TIlE EFFECTS OF ECONOMIC HARDSHIP ON FAMILY INTERACI10N AND MARITAL RELATIONSIllPS AMONG RUNGUS AND IRANUN

ABSTRAcr

Rosnah Ismail Rozumah Baharuddin

Rumaya Johari

Economic hardship has consistently demonliJrated detrimental effects onfamily relationships. These effects include increases in marital tensions and decreases in marital andfamily satisfaction andfamily cohesion (Atkinson, Liem & Liem, 1986; Perrucci & Targ, 1988; Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1988). The objective of this study is: 1) to detennine the differences and similarities infamily interactions among ethnic Iran un and Rungus, and 2) to investigate the effects of economic hardship onfamily interaction and marital relationships between ethnic Iranun and Rungus in Borneo. The subjects comprised 243 ethnic Rungus and 234 ethnic Iranun. The instruments used for this study Were the Economic Strain Questionnaire (ESQ) to measure economic hardship, Family Assessment Device (FAD) to examine family functioning, Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) to investigate marital satisfaction among ethnic Rungus and Iran un and Parent's Report (PR) to measure parenting behavior. Analysis of data was done using t-test and Pearson correlation. The results of the study revealed that there are significant differences between ethnic Iranun and Rungus in economic hardship, family interaction, marital satisfaction, couples' agreements and dyadic consensus. There are no significant differences between ethnic Iranun and Rungus in financial problems, affection expression and parenting behavior. The results also show that there is a positive correlation between economic hardship and financial problems, and negative correlation between economic hardship and family interaction, marital satisfaction, couples' agreements, dyadic consensus, parenting behavior and affection expression. Implications of these findings and future research are discussed.

INfRODUCI10N

Economic hardship has far-reaching negative consequences for quality of life. The poor are more likely than others to be exposed to stressful life events, such as unemployment, crime victimization, and illness; they also live with chronic strains such as poverty, job dissatisfaction, and frustrated aspirations that have a broad negative impact on psychological well-being (Kessler, 1979; Ross & Huber, 1985; White, Booth & Edwards 1986). Besides being stressful in their own right, these experiences are likely to lower people's self-esteem and diminish the'r sense of control over life (Pearlin & Lieberman, 1979; Ross & Mirowsky, 1988)~

Rosnah Ismail ~t al.

Economic hardship is also associated with lowered support from immediate family members: poor quality marital relations, increased risk of divorce, and general dissatisfaction with family life (Conger, Elder, Lorenz, Conger, Simons. Whitbec~ Huck & Melby, 1990; Lewis & Spanier, 1979; Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1988). Given that economic hardship is associated with stress, chronic strains, a low level of social support, and problematic family relationships, it is not surprising that the poor also have a comparatively low level of psychological well-being. Reviews by Ross and Huber (1985) and Pearlin and Lieberman (1979) indicate that low socioeconomic is associated with high rates of depression, mental illness, and lowered psychological well-being.

~onomic hardship can have severe adverse consequences for families. These ~ffects include increases in marital tensions and decreases in marital and family ;atisfaction and family cohesion (Atkinson, Liem & Liem, 1986; Perrucci & Targ, 1988; Voydanoff & Donnelly. 1988), increased risk of marital dissolution (Bakke, 1940), family disorganization, physical abuse, and child neglect (Kaduschin & Martin, 1981; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Rosnah and Abdul Halim (1999) revealed there were no significant differences between low socioeconomic status and family interaction among Kadazandusun families. The Kadazandusun family still preserves close family ties between parent and children by exhibiting love and warmth among family members. Another study reports that although fathers play an important role in parenting, mothers show more affection, love, and concern to their children than fathers within Bajau families (Rosnah, 2001). However. little is known about the causal processes that link economic hardship to family relationships (Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1988). Economic hardship also has implications for the parent-child relationship and child outcomes. Children in families who have experienced economic hardship are at higher risk for disrupted parenting and negative child outcomes such as depression, conduct problems and lower self-esteem (Conger et al., 1992, 1993; Rayman, 1988; Voydanoff &. Wilson. 1990).

Linking marital relations to economic hardship. some investigators report a poSitiVe relationship between socioeconomic factors and marital quality (perceptions of happiness or satisfaction with the marriage), while others observe no significant association between the two. Perrucci and Targ (1988) obtained no significant correlation between economic strain (feelings that resources are inadequate to meet one's needs) and marital happiness. In support of research done by Perrucc' and Targ (1988), Datu Bandira (1992) revealed no significant correlation betwee~ poyerty and marital satisfaction among ethnic Iranun. Iranun hold close and intact marital relationship between husband and wife: love and affection, caring respect and mutual trust, and open-mindedness. Liker and Elder (1983) found that marital tension was also associated with higher rates of marital instabilit (separation or divorce), a result that is consistent with other reports linkin y economic hardship to marital dissolution (Teachman, Polonko, & Scanzoni, 1987~

86

The Effects of Economic Hardship on Family Interaction and Marital Relationships Among Rungus and Iranun

Liker and Elder's findings suggest that economic hardship influences marital quality in large part through the disagreements over finances that it promotes between spouses and through the tense, explosive, irritable behavior it elicits from men. A low level of marital quality, in tum, was expected to promote feelings ofinstability regarding the marriage (Lewis & Spanier, 1979). These findings led us to expect that one important mechanism through which economic disadvantage affects spousal perceptions of marital quality and stability is its impact on the nature of marital interactions. Previous research does suggest that economic stress may lead to withdrawal and lack of attentiveness between spouses (Kelvin & Jarrett, 1985), thus indicating that a decrease in positive interactions may occur when financial strains are impinging on a couple. Poor marital quality was predicted to increase instability because of the clear evidence that feelings of unhappiness or dissatisfaction with a marriage typically precede thoughts or behaviors related to divorce (Lewis & Spanier, 1979).

The economic status of the family was found to add substantially to parents' level of distress: It affects both husbands' and wives' parenting stress as well as their psychological well-being. These findings support the conclusions of other researchers who found economic factors to be strong predictors of personal and parental difficulties (Congeret al., 1990; Ross et al., 1990; Ross & Huber, 1985; Pittman et al., 1989). It may be suggested that parents who are struggling with problems of everyday economic difficulties feel higher levels of stress in raising their children, whereas parents with greater economic resources feel less pressure in their parental role.

The theoretical model that guides this study is displayed in Figure 1. In this model, economic hardship, defined in this case as income inadequacy, reduced family assets and resources, and unstable employment, directly affect family interaction and marital relationships of ethnic Rungus and Iranun families in Sabah.

The variables involved in the family interaction are parent-child relationship, affective or emotional feelings, interdependency, feelings of love and affection among family members and show of concern and caring attitute towards each other. In marital relationship, the couples are assessed by their marital stability, satisfaction, time they spend together, ability to solve problem and in managing family finance.

Hence, in this study, the construct of family interaction and marital relationships is assessed by changes in one's relationship with one's spouse, children, and extended family members. Using this theoretical model as a conceptual guide the aim of this study was: a) to determine the differences and similarities in fam' '1 . . be h . I d I Y mteractlons tween et me ranun an Rungus, and b) to investigate the effects

87

Rosnah Ismail ~I al.

Parent-Child

Affective

famIly f--+ ~

Interaction Interdependency I Rungus ~ Love. Affection •

I Concern

I Economit : • Hardship I

i\ • Stability

• Satisfaction I ~ I .. nun Marital 1-+ nme Together RelatIonshIps f-

i Problem-Solving

Finandal Management

Figure 1. Theoretical Model

of economic hardship on family interaction and marital relationships among ethnic Iranun and Rungus in Sabah.

This study is significant in its attempt to study the effects of family interaction and marital relationships in relation to economic hardship in a cross-cultural context. "Comparing ethnic Iranun and Rungus in Sabah.

Sample And Pocedures The sample consisted of243 ethnic Rungus and 234 ethnic Iranun from rural and urban areas of Sabah. Convenience sampling was used to collect the questionnai~ data from Kudat and Kota Belud (rural areas) and around Kota Kinabalu (urban areas). Demographic information regarding the two samples is summariZed in Table 1. The present study is based on intact. first-marriage couples who had children living at home. Single parents. remarried couples. couples who are nOt living together or separated or divorced. or those who had no children living at home were excluded from the analysis. The sample which was selected random} y had to have a total income of no more than RM700.00 per month (based 0

Malaysia Poverty Line Index) and children numbering to five. Using a structure~ questionnaire. in each family, the researchers interviewed either husband Or Wife in their home.

88

The Effects of Economic Hardship on Family Interaction and Marital Relationships Among RUligus and Iranun

Measurements Economic hardship and financial hardship were used as the independent variable. ' Family functioning, marital quality and parenting behavior were used as dependent variables. The review of the literature reveals that family interaction, marital relationships and economic hardship are highly related to variables: family life, communication, interaction, marital stability and happiness, integration, satisfaction, parent-child relationships and the effects of economic hardship on family relationships (Bowman, 1993; Conger & Elder, 1994; VoydanofT & Donnelly, 1988). Therefore, in order to measure the effects of economic hardship on family interaction and marital relationships, the general information questionnaire, Economic Strain Questionnaire (ESQ), Family Assessment Device (FAD), Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) and Parent's Report (PR) were used in this study.

a) General in/ormation Questionnaire The General Information Questionnaire provides general information that the researcher needed for the study. Information about age, marital status, children, occupation, income and education were obtained.

b) Economic Strain Questionnaire (ESQ) Economic hardship was measured using 8-item scale developed by Pearlin, Lieberman, Menaghan and Mullan (1981). The measure is based on an adjective checklist, which the respondents rate on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 'l=strongly disagree', '2=disagree', '3=agree', '4=strongly agree' . Cronbach's alpha of the total scale was .75 for both husbands and wives.

c) Family Assessment Device (FAD) Family functioning was measured using the revised version of Epstein, Baldwin and Bishop's (1983) Checklist. The version used in the present study is a list of 11 adjectives, which represent family interaction and communication, decision-making, problem solving, acceptance from family members, planning activities together, etc. The respondent is asked to check the words that best describe his or her feelings. The items were answered on a 4-point scale ranged from 'l=strongly disagree' to '4=strongly agree'. Cronbach's alpha of this scale was .50 in the present sample.

d) Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS) Marital quality was measured by a revised version of the DAS marital inventory of Spanier (1976). This 19-item instrument assesses problem areas and strengths of the marital relationship across two aspects: dyadic consensus (IS-item) and marital satisfaction (4-item). The respondent's marital satisfaction was assessed by asking how satisfied he or she was with the marital relationship on a S-point scale ranged from 'l=strongly not satisfied' to 'S=strongly satisfied'. The respondent's dyadic consensus was assessed across dimensions of conflict resolution, financial management, leisure

89

Rosnah Ismail rl al.

activities, time together, decision-making, gender role attitudes, etc. on a 4-point scale ranged from' J=strongly disagree' to '4=strongly agree'. Cronbach's alpha of the total scale was .89.

e) Parent's Report (PR) A 23-item scale developed by Dibble and Cohen (1974) measured parenting behavior. The measure is based on an adjective checklist, which the respondents rate on a 4-point Likert-type scale which ranged from 'I =never' to '4=often'. The parenting behavior items include discipline, communication, behavior, rules, attitudes etc. This scale had an alpha of .56.

Data Analysis The data was analyzed using t-test and Pearson correlation.

RESULTS

A. Descriptive analysis

Variables

Tablet Background characteristics

Mean or percentage Standard deviation Characteristics of respondents

Location I=urban 2=ruraI

220(46.1%) 257(53.9%)

Respondents l=husband 213 (44.7%) 2=wife 264(55.3%)

Age (years) 40.61 10.30 Ethnic group

I=Iranun 234(49.1%) 2=Rungus 243 (50.9%)

Religion I=Islam 247(51.8%) 2=Christianity 224 (47.0%)

Length of marriage (years) 19.02 9.62 Education

1 = never went to school 150(31.4%) 2=primary 142 (29.8%) 3=UE 103 (21.6%) 4=MCE 46(9.6%) 5=HSC 1 (0.2%) 6=certificate 1 (0.2%) 7=others 34(7.1%)

90

Tht! EfJuts of Economic Hardship on Family Intuaction and Marital Relationships Among Rungus and Iranun

Income per month (RM) 468.93 159.81 No. of children 5.29 2.46 Total no. in household 7.53 2.56

Independentvariabks Economic hardship 23.00 3.59 Financial hardship 1038 2.22

Dependent variables Family interaction 33.00 2.94 Marital quality i) Dyadic consensus 46.75 4.13 ii)Marital satisfaction 17.58 2.35 Parenting behavior Mm 5.76 N=477

As shown in Table 1, the total number of subjects was 477; of this total 234 were Iranun and 243 were Rungus. About 220 subjects lived in urban areas and 257 lived in rural areas. The subjects comprised 213 husbands and 264 wives. Average age of subjects was 40.61 years. In terms of religion, 247 (51.8%) were Muslims and 224 (47.0% ) were Christians.

Average length of marriage for both husbands and wives were 19.02 years. In terms of education, the majority of the subjects never went to school or had only achieved primary level education. The study found that 150 respondents (31.4%) never went to school, 142 respondents (29.8%) stopped at primary level, 103 respondents (21.6%) went to Lower Certificate Level (LCE), and 47 respondents (9.8%) to Malaysian Certificate Education (MCE) level. Average length of education of the subjects was 5.14 years. The subjects in this study had average household income per month ofRM468.93 (below poverty line index), on average of 5.29 children. The average total number in a household was 7.53.

For the independent variables, mean score for economic hardship and financial hardship are 23.00 and 10.38 respectively. For the dependent variables, mean score for family interaction, dyadic consensus, marital satisfaction and parenting behavior are 33.00, 46.75,17.58, and 66.07 respectively.

91

Rosnah Ismail et al.

B. Inferential analysis

Table2. Mean, Standard deviation, t-test for economic hardship, family interaction, marital quality and parenting behavior of ethnic Iranun and Rungus (N=477)

Variables Ethnic N Mean SD t

Economic hardship Iranun 234 22.50 3.43 3.02*· (ESQ) Rungus 243 23.48 3,(1)

Family interaction Iranun 234 3266 3.03 2.46*· (FAD) Rungus 243 3332 281

Marital satisfaction Iranun 234 17.89 218 2.79*· (DAS) Rungus 243 1729 248

Dyadic consensus lranun 234 40.85 3.00 2.82·· (DAS) Rungus 243 39.91 3.70

Parenting behavior Iran un 234 66.10 5.'X> 0.11 (PR) Rungus 243 66.04 5.64

-p<o.OJ**

Table 2 presents data on comparisons between ethnic Iranun and Rungus in economic hardship, family interaction, marital satisfaction, dyadic consensus and parenting behavior. As the table reveals, there are significant differences in four variables between ethnic lranun and Rungus on economic hardship, family interaction, marital satisfaction, and dyadic consensus.

As the table reveals, the mean score on economic hardship for ethnic 1ranun (x=22.50, S0=3.43) and Rungus (x=23.48, S0=3.70), are significantly different (t~ 3.02··,p<O.01). The mean score on family interaction for lranun (x=32.66, S0::3.03) and Rungus (x=33.32, S0=2.81) are significantly different (t= -2.46*, p<O.05). The mean score on marital satisfaction for Iranun (x=17.89, S0=2.18) and Rungus (x= 17.29, S0=2.48) are significantly different (t=2. 79", p<O.O 1) and the mean score on dyadic consensus for Iranun (x=40.85, S0=3.59) and Rungus (x=39.91 SD=3.69) are also significantly different (t=2.82··, p<O.OI). No significan~ differences between Iranun and Rungus were exhibited on parenting behavior.

92

The Effects of Economic Hardship on Family Interaction and Marital Relationships Among Rungus and Iranun

Table 3: Pearson Correlation on Economic hardship. Family interaction. Marital satisfaction. Dyadic consensus and Parenting behavior for all variables (N=4 77)

Variables 2 3 4 5

l.ESQ UID

2. FAD -0.21 *** 1.000

3.KMS -0.05 0.35*** l.(xx)

4.DCon -0.11 * 0.35*** 0.36***

5.PR om 0.33*** 0.17*** 0.33*** l.(xx) p<o.OS*; p<O.OOl***

To determine the relationships between economic hardship and family interaction. marital satisfaction. dyadic consensus and parenting behavior. Pearson correlation was calculated. As shown in Table 3. economic hardship was significantly and negatively correlated with family interaction (r=-0.21 ***. p<O.OOl). dyadic consensus (r=-0.11 *. p<O.05). This negative correlation shows that when the subjects experienced high economic hardship. the levels of family interaction and dyadic consensus were low.

DISCUSSION

Results from this study reveal that Rungus families experienced higher economic hardship in terms of financial difficulties than the Iranun. Although they are poor. they lead a happy family life. Rungus have better family interaction than the Iranun. Higher scores on this family interaction scale for the Rungus indicate that family interaction remained unchanged or improved as a consequence of economic hardship. Through observation. the researcher found that they had stronger ties among family members. This is because Rungus families tend to reflect a highly traditional and familial system (Felix Tongkul. 2(02) which is not strongly affected by poverty. Since it is common for the Rungus to live as extended families. i.e. grandparents. parents. uncles. aunts and children live together in a long-house or hamlet, that is probably a reason for their close relationships among family members. Close and symbiotic relationships are maintained and strengthened through active participation in any gatherings. rituals and ceremonies related to birth. death. weddings and harvest festivals.

Marital satisfaction and dyadic consensus among the lranun are higher than among the Rungus. The results of this study support the study done by Datu Bandira (1992) which indicated that the sharing of labor between husband and

93

Rosnah Ismail el al.

wife not only lightens the burden of work. but also fosters a sense of social responsibility and marital satisfaction. The lranun hold the principle of human dignity in marriage (Datu Bandira. 1992) that leads to the concept of respect for each other and ensures harmonious relationships. The results of this study also complement the earlier study done by Datu Bandira (1992) which revealed that reciprocity and mutual trust among lranun couples give rise to the concept of give-and-take. sharing, cooperation and unconditional support for each other in times of need.

Analysis of Pearson correlation indicates that economic hardship was significantly and negatively correlated with family interaction, marital satisfaction and dyadic consensus. This means that the greater the economic hardship experienced by the subjects in terms of financial difficulties. the lower their interaction with family members and the less the dyadic consensus. Due to poor living conditions. the Iranun and Rungus in this study probably have to work hard to get more money to support the families. Longer hours that the husbands or wives have to spend at sea as fishermen or in paddy fields as farmers probably leave less time to communicate and interact with spouse and family members. Thus, the relationship between husband and wife and also family members becomes more distant. Economic hardship is also related to educational status of the subjects. As shown in Table 1.31.4% of the respondents never went to school and 29.8% only achieved primary level education. Therefore, due to the low level of education and illiteracy, the subjects have little knowledge and few skills in communication interaction. and marital satisfaction. •

Analysis of Pearson correlation also indicates no significant relationship between economic hardship and parenting behavior. The results of this study do nOt agree with the studies done by Conger et al. (1990), Ross and Huber (1985), and Pittman et al. (1989) who suggested that parents who are struggling with problems of everyday economic difficulties feel a higher level of stress in raising their children, whereas parents with greater economic resources feel less pressure in their parental role. .

The results of this study support the conclusion that economic hardship has no impact on parenting behavior, but has impact on family interaction. Farnily interaction and marital relationships of ethnic lranun and Rungus are becomin distant. Efforts should be made to preserve close family ties between famil g members, parents and children by exhibiting love and warm relationships amon Y family members and to ensure that they are able to communicate effectivel g although families live in poverty. Y

The present analyses are reasonably consistent with theoretical expeclatio and they help to improve our understanding of some of the behavioral mechanis~ involved in the relationship between economic hardship and family interactl'

on

94

The Effects of Economic Hardship on Family Interaction and Marital Relationships Among Rungu! and Iran un

and marital quality. Economic hardship is linked indirectly to low parental nurturance and poor parent-child relationship quality. Parents with low and unstable incomes experience more emotional stress and view themselves as less efficacious parents than do parents with higher, more predictable incomes. Children from economically deprived families tended to feel isolated, to have had conflictual relationships with peers, and to be suspicious of children from social classes different from their own.

The limitations of the present study, however, point to an obvious need for further research. Perhaps the most significant of these limitations is the relatively small size of the study sample. Because the study was conducted with a small sample of husbands and wives from poverty settings, a replication of this study with a larger and more socia-economically diverse sample would allow greater generalization of the results. Moreover, such research should be expanded beyond the limited range of interaction characteristics investigated here to include coping strategies and other social support mechanisms that have been found to playa role in successful family adaptation to economic hardship (Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1988).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research is a component of the total research funded by the intensification of Research in Priority Areas (IRPA) 01-02-1 0-00l5-EAOO>5 under the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation, Malaysia and its support is gratefully acknowledged.

Amato, P.R. & Zuo, J. 1992. Rural poverty, urban poverty, and psychological well-being. Sociological Quarterly. 33(2): 229-235.

Atkinson. T .. Liem. R.. & Liem. J .H.1986. The social costs of unemployment Implications for social support. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 27.317-331.

Bakke, E. W. 1940. Citizens without work. New Haven. Cf: Yale University Press

Bowman, P J. 1993. The impact of economic marginality among African American husbands and fathers. In H.P. McAdoo (Ed.), Family ethnicity: Strength in diversity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 120-137 .

Conger, R.D., Elder, GH., Lorenz, E.O., Conger, KJ., Simons, R.L., Whitbeck. LB., Huck. S., & Melby, J.N. 1990. Linking economic hardship to marital quality and instability. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 52. 643-656.

Conger, R.D., Conger, KJ., Elder, GH. Jr., Lorenz, E.O., & Whitbeck, LB. 1992. A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development. 63.526-541.

95

Rosnah /smail el DI.

Conger, R.D. Conger, K.J., Elder, GH. Jr., Lorenz, E.O., R.L, & Whitbeck, LB. 1993. Family economic stress and adjustment of early adolescent girls. Developmental Psyclwlogy. 29. 206-219.

Conger, R.D., & Elder. GH. Jr. 1994. Families in troubled times. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Conger. R.D., Ge, X., & Lorenz, E.O. 1994. Economic stress and marital relations. In R.D. Conger & GH. Elder (Eds.). Families in troubled times. New York: AI dine de Gruyter. 187·203.

Datu Bandira Datu Alang 1992. Iran un -Sejarah dan adat tradisL Selangor DE: Malindo Printers Sdn. Bhd.

Elder, GH. Jr. 1974. Children of the great depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Felix Tongkul. 2002. Traditional systems of indigenous peoples of Sabala. Malaysia. Penampang, Sabah: CCS Sdn. Bhd.

Kadushin, A., & Martin, J.A. 1981. Child abuse: An interactional ellent. Ne~ York: Columbia University Press.

Kelvin, P., & Jarrett, J.E. 1985. Unemployment: Its social psychological effeCts London: Cambridge University Press. •

Kessler, R.C., & McRae, AJ. 1982. The effect of wives employment on the mental health of manied men and women. American Sociological Review. 47.216-227.

Lewis, R.A., & Spanier, GB. 1979. Theorizing about the quality and stability f marriage. 268-294 in Wesley R. Burr, R. Hill, F.l. Nye, and I.L Reiss ffids ~ Contemporary theories about the family (vol. I): Research Based Theo~ ••

'&~s New York: Free Press. •

Liker. lK., & Elder, GH. 1983. Economic hardship and marital relations in th 1930s. American Sociological Review. 48:343-359. e

Pearlin, L.I., & Lieberman, M.A. 1979. Social sources of emotional d;st,.~ Research in community and mental health. I. 217-248. ss:

Perucci, C.C., & Targ. D.B. 1988. Effects of a plant closing on marriage and fam.' life. In Voydanoff, P. & Majka L.C. (Eds.). Families and economic dist~ tty Coping strategies and social policy. Beverly Hills: Sage. sSo'

96

Th~ Effects of Economic Hardship on Family Interaction and Marital R~latjonships Among Rungus and Iran un

Pittman. J .E .• Wright. C.A .• & Lloyd, S.A. 1989. Predicting parenting difficulty. Journal of Family Issues. 10.267-286.

Richards, L.. & Richards. T. 1991. The transformation of qualitative method: Computational paradigms and research processes. In N. Fielding & R.M. Lee (Eds.). Using computers in qualitative research. 38-53. London: Sage.

Rosnah Ismail & Abdul Halim Othman 1999. The effects of socioeconomic changes anf family quality of Kdazandusun in Sabah. Kota Kinabalu: Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

Rosnah Ismail 2001. Family quality of Bajau. Kota Kinabalu: Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

Ross. C.E .• & Huber. J. 1985. Hardships and depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 26.312-327.

Ross. C.E .• Mirowsky, J •• & Goldsteen. K. 1990. The impact of the family on health: The decade in review. Journal of Marriage alld the Family, 52. 1052-1078

Straus. M.A .• Gelles. R.J. & Steinmetz, S.K. 1980. Behind closed doors: Violence in the Americanfamily garden city. New York: Anchor Press: Doubleday.

Teachman, J.D., Polonko, K.A. & Scanzoni. J. 1987. Demoiraphy of the family. In Marvin, B.S. & Steinmetz S.K. (Eds.). Handbook of Marriage and the Family. New York: Plenum Press.

Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly. B.W. 1988. Economic distress. family coping. and quality of family life. In P. Voydanoff & L.C. Majka (Eds.). Families and economic distress: Coping strategies and social policy. Newbury Park: Sage. 97-116.

Voydanoff. P .• & Wilson. L. 1990. Maternal behavior. social support, and economic conditions as predictors of distress in children. In V.C. McLoyd & C.A. Flanagan (Eds.), Economic stress: Effects on family life and child development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 49-69.

White. L.K .• Booth. A .• & Edwards. J.N. 1986. Children and marital happiness: Why the negative correlation? Journal of Family Issues. 7. 131-147.

97