of the family discusses some matter during mealtime like doing

usual but proper ritual the family possesses , the child itself as an individual will

develop his own beliefs about themselves to others. This will motivate them to

know more about the world, and to be understood by other people. As what the

drive theory states, the more the family is present, the more the child is motivated

and that will serve as a positive response towards the functioning of family.

Family assistance may provide a sense of purpose and belonging for

children, and this sense of meaning may help them cope with the potential

challenges of providing assistance to the family (Fuligni, Alvarez, Bachman, &

Ruble, 2005). Likewise, a social identity perspective suggests that family

assistance can be beneficial for youths’ wellbeing (Fuligni & Flook, 2005). The

family is the first and primary social group to which children belong. According to

social identity theory, identifying with a social group enhances one’s willingness

to support and assist that group, especially if one feels valued and accepted by

the group (Hogg, 2003). Feeling like a valued member of a group has been

associated with better emotional well-being

(Hogg, 2003). Thus, assisting the family may increase one’s sense of connection

to the family, which can provide adolescents with a sense of support and

structure to help them deal with the challenges associated with being a teenager

in U.S. society (Hardway & Fuligni, 2006).

The group mind theory also describes how a group continuity depends in

part on the group being an important idea in the mind of its members, the for

boundaries and structures in which differentiation and specialization of function

could occur ; and the importance of customs and habits, so that member to

member relation could be fixed and defined (McDougall 1920). In The Group

Mind, William McDougall identified what he called "the principles of collective

psychology" and explained how basic human drives, as natural inherited

instincts, form the basis of human conduct. According to McDougall, the cohesive

nature of various groups rests upon the intrinsic collective mentality of its

individual members.

A more scientific and empirical approach to the group dynamics, was

ushered in during the 1940’s by kurt lewin, whose field theory psychologist (

Lewin 1951) guided a generation of researchers, industrial psychologist, group

therapist, and agents of social change between individuals and their

environment. Another of Lewins important discoveries was that group

discussions are superior to individual instruction or lecturing for changing ideas

and behavior. These findings suggest that family meetings are more effective

than separate meetings with individual. The field theory is the "proposition that

human behavior is the function of both the person and the environment. For Kurt

Lewin, behaviour was determined by totality of an individual’s situation. In his

field theory, a field is defined as the totality of coexisting facts which are

conceived of as mutually interdependent (Lewin 1951: 240). Individuals were

seen to behave differently according to the way in which tensions between

perceptions of the self and of the environment were worked through. The whole

psychological field, or life space, within which people acted had to be viewed, in

order to understand behavior. Within this individuals and groups could be seen in

topological terms (using map-like representations). Individuals participate in a

series of life spaces (such as the family, work, school and church), and these

were constructed under the influence of various force vectors (Lewin 1952).

Figure 1. Theoretical Framework

Research Paradigm

The figure 1 shows the theories used in the researcher’s study.

This study aims to know the perception of the teenagers towards family

functioning through eating meals together. Data gathered from the

research was processed and carried out in survey questionnaires then

distributed to the selected teenagers. The outcome of the study is that a

teenager’s meal together with family affects their perception of family

functioning and that Frequency of eating meals together increases family

cohesion and decreases conflict among the family.

Family Rituals

Teenagers' Perception towards family functioning

Family Functioning : -Competence,

conflict , cohesion, leadership and

expressiveness.

Figure 2. Research Paradigm Table

The figure 2 presents the input of the study which includes the statement

of the problem, the Process which is the instrument to be used to gather data as

well as the output or the outcome of the study and the researcher’s proposed

program.

INPUT

• STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

•1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents based on :

•Gender

•Socio-economic status :

•1.3.1. 5,000 – 10,000/ month

•1.3.2. 15,000-20,000/month

•1.3.3. 25,000 and above /month

•2. How does the frequency of family meals of the respondents can be described?

•Once a day;

•Twice a day;

•Thrice a day;

•Every Weekends;

•Never?

•3. What is the perception of the respondents towards family functioning base on the following areas as measured by Family Inventory II of Beavers 1990:

•2.1. Competence;

•2.2. Conflict;

•2.3. Cohesion;

•2.4. Leadership; and

•2.5. Expressiveness?

•4.Is there any significant difference in the perception of the respondents towards family functioning when grouped according to their frequency of family meal?

PROCESS

•The researhers made use of a Self-report Family Inventory Test questionnaire which was based on the following studies : Beavers, W. R., & Hampson,R.B.(1990).Successful families: Assessment and intervention. New York: Norton.

•Each questionnaire consists of 36 items :19 items for the domain of competence, 12 items for conflict, 5 for cohesion , 3 items for leadership and 5 for expressiveness.

OUTPUT

•OUTCOME OF THE

STUDY:

•(1) A teenager's meal

together with family affects

their functioning as a

family member,

(2)Frequency of eating

meals together makes

cohesion and have less

conflict among the family.

•PROPOSED PROGRAM:

(1) to distribute pamphlets

to families of each

household or hold a

seminar or family

orientation for both the

teenagers and families to

become aware how eating

meals together increases

family cohesion and

decreases conflict among

family members. (2) to

hold a symposium for the

general public in order for

others to be aware of how

eating meals together with

family affects family

functioning.

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter is bound to discuss the research method to be used, variety

of procedure made, and the tabulation and analysis of data gathered. The

population and the determined sample size, the research instrumentation and the

statistical treatment of data to be followed in order to attain the needed

information to establish this study. It discusses the entire route of preparation of

the study and drawn conclusion from the gathered data.

Research Design

In the field of the study, the researchers will be using the descriptive

method which is a factually grounded or informative study rather than normative .

Methods that yield descriptions of behavior but not necessarily causal

explanations. The descriptions were yielded through the instrument of Beavers

and Hampson 1990 for a measure of perceptions of family functioning in five

areas: Health/Competence, Conflict, Cohesion, Leadership, and Expressiveness.

In this research, purposive sampling method was used whereas the

respondents were according to the criteria of researchers. Moreover, the study

aim to determine the perception of the teenagers, specifically, the students of

Tala High School towards family functioning through family rituals; specifically in

eating meals together.

Research Setting

To be able to complete the number of respondents, the study was

conducted in Tala High School located in Yakal Street Tala Caloocan City

wherein the respondents answered the questionnaires inside their respective

classrooms. To be specific, we surveyed simultaneously first, in 3rd year class,

secondly, to the two sections of 4th year high school to complete the 100

respondents. The researchers surveyed on three corresponding sections.

Research Subject

The respondents of this study were teenagers, specifically, from 13-19

years old, both male and females. The teenagers were students of Tala High

School specifically, 3rd year and 4th year high school.

Research Instrument

In achieving the objectives of the study, the researchers used an

instrument from the study of Beaver’s and Hampson (1990) which is the Self-

Report Family Inventory II. The instrument serves as a screening device to

assess the overall five areas: Health/ Competence that has a mean of 19 items;

Conflict has 12; Cohesion has 5; Leadership has 3; and Expressiveness that has

5 items. the scale descriptors are 1 = YES: Fits our family very well, 3 = SOME:

Fits our family some, and 5 = NO: Does not fit our family. The last two items have

response scales specific to the items. Lower scores represent greater family

competence.

Competence, Mean of 19 items. A lower score reflects greater global family

competence. Themes addressed in this scale include happiness, optimism,

problem-solving and negotiation skills, family love, strength of parental coalitions,

emphasis on autonomy and individuality, and responsibility.

Conflict, Mean of 12 items. A lower score reflects less overt unresolved family

conflict, fighting, blaming, and arguing, and more negotiation and acceptance of

personal responsibility in resolving conflicts.

Cohesion, Mean of 5 items. A lower score reflects greater family closeness.

Leadership, Mean of 3 items. A lower score reflects strong and consistent

patterns of adult leadership in the family.

Expressiveness, Mean of 5 items. A lower score reflects greater feelings of

closeness and more expression of positive feelings, warmth, and caring.

Validation of Instrument

The scale authors reported test-retest correlation ranges for 1- to 3-month

periods as follows: Family Health/Competence, .84-.87; Conflict, .50-.59;

Cohesion, .50-.70; Leadership, .41-.49; and Expressiveness, .79-.89. Validity is

demonstrated through correlations of SFI scores with scores from other

assessments of family functioning, including the Family Environment Scale, the

Family Assessment Device, FACES II, and FACES III. Additional information

about reliability and validity of the SFI can be found in Beavers & Hampson

(1990), and in the scoring information from the family assessment manual that

Hampson mailed to us on August 2014.

Data Gathering Procedure

As an initial preparation of data gathering, the researchers seek for the

permission of the school principal having signed the approval letter. After

securing approbation, the researchers gathered data about the topic. Then, the

researchers distributed survey questionnaires to measure the respondent’s

family functioning as well as their demographic profile in terms of family socio-

economic status and frequency of meals together with their family. The

researchers will ask the permission of the respondents to participate on the

study. The following measures will be given to the following respondents after

confirming to participate in the study, having expounded the terms by which the

researchers presented. The researchers will use the Self-Report Family

Inventory: Version II (SFI) by Beavers, W.R., & Hampson, R. B. (1990) to the

respondents and supply the given instructions for the selected participants of the

study of the said test.

All in all, the researchers will collect the data by means of a survey

questionnaire that encompasses the basic information part which was the source

of the demographic profile information of the respondents, the frequency of family

that eats together and the Self Report Family Inventory: Version II (SFI)

Statistical Treatment

The gathered data were used to determine the respondent’s gender,

socioeconomic status and frequency of family meals.

Mean (or average) a set of data values is the sum of all the data values divided

by the number of data values (Higgenbottom, 2014). That is:

Symbolically,

Where (read as ‘ ) is the mean of the set of values.

∑ is the sum of all the values, and

is the number of values

Percentage. It is used to determine the sample size and the percentage of

distribution of the demographic profile of the respondents according to their

gender, family socioeconomic status and frequency of family meals.

Where :

f = frequency

n = sample size

Frequency distribution. It is used to determine the data being presented in

terms of the demographic profile of the respondents such as gender and

family socioeconomic status.

Standard Deviation is the most common measure of variability, measuring

the spread of the data set and relationship of the mean to the rest of the data.

If the data closes to the mean, indicating that the responses are fairly uniform,

and then the standard deviation will be small. Conversely, if the data points

are far from the mean, indicating that there is a wide variance in the

responses, then the standard deviation will be large. If all the data values are

equal, then the standard deviation will be zero. The standard deviation is

calculated using the following formula (Blakstad, 2008).

∑(X-M)2

S2 = n-1

Where ∑ = sum of

X = Individual score

M = Mean of all scores

N = Sample Size (number of scores)

ANOVA Single Factor is a statistical test which analyzes variance. It is

helpful in making comparison of two or more means which enables

researchers to draw various results and predictions about two or more sets of

data. It has been achieved by subdividing the total sum of squares. Anova

test includes One-way Anova, Two-way Anova or Multiple Anova depending

upon the type and arrangement of the data. The purpose is to test for

significant differences between class means, and this is done by analyzing

the variances. One- way Anova has the following test statistics:

Where:

F = Anova Coefficient

MST = Mean Sum of the squares due to treatment

MSE = mean sum of squares due to error.

Formula for MST is given below:

2

Chapter 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter contains the tabulation, analysis and interpretation of all data

gathered through the questionnaires as well as the supporting studies.

1. Demographic Profile of the Respondents

Table 1.1

Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Demographic Profile of the

Respondents According to Gender

Demographic Profile %

Female 64 64

Male 36 36

Total : n=100 100

The table 1.1 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of the

respondents according to gender. There were (36) males and (64) females

having the total of 100 respondents.

The results above only shows that most of the respondents in Tala High

school, both male and female were eating together with their family.

Table 1.2

Demographic Profile of the Respondents in Terms of Family Socio-

Economic Status

Family Income: %

P 60,000 and above 25 25

P 45,000-P59,000 11 11

P 30,000 - P44,000 14 14

P 15,000- P 29,000 22 22

P 15,000 and below 28 28

Total : n=100 100

The table 1.2 shows the demographic profile of the respondents in Tala

High School in terms of family socioeconomic status. As what is being shown

above, only (0.25%) of the respondents got the highest family income of P

60,000 and above. The (0.11%) gets P 45,000 – P 59,000 income while (0.14%)

of other respondents gets P30,000-P 40,000. The (0.22%) of respondents gets P

15,000- P29,000, then the remaining (0.28%) of the respondents has P 15,000

and below income. Most of the respondents’ annual family incomes fall on

P15,000 and below.

The yielding result shows that the respondents are of lower family

Socioeconomic Status. In this case, less frequency of meals is associated with

the teenagers’ family Socioeconomic Status.

In general, both parents and adolescents view family meals in a positive

way but parents view it more positively. Although there are differences between

the parents and their children, responses show that family meals are perceived

positively by both of them. This suggests that family meals may serve as a useful

vehicle for enhancing family togetherness. In general, family meal frequency was

positively associated with socio-economic status.

( Neumark-Sztainer et al. , 2010).

For instance, lower socioeconomic status, maternal employment, single

parenthood, and poor quality family relationships have all been linked to less

frequent family meals (CASA, 2010; Cawley & Liu, 2007; Eisenberg et al., 2004;

Fulkerson et al., 2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al., 2003; Stewart & Menning, 2009).

These factors are in turn closely associated with child well-being (Duncan,

Ziol-Guest, & Kalil, 2010; Fertig, Glomm, & Tchernis, 2009; Morrisey, Dunifon, &

Kalil, 2011; Musick & Meier, 2010; Resnick et al., 1997). Families with older

teenagers, fewer socioeconomic resources, and lower quality family relationships

have been found to eat together less frequently (CASA, 2010; Cawley & Liu,

2007; Eisenberg et al., 2004; Fulkerson et al.,2006; Neumark-Sztainer et al.,

2003; Stewart & Menning, 2009).

Table 1.3

Number of Meals that Respondents had with their Families in a Day

Frequency %

Once 48 48

Twice 25 25

Thrice 22 22

Never 5 5

Total : n=100 100

The table 1.3 presents the frequency or number of meals that respondents

have with their families in a day. There are (0.48%) of the respondents who eat

with their family once a day, (0.27%) for twice a day, and (0.22%) of the

respondents eats thrice a day with their family.

As what is shown above, most of the respondents eat only once a day

with their families, so it is evident that most of the adolescents eat less frequently

with their families. Therefore, students with families of low income also have less

frequent meals. This also shows that most of males and females in the school

are eating together with their family.

In fact, less frequent family meals are generally associated with lower

socioeconomic status, maternal employment, single parenthood, and poor quality

family relationships; thus it is difficult to separate the effects that family meals

have on positive child outcomes from those of these other factors (Musick &

Meier, 2011)

2. The Perception of the Respondents Towards Family Functioning

Table 2.1

The Perception of the Respondents Towards Family Functioning

in Terms of Competence

Competence %

Less Competent 39 39

More Competent 61 61

Ave: 43.52 Total: 100

n= 100 More Competent This table shows that 61% of the respondents are more likely to be

competent within the family than the 39% says who are not likely to be

competent within the household. This table also shows the average mean score

of the respondents according to the factor domain given by the SFI is 43.52. This

means that most of the perception of the respondents towards family

competence goes on a more competent direction.

This result falls to Mid-range families. This means that most of the

respondents are relatively concerned with control and overt power differences

but more likely ambivalently handled by repression or projection by the other.

These families are characterized by being functional but having vulnerable

children. Vulnerable children are easily hurt or harmed physically, mentally or

emotionally and open to attack, harm, or damage. Family members do not have

boundary problems. Although there are frequent projections, the family roles

allow for rebuttal, and invasion of one member’s inner space by another is

resisted.

Table 2.2

The Perception of the Respondents Towards Family Functioning

in Terms of Cohesion

Cohesion %

Less Cohesive 74 74

More Cohesive 26 26

Ave: 12.84 Total: 100

n= 100 Less Cohesive

The table shows that 74% of the respondents are less cohesive while 26%

of other respondents are more cohesive within the family. It also shows in this

table the average mean score of the respondents according to the factor domain

given by the SFI is 12.84 .

This result falls to Mid-range families. This means that most of the

respondents are relatively concerned with control and overt power differences

but more likely ambivalently handled by repression or projection by the other.

These families are characterized by being functional but having vulnerable

children. Vulnerable children are easily hurt or harmed physically, mentally or

emotionally and open to attack, harm, or damage. Family members do not have

boundary problems. Although there are frequent projections, the family roles

allow for rebuttal, and invasion of one member’s inner space by another is

resisted.

Table 2.3

The Perception of The Respondents Towards Family Functioning

in Terms of Conflict

Conflict %

Less Conflict 58 58

More Conflict 42 42

Ave: 31.93 Total: 100

n= 100 Less Conflict

In this table, it shows that 58% of the respondents are less likely to have

conflict in the family, contrary to the 42% of the respondents who has more

conflict within the family. This table also shows the mean average of the

respondents according to the factor domain given by the SFI is 31.93.

According to the SFI interpretation manual , the respondents fall on mid-

range type of families which means that their ambivalence is frequently handled

by denying one half of a pair of strong feelings and using repression or projection

for the other sibling. Thus, teenagers tend to repress strong emotions to avoid

conflict in the family. Examples are stated in the interpretation guide.

In this case, based on the table results, most of the respondents are

having less conflict, less meals within their family. Factors include less talks and

discussion within the family.

According to a research, discord at the dinner table is rarely seen, discussed,

or analyzed (Wilk 2010).

In the research of NCASA, 2005 (North Carolina Association of School

Administrators), as being stated by Wilk, 37% say the TV is usually on during family dinners

and 14% admit that there is not much talking.

Table 2.4


in Terms of Leadership

Leadership %

Lesser Leadership 50 50

Greater Leadership 50 50

Ave: 7.43 Total: 100

n= 100 Greater or lesser

Leadership

This table shows that 50% of the respondents has greater leadership

while 50% of the results given shows lesser leadership within the family. It also

shows in this table the average mean score of the respondents according to the

factor domain given by the SFI is 7.43.

As what the interpretation guide states, as characterized by mid-range

type of families, the respondents show great concern for rules and authority and

attempted to use control by intimidation, however, they do not expect their efforts

to be successful. Therefore, authority is being demonstrated.

A less ideologically loaded approach suggests that the family dinner table

is a place where public and private politics intersect, where the connections

between gender and authority can be seen in all their pervasive and

encompassing complexity (see Lakoff, 1996) as being cited by Wilk 2010.

Furthermore, Family meals are often the setting where imbalances of

power based on age and gender are forced to the surface, events where

authority is demonstrated and roles are enforced, where some people serve and

obey while others make choices and arbitrary decisions, in other words, where

individuals confront the power embedded in daily discourse, bodily habits, and

the routines of everyday life (Neumann, 1996) cited by Wilk 2010.

Table 2.5


in Terms of Expressiveness

This table shows that 53% of the respondents are less expressive while

47% of the respondents show expressiveness within the family. It also shows in

this table, the average mean score of the respondents according to the factor

domain given by the SFI is 7.43.

This result falls to Mid-Range family which shows that respondents are

more likely covert with their expression of hostility. However, there is a possibility

to express their warmth and caring that are anxiety-provoking. This also means

that emotional expressiveness could unleash negative feelings might as well

thinks people are basically antisocial and therefore their control efforts are

believed to be essential.

Some factors affecting teenagers’ expressiveness are due to their human

development. Young adolescents might sulk a lot, not knowing how to

adequately express their feelings. With little or no provocation, they might blow

Expressiveness %

Less Expressive 53 53

More Expressive 47 47

Ave: 7.43 Total: 100

n= 100 Less Expressive

up at their parents or siblings, a response that might reflect the defense

mechanism of displacing their feelings onto another person. Indeed,

environmental experiences may contribute more to the emotions of adolescence

than hormonal changes.

According to the instrument’s author’s research with his co-researcher,

teenagers, with ages 13 and higher are less likely to express themselves. In

summary, emotional expressiveness was rated as greatest at age 10, lowest at

age 16 and at an intermediate level currently (Hampson and Hyman 1994).

3. Significant difference between Frequency of Family Meals in

Family Functioning.

Table 3.1

Test of Difference in terms of Family Competence When Respondents are

Grouped According to their Demographic Profile (Frequency of Meals)

Frequency of Meals

No. of Respondents Variance

F-TEST CV DECISION INTERPRETATION

Never 5 504.3

0.38 2.70 ACCEPT

HO THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT

DIFFERENCE Once a day 30 83.42989

Twice a day 27 121.3362

Thrice a day 38 63.28094

Note: Result of Anova for Competence

Level of significance : 0.05

If the critical value is greater than to the significance level, then the null

hypothesis is accepted and the outcome is said to be statistically not significant.

Table 3.1 shows that the results for the frequency of family meals in terms

of Family Competence where the calculated F-test is 0.38 that falls on the Critical

Value of 2.70 which is greater than the Alpha (α) level 0.05. This means that the

null hypothesis is being accepted. Thus, there is no significant difference

between frequency of family meals of the respondents and their perceived family

competence.

The result as seen in the table, frequency of eating meals with their family

could not really determine their family’s competence. Though the family eats

once, or thrice, the family could still be competent in facing challenges in life.

Consistent with this notion, aspects of the family environment may be

seen as a package of family features that influence youth development, with

shared meals and other family processes reinforcing each other (Furstenberg,

2011).

Table 3.2

Test of Difference in terms of Family Cohesion When Respondents are Grouped

According to their Demographic Profile (Frequency of Meals)

Frequency of Meals



Never 5 45.7

0.3 2.7 ACCEPT


DIFFERENCE

Once a day 30 5.895402

Twice a day 27 9.977208

Thrice a day 38 8.958748

Note : Result of Anova for Cohesion


In this table, the measures of variance yielded similar results and their

ratio. The F-ratio approximates 0.30 which falls on the critical value of 2.70 which

greater than the Alpha (α) level 0.05. This table only means that the null

hypothesis came from the same population cannot be rejected. Thus, the null

hypothesis is accepted which means there is no significant difference.

The results shown above states that frequency of family meals together

does not determine their family cohesiveness. Meaning, the family could be more

or less cohesive regardless of how much their family see each other. Some

families also become less cohesive due to conflict.

It was also hypothesized that greater frequency of family meals would be

positively associated with greater family cohesion in adolescents, and that the

association between family meal frequency and individual food choice would be

partially mediated by family cohesion. However, previous longitudinal research

suggests that frequency of family meals predicts improved family cohesion over

time. These findings suggest that family meals may have a positive impact on all

family members, and not just adolescents. However, evidence for the mediating

role of family cohesion for this relationship was lacking (Welsh et al.,2010).

Table 3.3

Test of Difference in terms of Family Conflict When Respondents are Grouped


Frequency of Meals



Never 5 127.2

1.14 2.7 ACCEPT


DIFFERENCE

Once a day 30 90.5057471

Twice a day 27 110.615385

Thrice a day 38 62.9935989

Note : result of anova for conflict


Based on the results above, the F-test is 1.14 which falls on the critical

value of 2.70 which is greater than the Alpha (α) level 0.05. Therefore, the null

hypothesis is also accepted. This interprets that there is no significant difference

in frequency of family meals and the respondent’s Family Conflict.

As what the results show above, it states that there is no significant

difference whether the respondents eats once, twice, thrice or never could not

affect their family functioning in terms of conflict. Therefore, the family could have

more or less conflict regardless of how frequent their family eats together. Meal

time is an opportunity for families either to clear things up to avoid conflict or to

make things right by scolding and giving corrections to their family members

resulting to conflict.

The discussion assumes that family time is quality time. For some

families, shared time is another opportunity for conflict (Hammons, A. J., & Fiese,

B. H. 2011).

Table 3.4

Test of Difference in terms of Leadership When Respondents are Grouped


The table shows that the calculated F-test is 0.65. This result falls at the

Critical Value of 2.70 which is greater than the Alpha (α) level 0.05. This

interprets that there is no significant difference between frequency of family

meals and the respondent’s perception towards leadership in the family.

The results above state that the respondents have greater or lesser

perceived Leadership in the family regardless of their frequency of meals

together. This means that parents and other family members could still

communicate with one another to accomplish some tasks and objectives within

the family. This is also concerned in parental leadership and directive leadership

versus rigid control in the family. Directive leadership is characterized by setting

Frequency of Meals



Never 5 14.2

0.65 2.7 ACCEPT


DIFFERENCE

Once a day 30 17.9954023

Twice a day 27 4.73789174

Thrice a day 38 14.8485064

Note : Result of anova for Leadership Level of significance : 0.05

clear objectives and rules for your subordinates and ensuring that your

expectations and directions are clearly defined and understood by your

subordinates while rigid families have trouble when faced with changing or

difficult family issues. This means that the respondents’ families may be inclined

to both type of leadership.

Table 3.5

Test of Difference in terms of Expressiveness When Respondents are Grouped


This table shows the frequency of family meals of the respondents and

their Expressiveness towards their family members. As what is shown above, the

result of the F-Test which is 1.71 also falls on the Critical Value of 2.70. This only

means that the null hypothesis is also being accepted.

All the results show clearly that there is no significant difference in

frequency of family meals and the respondent’s family functioning in terms of

Expressiveness. Therefore, frequency of family meals, whether the respondents

eats once, twice, thrice or never could not increase nor decrease their

Frequency of Meals



Never 5 14.8

1.71 2.7 ACCEPT

HO THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE

Once a day 30 13.7747126

Twice a day 27 12.1025641

Thrice a day 38 11.6991465

Note : Result of anova for expressiveness


expressiveness towards their family members regardless of their frequency of

meals.

Chapter 5

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings based on the results and

the researchers’ conclusions and recommendations.

Summary of findings

This study was conceptualized to know the perceived family functioning of

teenagers through family rituals, specifically in eating meals together.

1. In terms of the demographic profile of the respondents was according to their

gender, socioeconomic status and how does the frequency of meals of the

respondents can be described, the researchers have summed up the

following :

1.1. Based on the gathered data, most of the respondents are

between ages 14-17 years old and there are (36) males and

(64) females having the total of 100 respondents.

1.2. In terms of the respondents’ Family Socio-economic status,

only (0.25%) of the respondents got the highest family

income of P 60,000 and above, also, (0.11%) that have P

45,000 – P 59,000 while (0.14%) of the other respondents

got P30,000 – P 40,000 while (0.22%) for respondents got P

15,000- P29,000 then the remaining (0.28%) for the

respondents that have P 15,000 and below income. Most of

the respondent’s yearly family incomes fall on P15,000 and

below.

1.3. In terms of the respondents’ frequency of meals together

with their family, there are (0.48%) of the respondents that

eats with their family once in a day, (0.27%) for twice a day,

while (0.22%) of the respondents eats thrice in a day with

their family.

2. The findings of the researchers according to the teenagers’ perception of

towards family functioning base on the following areas :

2.1. This table shows that 61% of the respondents are more

likely to be competent within the family than the 39% says

that the respondents are not likely to be competent within the

household. In this table, it also shows the average mean

score of the respondents according to the factor domain

given by the SFI is 43.52. This means that most of the

perception of the respondents towards family competence

goes on more competent direction. When grouped according

to their frequency of meals, Family Competence were not

significantly different having the results of (F (0.38) = 2.70, p

< .05).

2.2. According to the results, 74% of the respondents are less

cohesive while 26% of the other respondents answered that

their family are more cohesive, given the means average

score of (SFI) 12.84. Therefore, most of the respondents’

perception towards their family cohesiveness was lesser.

The results yielded (F (0.30) = 2.70, p <.05) shows that null

hypothesis was being accepted. This means that there is no

significant difference in their family functioning.

2.3. In the conflict domain, it shows that 58% of the respondents

are less likely to have conflict in the family, contrary to the

42% of the respondents that has more conflict within the

family. This table also shows the mean average of the

respondents according to the factor domain given by the SFI

is 31.93. This means that that most of the respondents see

less conflict within their family. The results were (F (1.14) =

2.70,p < .05) means that there is no significant difference

towards family functioning when grouped according to their

frequency of meals.

2.4. In terms of leadership within the family, 50% of the

respondents have greater leadership while 50% of the

results given show lesser leadership within the family. It also

shows in this table the average mean score of the


is 7.43. The results, (F (0.65) = 2.70, p < 0.5) shows that the

value was greater than the alpha level 0.05. This means that

there is no significant difference demonstrated by the results.

2.5. In terms of the respondents’ expressiveness, 53% of the

respondents are less expressive while 47% of the

respondents shows expressiveness within the family. It also

shows in this table, the average mean score of the


is 7.43. Analysis of the results shows the result of (F (1.71) =

2.70, p < .05). This only means that the null hypothesis is

also being accepted that there is no significant difference

when grouped according to their frequency of family meals in

terms of the respondents’ expressiveness towards their

family members.

3. All the results show < .05 which means that null hypothesis that there is no

significant difference in frequency of family meals and the respondents’

perception on family functioning. Therefore, frequency of family meals,

whether the respondents eats once, twice, thrice or never could not increase

nor decrease their perception of family functioning towards their family

members.

Conclusions

1. In terms of the respondents’ demographic profile, the researchers have

concluded the following :

1.1. In terms of their demographic, the researchers’ respondents are

teenagers. With this, the researchers conclude that most of the

respondents or teenagers in Tala High School, especially females,

eat meals together with their family.

1.2. In this study, in terms of frequency of family meals, the researchers

note that most of respondents, both male and female eat meals

with their family only once a day. Thus, most of the teenagers eat

less and meet less frequent with their family.

1.3. In terms of family socio-economic status, most of the respondents

are of low family income. Therefore, the researchers conclude that

the respondents having less frequent meals with their family and

this fact is associated with low socio-economic status. Moreover,

family income is a factor affecting less frequent meals with their

family.

2. The researchers’ conclusions towards the respondents’ perception

towards family functioning towards SFI domains are the following :

2.1. Based on the yielded results towards respondents’ perception

about their family functioning in terms of family competence, most

of the teenagers view their families as being more competent.

According to the SFI interpretation, the respondents’ family

competence view falls to Mid-range families. This means that most

of the respondents are relatively concerned with control and overt

power differences but more likely ambivalently handled by

repression or projection by the other. These families usually contain

functional but vulnerable children. Vulnerable children are easily to

be hurt or harmed physically, mentally or emotionally and open to

attack, harm, or damage. With this, the researchers conclude that

the results were due to less frequent opportunities for the family

members to communicate with each other, to know what’s

happening with their lives, misunderstanding occurs. On the other

hand, the respondents’ families were functional. This means that

the families still have remedies to cope up with the issues and

problems within their family.

2.2. In terms of the respondents’ perception of their family

cohesiveness, according to the SFI interpretation guide meaning,

most of the respondents falls on mid-range families which states

that coalition or partnership between parents that is tenuous with

unresolved family issues are openly displayed. This means that

most of the respondents’ family was less cohesive due to blaming,

attacking and overt hostility towards their family members. With

less talks and meetings, the researchers conclude also that this is

due to miscommunications among family members and that less

cohesiveness occurs when less frequent gatherings becomes an

opportunity for scolding than understanding.

2.3. In terms of family conflict, the respondents view their family as

having less conflict. According to the interpretation manual,

ambivalence is frequently handled by denying one half of a pair of

strong feelings and using repression or projection for the other. As

what the researchers concluded, the family members were prone of

repressing and denials being tolerated resulting to less conflict.

2.4. Lastly, in terms of the respondents’ emotional expressiveness, mid-

range family type shows that respondents are more likely covert

with their expressions of hostility. However, there is a possibility to

express their warmth and caring that are anxiety-provoking.

3. Moreover, the results show that there is no significant difference towards

the perception of the teenagers towards family functioning when grouped

according to their frequency of family meals. Meaning, regardless of how

frequent the respondents eat together, the respondents could still yield

positive or negative view of their family functioning.

Recommendations

Based on the reported findings and conclusions, the researchers

recommend the following:

1. The researchers recommended that both genders should be equally distributed for the

study not to be biased to the overall results. Thus, this study is for the future

researchers who are interested about variables pertaining to family’s role to teenagers,

that they may obtain further results by including gender differences in their study.

2. As what is based on the findings of study, most of the respondents were of low family

income where it affects their decreasing meals together with their family. However, the

teenagers are still being encouraged by the researchers to consistently communicate

and draw more quality time together with their families aside from having family

dinners.

3. The researchers considerately recommend to parents especially those who already

have teens to at least make interesting topics while having meals together instead of

using mealtimes as an opportunity to scold them or blame so that they will know what’s

happening to their child.

4. For mothers, to create appetizing meals that is affordable so that the teenagers would

indulge themselves to eat along with their family members and share the things that are

happening to them to lessen misunderstandings.

5. The researchers recommend this study to be beneficial for the school in considering the

family functioning in relation to eating meals together. In this matter, the researchers

respectfully recommend the school to provide seminars and activities ascribed to

increase the students’ understanding with regards on their regulation of meals with

their family.

6. For those individuals who needs further information that eating meals together can

help family happy and the essence of family meals is that families have their quality time

together talking about what’s going on in their lives making it able for parents to know

how to maintain an intimate relationship towards their children as well as to give

guidance to their future adults.

References

BOOKS

Nichols, M., & Schwartz, R. (2007). The essentials of family therapy (3rd ed.).

Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

JOURNALS

Welsh, E., French, S., & Wall, M. (2011). Examining the Relationship Between

Family Meal Frequency and Individual Dietary Intake: Does Family Cohesion

Play a Role? Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 229-235.

Stewart, S., & Menning, C. (2009). Family Structure, Nonresident Father

Involvement, And Adolescent Eating Patterns. Journal of Adolescent Health, 193-

201.

Cornell University. Survey Research Institute. Cornell National Social Survey.

(2011)

[Computer file]. CISER version 1. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Institute for Social and

Economic

Research [producer and distributor], 2012.

Johnson, D., & Young, R. (2011). Toward best practices in analyzing data sets

with missing data: Comparisons and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and

Family, (10.1111), 926-945.

Hammons, A., & Fiese, B. (2011). Is Frequency Of Shared Family Meals Related

To The Nutritional Health Of Children And Adolescents? Pediatrics, (10.1542),

E1565-E1574

Musick, K., & Meier, A. (2012). Assessing Causality and Persistence in

Associations between Family Dinners and Adolescent Well-Being. Journal of

Marriage and Family, (10.1111), 476-493.

Bisakha, S. et al. (2010). Does the Frequency of Family Meals Affect Adolescent

Problem Behavior? Journal of Adolescence, 20.

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Larson, N., Fulkerson, J., Eisenberg, M., & Story, M.

(2010). Family Meals And Adolescents: What Have We Learned From Project

EAT (Eating Among Teens)?Public Health Nutrition, (10.1017), 1113-1121.

Murray, P. (2011). A Discussion Paper on Personalized Transition from The

Centre for Welfare Reform. Developing Family Leadership.

Pezullo, L., Taylor, P., Mitchell, S., Pejoski, L., Le, K., & Bilgrami, A. (2010). Final

Report by Access Economics Pty Limited for Department of Families, Housing,

Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Positive Family Functioning.

Neumark-Sztainer, D., Hannan, P., Story, M., Croll, J., & Perry, C. (2003). Family

meal patterns: Associations with sociodemographic characteristics and improved

dietary intake among adolescents. Journal of the American Dietetic

Association, 317-322.

Fulkerson, J., Kubik, M., Story, M., Lytle, L., & Arcan, C. (2009). Are There

Nutritional And Other Benefits Associated With Family Meals Among At-Risk

Youth? Journal of Adolescent Health, 389-395.

Duncan Gregory J., Kathleen M. Ziol-Guest, and Ariel Kalil. (2010). “Early-

Childhood Poverty and Adult Attainment, Behavior, and Health.” Child

Development 81(1):306-25.

Sen, B. (2010). The relationship between frequency of family dinner and

adolescent problem behaviors after adjusting for other family

characteristics. Journal of Adolescence,187-196.

Fruh, S., Fulkerson, J., Mulekar, M., Kendrick, L., & Clanton, C. (2011). The

Surprising Benefits of the Family Meal. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 7 (1),

18-22.

Harrar, S. (2003). Family rituals bring comfort and joy. Prevention, 55 (7), 28 [On-

line]. Available: Academic Search Premier database.

Shriner, J., & Shriner, J. (2007). The importance of Rituals in Family Life. Fact

Sheet.

Sarsour, K., Sheridan, M., Jutte, D., Nuru-Jeter, A., Hinshaw, S., & Boyce, W.

(2011). Family Socioeconomic Status and Child Executive Functions: The Roles

of Language, Home Environment, and Single Parenthood. Journal of the

International Neuropsychological Society, (10.1017/S1355617710001335), 120-

132.

Wilk, R. (2010). Power at the Table: Food Fights and Happy Meals. Cultural

Studies Critical Methodologies, (10.1177/1532708610372764), 428-436.

WEBSITES

Do Family Meals Really Make a Difference? (2012, January 1). Retrieved from

http://www.human.cornell.edu/pam/outreach/upload/Family-Mealtimes-2.pdf

Ciccone, Jillian, "Parent and young adolescent perspectives of family meals and

meal preparation and the influence of the Kinect-Ed program" (2013). Electronic

Theses and Dissertations. Paper 4878. http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/4878

Crumbo, Christine. "Rituals bind families closer. (Originated from Knight-Ridder

Newspapers)." Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service. McClatchy-Tribune

Information Services. 1993. Retrieved October 14, 2014 from HighBeam

Research:http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14737833.html

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-14737833.html

APPENDICES

Appendix A : Letter of Permissions

-Permission to conduct a research

-Permission to conduct a Survey

Appendix B : Approval Sheet

RECOMMENDATION

This is to certify that the study entitled: EATING MEALS TOGTHER : A

PERCEPTION OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING THROUGH FAMILY RITUALS

AMONG TEENAGERS prepared by Asnan, Rejien Marie Kind D.C., Manalo, Rickee

Mae B., and Villanueva, Medalyn April R. has been examined and recommended for

FINAL-ORAL defense.

TRISHA JOY O. GOTINGA, MA CHERYL P. LUMIGUEN, MAT

Adviser Statistician

APPROVAL SHEET

This is to certify that the study entitled: EATING MEALS TOGTHER : A

PERCEPTION OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING THROUGH FAMILY RITUALS

AMONG TEENAGERS prepared by Asnan, Rejien Marie Kind D.C., Manalo, Rickee

Mae B., and Villanueva, Medalyn April R. has PASSED the FINAL-ORAL defense.

DR. RONAN S. ESTOQUE, RPm JIGO RAFAEL C. CATAMIO, MAEd.,RGC

Member Member

JOHN ERLIX A. BARRION

Chairman

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Bachelor

of Science in Psychology.

CHERYL P. LUMIGUEN, MAT

Coordinator, Research and Development

DR. RONAN S. ESTOQUE, RPm

Program Head, Department of Psychology

RAMONITA SALAZAR, Ed. D.

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Appendix C : Letter of Consent

Appendix D : Research Instrument

Instructions : Before proceeding with the Self-Report Family Inventory Questionnaire, kindly answer the

following questions that pertains to your profile. This includes your gender, family’s Socio-Economic

Status and frequency of meals together with your family. For each item, please mark (x) on the box that

which corresponds to your answer. Please answer the questions as truthfully as you can.

Part I :

A. Profile

Gender: ____

Socioeconomic Status:

*Please mark (x) on the blank that corresponds to your family’s annual income.

____ P60, 000 and above

____ P45, 000 – P60, 000

____ P30, 000 – P45, 000

____ P15, 000 – P29, 000

____ P15, 000 or less

B. How often does your family eats together?

*Please mark (x) on the blank that corresponds to how often does your family eats together.

____ Once a day

____ Twice a day

____ Thrice a day

____ Every Weekends

____ Never

NICHD SECCYD—Wisconsin

Part II

SELF-REPORT FAMILY INVENTORY: VERSION II

For each question, mark the answer that best fits how you see your family now. If you feel that your

answer is between two of the labeled numbers (the odd numbers), then choose the even number that is

between them.

YES:

Fits our

family very

well

SOME:

Fits our family

some

NO:

Does not fit

our family

1. Family members pay attention to each

other’s feelings.

1 2 3 4 5

2. Our family would rather do things together

than with other people.

1 2 3 4 5

3. We all have a say in family plans. 1 2 3 4 5

4. The grownups in this family understand and 1 2 3 4 5

agree on family decisions.

5. Grownups in the family compete and fight

with each other.

1 2 3 4 5

6. There is closeness in my family but each

person is allowed to be special and different.

1 2 3 4 5

7. We accept each other friends. 1 2 3 4 5

8. There is confusion in our family because

there is no leader.

1 2 3 4 5

9. Our family members touch and hug each

other.

1 2 3 4 5

10. Family members put each other down. 1 2 3 4 5

11. We speak our minds, no matter what. 1 2 3 4 5

12. In our home, we feel loved. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Even when we feel close, our family our

family is embarrassed to admit it.

1 2 3 4 5

14. We argue a lot and never solve problems. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Our happiest times are at home. 1 2 3 4 5

16. The grownups in this family are strong

leaders.

1 2 3 4 5

17. The future looks good to our family. 1 2 3 4 5

18. We usually blame one person in our family

when things aren’t going right.

1 2 3 4 5

19. Family members go their own way most of

the time.

1 2 3 4 5

20. Our family is proud of being close. 1 2 3 4 5

21. Our family is good at solving problems

together.

1 2 3 4 5

22. Family members easily express warmth and

caring towards each other.

1 2 3 4 5

23. It’s okay to fight and yell in our family. 1 2 3 4 5

24. One of the adults in this family has a

favorite child.

1 2 3 4 5

25. When things go wrong we blame each other. 1 2 3 4 5

26. We say what we think and feel. 1 2 3 4 5

27. Our family members would rather do things

with other people than together.

1 2 3 4 5

28. Family members pay attention to each other

and listen to what it is said.

1 2 3 4 5

29. We worry about each other’s feelings. 1 2 3 4 5

30. The mood in my family is usually sad and

blue.

1 2 3 4 5

31. We argue a lot. 1 2 3 4 5

32. One person controls and leads our family. 1 2 3 4 5

33. My family is happy most of the time. 1 2 3 4 5

34. Each person takes responsibility for his/her

behavior.

1 2 3 4 5

“ A family that eats together, stays together.”

Thank You for your cooperation!

Appendix E : Research Budget

Expenses

Amount

Expenses during Data Gathering

₱ 1,400

Foods for Panel Members

₱ 1,000

Printing of Manuscripts and Materials

₱ 1,500

Thesis Fee

₱ 2,400

Total

₱ 6,300

Appendix F : Research Timeline

Dates Activities

June16-18 Orientation

June 23-26 Title Oral Defense

June 30-July 2 Lectures: Formulation of Chapter 1

July 7-9 Submission and checking of chapter 1

July 14-16 Lecture: Formulation of Chapter 2

July 21-23 Submission and checking of chapter 2

July 22-26 Preliminary Examination

July 28 Eidl Ftr

July 30 Lecture: Formulation of Chapter 3

August 4-6 Submission and checking of chapter 3

August 11, 13, 18, 20 Pre-Oral Defense

August 21 Ninoy Aquino Day

August 25 National Heroes Day

August 27-September 1 Data Gathering

September 2-6 Midterm Examination

September 8-10 Lecture: Formulation of Chapter 4 and 5

September 15-17 Final Checking of Manuscript

September 22, 24, 29 Final Oral Defense

October 6-8 Final

Revisions/modifications/improvement

Of manuscript

October 6 Signing of the Panel members

October 13 Submission of manuscript to the

Research Coordinator for book

binding

October 14 Final Examination

October 20-25 Semestral Break

Appendix G : Certifications

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY

We, hereby certify that this Research is our own work and that, to the best of our

knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously written or published by another person

or organization nor any material which has been accepted for award of any other degree or

diploma from a university or institution of higher learning, except where due acknowledgement is

made thereof.

Furthermore, we declare that the intellectual contact of this research is the product of our

work although we have received assistance from others on the manner of organization,

presentation, language and style.

Rejien Marie Kind D.C. Asnan

Rickee Mae B. Manalo

Medalyn April R. Villanueva

Researchers

Date:October 22, 2014

Attested by:

TRISHA JOY O. GOTINGA, MA

Adviser

Date: October 22, 2014

CERTIFICATE OF ETHICS

We, hereby certify that this research study undergone certain procedures and considered

the ethical standards before conducting the research proper. Thus, contain materials that are

complied with the administrative staffs of the respondent together with the approval of the

institution as implied to the required rules and regulation.

Furthermore, we declare that the procedures and considerations during the collection of

data and gathering of information were critically and ethically considered. Hence, approved and

acknowledge ethical by the researcher’s adviser and research panelist.


Rickee Mae B. Manalo


Researchers


Attested by:

TRISHA JOY O. GOTINGA, MA

Adviser


Appendix H : Curriculum Vitae


#350 Ilang-Ilang St. Bo. Sto. Nino Tala, Caloocan City

[email protected]

Personal Information

Date of Birth: November 16, 1994

Age: 19 years old

Gender: Female

Educational Attainment

Tertiary Our Lady of Fatima University 2011-present

Secondary Holy Rosary College Foundation 2006-2010

Primary Apolinario Mabini Elementary School 2000-2006

Seminars Attended

Peer Counseling Training Program April 3 – 4,

2013

PSYCHSUMMIT 2 (Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior) March 01, 2014 26TH Annual Convention of the Psychological January 18, 2013 Association of the Philippines. Sharpen Your Innate Leadership Skills for Better January 19, 2013


#432 G. Bautista St. San Jose Rodriguez Rizal

Contact No. 09353879974

Personal Information

Gender: Female Height : 5

Civil Status: Single Weight : 43 kg

Age: 25 Religion : Roman

Catholic

Birth Date: April 21, 1989 Citizenship : Filipino

Birth Place: Manila Educational Attainment Primary: Eulogio Rodriguez Jr. Elementary School 1997-2003

Secondary: San Jose Nat’l High School 2003-

2007

Collage: Our Lady of Fatima University

Course: BS Psychology

Work

Experience_______________________________________________________________

____

Mercury Drug Corporation We Serve

Pharmacy Generic

OJT- Pharmacy

Assistant

October to December 2011 January 28, 2013 –

present 2014

JP Rizal, Marikina City Urban Rodriguez

Rizal

Character

References___________________________________________________

Mrs. Sherilyn P. Jimenez Mr. Rusty Ross

Macchetti

Register Pharmacist Supervisor

Mercury Drug Corporation We Serve

Pharmacy

JP Rizal, Marikina City Urban Rodriguez

Rizal

09172550501 09424827336

EATING MEALS TOGETHER: A PERCEPTION OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING THROUGH FAMILY RITUALS AMONG TEENAGERS

Documents

Transcript of EATING MEALS TOGETHER: A PERCEPTION OF FAMILY FUNCTIONING THROUGH FAMILY RITUALS AMONG TEENAGERS