Keywords

1.1 Contemporary Family and Its Lifestyle

This chapter brings a view at the family development in Europe in the last sixty years and describes basic changes which the family has undergone. These are changes of demographic nature (marriage rates, marriage age, birth rate, first birth age), in family functions, in man’s and woman’s role and division of labour in the family. Basic processes, which characterize this post-war development, are democratization, individualism, dynamization and pluralization of family structures and forms.

The family’s lifestyle is characterized as a category reflecting these changes. There are described features of lifestyle, its forms, typology and its relations to the quality of life, with healthy behaviour and also factors which contribute to formation of the family lifestyles in the contemporary postmodern society.

The situation of contemporary family is complicated. There are even arguments that today’s family is internally so transformed or so vague that continued usage of the term “family” is problematic not only terminologically, but mostly socially. It seems the idea of family has been losing its meaning and is now outdated; a question presents itself whether it was more appropriate to take a household as a basic unit or if it were better to adopt the notion of “cohabitation”. It is in this context the term “family” is understood “as a variant of intimate relational systems that can consists of intergenerational as well as intergenerational constellations (groups) of people” (Schneewind 1998, p. 26). This definition also includes unmarried couples. Such a situation is a result of past development of family in the last decades.

Remarkably, Evelyne Sullerot provides a perspective of post-war development of European families consisting of three stages family went through. One could assume that differences will arise among countries divided by the Iron Curtain and that the existing distinctions will become more pronounced. However, the exact opposite happened. At the end of the 1940s in Sweden, a new “model” of family emerged and subsequently spread throughout Europe. European families experienced an almost universal rejuvenation that brought their members closer together (Sullerot 1998). Two basic trends appeared: the number of marriages increased greatly, while age at marriage decreased markedly. The difference between urban and countryside populations is not significant.

In the following years, the position and importance of family weakened due to the attempts of socially oriented societies to assume at least partially some of family’s traditional functions, to provide for their citizens in case of disease, old age and unemployment, and to influence more significantly the process of upbringing as well. According to Sullerot, the primary cause of these changes lied in a profound change of values and social morality. In her view, an individual replaced family as the basic unit of society; also, because of emancipation, regardless of sex. As a consequence, in the following years there was a great decrease in marriage rate as well as birth rate, and an increase in divorce rate. Since the end of the 1970s, Swedes have taken pride in their role as teachers of modernity to the world, and they have claimed the “Sambo” option, i.e. partner cohabitation, allowed for a “happier marriage” with a lower divorce rate (Sullerot 1998).

However, further development has showed the very opposite to be true. Unmarried cohabitation breaks up more often than marriages, which leads to an increase of children born out of wedlock and of single mothers. According to U. Beck, the collision between love, family and individual freedom has become the basic characteristic and at the same time the basic problem of family. The modern society is a society of individuals, not families; therefore, the claim family is a basic unit of society loses its validity (Beck 1986). A growing number of young people perceive family as a restriction of their personal freedom.

All of the described changes in the lives of families undoubtedly influence their lifestyles. Lifestyle is a multidisciplinary topic that occurs in social sciences, economics and medicine. Originally, it was a sociological term introduced by Thorstein Vebler. Later, Max Weber linked lifestyle to economic situation, social structure and also consumption (Dworak 2009).

In sociological literature, the term lifestyle appeared in the 1970s and it has been understood in different ways until now. Other similar concepts, like everyday life, way of life, habits, ethos, etc., also lack precise, unambiguous meanings. In 1989, WHO defined lifestyle as a manner of being that results from a person’s living conditions, their influence on the environment, individual behaviour patterns stemming from personality attributes and sociocultural factors. In behaviourist perspective, lifestyle is “a complex of repetitive behaviour patterns conditioned by control, living standard and economic possibilities of a given family or an individual” (Dworak 2009, 164).

In this scenario, lifestyle is a specific type of an individual’s behaviour that manifests certain peculiarities and habits and that expresses human individuality: uniqueness. Thus, it is also one of the identifying signs of affiliation to a particular social stratum. Lifestyle also includes living standard, which is an expression of material conditions as means of satisfying basic human needs (Tokárová 2002).

In our research and throughout the present paper, lifestyle is understood as a complex of important actions, relations and connected practices that characterize a specific subject in everyday life (Duffková et al. 2007), i.e. the way people live, their living conditions, dietary habits, education, behaviour in different situations, entertainment, work, communication, actions, decisions, travels, beliefs and subscriptions to certain values, the way they bring up children, grow food, make products, etc. At the same time, lifestyle can be seen as an interdisciplinary issue that cannot be tackled and studied in its complexity from a single field’s perspective.

Lifestyle includes:

  • A complex (established structure) of activities by means of which people satisfy their needs;

  • A complex of relations emerging in this cycle of life;

  • A complex of values, norms and ideas (Pácl 1988).

As a complex of activities of a particular social group or an individual, which emphasizes their specific activities and values in individual stages of life, lifestyle is subject to frequent changes that result from acceptance of a different hierarchy of values, social position or autodidactic activity.

As a category, lifestyle is not only multidisciplinary, but also multidimensional. It is related to categories such as living standard, cultural level, values and value system or the currently very much discussed category of quality of life (Kraus et al. 2015).

The connection between lifestyle and quality of life is depicted in Fig. 1.1.

Fig. 1.1
figure 1

Connection between lifestyle and quality of life (Blažej 2005)

Full size image

Our life takes place not just at a specific place, but also in a specific time. In this context, our lifestyle influences two spheres: occupational and non-occupational. From the lifestyle point of view, all non-occupational time includes an important area: leisure time. Because of that, this research and the whole present paper pay special attention to it.

The phenomenon of leisure time is of interest to a number of scientific disciplines; it is also becoming more and more urgent. This is primarily because of its increase and consequent growing role in everyone’s life. It is no longer limited to the usual socializing function, as the compensatory (offsetting the strain of work or school), self-realizing and above all preventive (leisure time activities that allow using personal and value orientations as a part of protection from negative social phenomena and antisocial activities) functions become more important (Kraus 2008).

Health behaviour comprises a part of lifestyle that has a positive or negative impact on health. Health behaviour includes personal hygiene, body hygiene, physical activity, sleep, rest, diet, etc. It is also influenced by stress and the ability to eliminate it, use of intoxicating substances, aggression and violence, road traffic safety, control activities. Importantly, attitudes towards health are affected by upbringing and the process of socialization. Under the influence of various factors (behaviour examples, parental instructions, peers, school, mass media, religion, local community) that are mimicked and encountered in social interactions, a model emerges over childhood and adolescence, which can later be modified only with great difficulties.

Health was, is and beyond doubt will still be the highest value in human life. The notion of health is crucial for medicine; in the present, the following factors are considered determining and impactful (Machalová et al. 2009, p. 13).

Figure 1.2 shows clearly that while the role of genetic disposition and environment cannot be ignored and the quality of health care plays a certain role as well, lifestyle seems to be the deciding factor for an individual’s medical condition.

Fig. 1.2
figure 2

Determinants of health

Full size image

Žumárová provides the following definition of typical features of a lifestyle:

Cognitive evaluation of oneself and one’s own place in the world—a personal philosophy of life is the basic foundation of every individual’s actions.

Manner of experiencing—the quality and intensity of experiences differ in individuals; the attempts to suppress natural emotions may even lead health problems.

Approach to work, relaxation and movement activity—one’s mental capacities are most typically regenerated by compensatory self-realization; the ability to relax efficiently is a very important part of resting.

Coping with social interactions—for human beings, it is important to participate in a sufficient social network that provides them with a feeling of safety and on which they can rely; at the same time, however, one should not be too emotionally dependent on a single person, which leads to a loss of emotional autonomy.

Ego level—the overall personality endowment with the ability to handle difficult tasks in life (Žumárová 2001).

Lifestyles can be classified according to different criteria:

Havlík et al. (1996) divide lifestyles into the following three groups according to prevailing values:

  • Studying lifestyle pertains to people who can be basically characterized by frequent reading and theatregoing, exploring trips, but also watching TV. For this group of people, curiosity is typical.

  • Lifestyle with play as the most common value is a modified version of past celebrations. Over the course of a year, every week and every day can be celebrated. This type of lifestyle is typical of athletes or sports fans as well as of players of various games and regular visitors of various entertainment venues.

  • Contemplative lifestyle can occur both individually and in communities. Statistics show these are mostly loners who never spend their leisure time with families.

There are also other attempts at a typology of lifestyle. The German sociologist W. Georg perceives lifestyle as relatively stable, routine patterns of behaviour and action. Based on his findings, he construed the following types of lifestyle:

  • Hedonistic expressive lifestyle—emphasis on social contacts and a network of friends and acquaintances; an individual rejects conventional family life as well as asceticism.

  • Family-oriented lifestyle—family (also in the broader sense) forms the foundation of all aspects of life; prioritization of practical, useful hobbies; and minimal interest in politics, science and culture.

  • Culture-oriented ascetic lifestyle—great interest in culture without emphasizing the significance of financial means; preference for healthy and eco-friendly lifestyle; and frequent engagement in public activities.

  • Careful passive lifestyle—conservative values in various aspects of life; rejection of consumerism as well as anything avant-garde; avoidance of social contacts; and practically oriented.

  • Prestige-oriented self-presentation—demonstration of social status in consumption as well as in leisure time; adherence to fashion trends; and extravagance.

  • Careful conventional lifestyle—it differs from careful passive lifestyle by its emphasis on faith and religious values; conventional in terms of consumption and leisure time; and modesty and simplicity.

  • Avant-garde, pleasure-seeking and representative lifestyle—consumption-focused; quality, exclusivity and extravagance are the leading principles; and emphasis on representative social contacts (Georg 1998).

The French sociologist Bernard Cathelat (1991) created the following typology of lifestyle:

  • Entrepreneur—everything revolves around work; they frequently use modern products and means; in consumption, they prefer brands, originals, fashion; they are interested in current knowledge regarding any subject.

  • Utilitarian—oriented towards family, home, traditions; their cultural interests are pragmatic, conservative, materialistic and regionalistic; and careful consumers.

  • Conservative—enclosed within their own well-known “territory”; family-oriented; distrust of modern technologies; xenophobic but not fanatic patriots; and traditional approach to consumption as for the type of shop and the structure of purchase.

  • Ideal—they desire a quiet family life, comfortable housing, abundance of leisure time; they are satisfied with themselves and have a very weak feeling of solidarity.

  • Anarchist—preference for personal life; antisocial; pessimistic ironic observers; anticonsumerist views and preference for cultural underground; and not fond of books and cinema.

  • Opportunist–new rich—“parasitic” lifestyle; preference for leisure time, holidays, narcissist sports; and they strive maximum personal gain without any regards for society.

  • Harlequin in the theatre of society—they observe their existence, constantly reasserting their identity; fondness of videogames; preference for audio-visual and emotional information; and they like the fantastic and the shocking experiences.

Attempting to describe lifestyle according to a set of everyday activities, the following classification into several basic categories emerges:

Activities oriented towards job, profession and corresponding preparation—based on age, this covers the process of education, entering employment, adaptation to the work process, stabilization, professional growth–career, etc.

Activities related to family—they include search for a partner, starting a family, establishing and developing a household, upbringing of children, etc.

Activities related to interests—the delimitation of personal interests and their fostering and development together with a search for compromises necessitated by interests of other family members, rest, entertainment and relaxation.

Activities connected to social life—this means participating in social life and civic relations, expanding the area of social contacts and holding position in social and political life.

Activities connected to satisfaction of biological and hygienic needs—food, sleep, hygiene, etc. (Kraus 2008).

In relation to influencing individuals’ lifestyles, healthy lifestyle has recently been discussed. It is a response to the condition of the Earth’s population, especially in the developed countries, the information explosion, the influence of mass media as well as to the environmental situation and all negative aspects of scientific and technological developments, i.e. to the progress of civilization. Last but not least, as mentioned above, it is because of its crucial influence on human health.

Healthy lifestyle is not simply a matter of proper nutrition and sufficient movement; it is also related to mental health, which should be balanced, and an individual’s social life. In the present, people tend to live in constant stress and rush and they are not able to relax adequately. We lack leisure time, and if we have some, we cannot use it properly.

Education towards healthy lifestyle is usually understood as instilling habits of body and mental hygiene. With regard to previously stated facts, healthy lifestyle is primarily related to these basic areas:

Rhythm of life—ratio of work and rest, physical and psychological strain, adequate length of sleep;

Movement regimen—regular physical activity and adequate physical strain;

Mental activity—connected to cultural interests and follow-up education that adheres to the principles of mental hygiene; and relaxation after everyday stress;

Regimen and rational nutrition—adequate dietary regimen that maintains health and both physical and mental performances;

Coping with difficult situations in life (Kraus 2008).

Lifestyle is formed by both objective and subjective factors. The subjective ones are relevant especially when considering an individual’s lifestyle. Objective factors can be examined on different levels. First of all, there are the conditions and circumstances in the closest surroundings, which in this case mean family, but there can also be different microenvironments. Factors within local and regional surroundings can also have an impact. However, human lives are primarily determined by society-wide situations or even, in the globalized world of today, factors extending beyond the respective society.

There is another frequently discussed attribute of contemporary civilization: consumer society. It is not merely a negative feature; it is related to the development of technology and economy that led to elimination of hunger and destitution in the classical sense. Consumer society in a developed civilization presumes a certain economic standard of a mass consumer and in a way reflects an increased standard of living. A consumer needs to be able to buy consumer goods in order to be able to consume. Thus, it is necessary to re-evaluate a number of economic categories, especially wages and profit. Henry Ford can rightfully be considered the father of consumer society. For mass production of cars to be possible, there had to be consumers able to buy them. For this reason, he raised salaries. Mass production leads to an appropriate income and this causes mass consumption.

This is also related to mass culture and the vanishing or ailing traditional art, the so-called high culture. Art always produced and was supposed to produce delight; it is defined by its affective impact. Mass culture is dominated by a basic premise that it is created for the broadest strata of society: for the masses.

The contemporary society is also characterized by increasing secularization of civilization. This is manifested in a decreased influence of major religions with negative social impact (destabilization of morality and brute materialism). The place of major traditional religious systems is assumed by sectarian-type religions that lack the positive influence of large religions.

According to Fukuyma, all these serious issues (boundless individualism, huge societal dynamics including shifts in social norms and values, consumerist lifestyle, etc.) had the most profound impact on: (a) reproduction, (b) family, (c) relations between man and woman (Fukuyma 2006).

All of the described factors in family lifestyle, which includes a basic framework of activities and relations, have all of family members, in common. However, individual family members may invent their own style, which can differ in specific aspects (such as diet).

All of the aforementioned changes and transformations thoroughly influence family lifestyle, which is primarily affected by consumerism. In the present research, 20% of families gave shopping centre visits as a prevailing leisure time activity (Kraus and Jedličková 2007). This lifestyle also results in an already mentioned “monetization of childhood”. Parents compensate for their inability to dedicate time to their own children by buying them anything the children ask for. However, this results in damage to children’s personality development and may consequently lead to aberrant behaviour.

Lifestyle of contemporary families is also influenced by a shift in value orientation as material values are becoming more prominent than spiritual ones. This is also partially caused by a significant permeation of media into family life. Media have a profound impact on leisure time of individual family members and on their lifestyle overall.

Family lifestyle is in many ways related to the place of residence. The traditional division of urban and countryside environment has in the past decades also been subject to certain changes and shifts; however, it is expected some differences will endure.

Regarding the general perception of lifestyle of contemporary families, it seems to have become more differentiated. On the one hand, there is an increasing number of families that attempt to lead a healthy life, consider diet composition and try to be active in their leisure time, and on the other hand there continues to be a significantly larger group that does not embrace any principles of healthy diet, regimen or active life. As a result, the incidence of so-called lifestyle diseases rather tends to increase, especially among young people and children, and the populace’s state of health worsens, let alone the impact of alcohol, tobacco products, drugs, violence, etc., on the youth’s lives.

1.2 The Survey of Contemporary Family Lifestyle

1.2.1 Recent Research of Family

As a primary social group, primary educational institution and principal social institution, family is also a frequent subject of research and various surveys. Here, it has to be noted that methodologically, it is a highly complex issue for several reasons. Family is not only a primary social group, but also a group characterized by highly intimate relations. Thus, it is very difficult to penetrate this social institution’s privacy, life and functioning. This research is likewise ethically sensitive. Moreover, the issue has recently become more complicated due to the universal emphasis on personal data privacy. For these reasons, research of family sometimes appears almost impossible. There are nevertheless numerous papers on family, including recent ones. Prior to describing the present survey Contemporary Family Lifestyle in Central European countries, this paper will take note of research done in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Some papers focus on female and male role in family and on the division of labour. In family and household, the “unequal” division of labour, responsibilities and rights according to gender is still produced and reproduced (Maříková 1999, 23). However, in contrast to the past, it tends to be emphasized that the lack of male participation in household labour (ironing, doing laundry, etc.) concerns both men and women. In males, there has been discovered a frequent unwillingness to take part in the so-called women’s work, while in females, resignation has sometimes been found. In this context, it is remarkable that Holubová (2011) found that 33.5% of men want to participate more in domestic labour and 42.2% aim to be more active in childcare. In this respect, female expectations are always higher and more unequivocal (42.2% would prefer a greater participation in domestic work, and 76% want a greater activity in childcare).

According to Bútorová et al. (2008, 31–33), in the present there are relatively few people who openly proclaim the view that women should perform the majority of domestic labour and childcare. Such an opinion is only held by one-fifth of women (21%) and a little under one-third of men (29%). In comparison, 62% of women and 52% of men prefer cooperation of both spouses. Maříková’s research (2006, 85) shows that mother continues to perform a very important role in family, since she is predominantly responsible for the most regular activities (i.e. everyday communication and basic care) and frequently also for the most time-consuming ones. Father participates alongside mother in such activities where regularity is less important (e.g. vocation-related decisions, punishment of children, buying presents).

Likewise, our research Tradition and modernity in the life-style of the families of the Visegrad countries shows a similar (or in some regions, even more unequal) situation regarding the division of responsibilities for the functioning of family and household; this research was performed in 2006 by universities in Katowice, Nitra, Hradec Králové and Szeged, where there was a coordinating centre (Kraus and Jedličková 2007). This is specifically illustrated in Table 1.1 (the figures show the percentage of participation of individual household members in specific tasks):

Table 1.1 Participation of individual household members in specific tasks (in %)
Full size table

Clearly, there has been a shift in the traditional division of work in family; however, women remain more “competent” in domestic works than men. The fact that women play a significantly greater role in household maintenance than men has also been evidenced by Chaloupková (2005). Her research shows that on average, women spend twice as much time on household chores as men (23.5 h and 11 h 42 min, respectively) and perform the majority of domestic activities. Women always or mostly take care of washing and ironing clothes (94% of women sharing a household with a partner), cooking (80%), tidying up (73%) and washing dishes (72%). The model where men and women share these responsibilities occurs in a third of the cases at most. There are rare households in which these activities are performed by men; their number, however, has been increasing recently.

A number of studies are focused on public perception of family, marriage, loose partnership and parenthood. An interesting comparison on this issue has been provided by the paper Attitudes towards marriage, parenthood and family roles in the Czech Republic and in Europe by Chaloupková and Šalamounová (2004), which employed the data analysis of the ISSP research. Within the ISSP programme, two surveys called family and gender roles took place in 1994 and 2002 in the Czech Republic. The Czech set of data within ISSP 2002 provided information on 1289 respondents. The data was gathered by means of a multidegree random selection. In 1994, the data was collected from 1024 respondents by the universities’ agency.

Both surveys used a set of seven questions regarding attitudes towards marriage and other types of family organization. Furthermore, the survey contained two questions specifically focused on the value of children in individual life. The following statements were included:

  • In general, married men and women are happier than single ones.

  • Bad marriage is better than no marriage.

  • People who want to have children should enter into marriage.

  • A single parent can provide as adequate an upbringing to a child as two parents working together.

  • It is perfectly fine when people live together without planning marriage.

  • It is beneficial when people who want to enter a marriage live together for some time.

  • Usually, divorce is the best solution of a situation in which a couple are no longer able to resolve their marital issues.

  • Watching children grow is the greatest joy in life.

  • People who have never had children are leading an empty life.

Among respondents, the greatest number agreed with the statement that watching children grow is the greatest joy in life. In comparison with the 1990s, the support even grew, up to 90%. More than a half of participants also thought that people who have never had children are leading an empty life. In this case, there was a 10% increase in comparison with 1994. On the other hand, the view of cohabitation of two unmarried partners has not changed significantly. Almost three-thirds of respondents thought people should first try out living together and only then enter into marriage. For a half of the respondents, it was acceptable that partners live together without planning a marriage. This statement unfortunately does not show the extent to which people accept these types of relationships in case a child is born to the couple. Two questions focused on family organization after a family welcomes a child. Forty percentage thought one parent can provide as good an upbringing as two parents working together. In comparison with the previous survey, the share grew by 14%. There was a similar decrease in the support for the statement that people who want to have children should enter a marriage (almost 60% in 2002). Forty-two percentage of respondents thought people are generally happier in marriage, meaning there was almost no change in contrast to 1994.

There has also been no change in attitudes towards divorce. Sixty percentage of respondents viewed it as the best solution of marital problems. The least supported statement was that bad marriage is better than no marriage. However, in 2002 the statement was supported by 10% more people than at the beginning of the 1990s (16%).

In relation to education, age and a number of children, results from 1994 did not differ significantly from the findings from 2002 stated above.

The results are remarkable in comparison with Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Sweden, Netherlands, France and Spain. Individual countries showed relatively large differences in the degree of support for individual statements. As expected, the protestant countries Sweden and Netherlands proved the most tolerant for alternative family structures. The respondents from these two countries perceived unmarried partnership as an equal alternative to marriage more frequently (90%). In the least cases of all countries, they associated childbirth with a need to enter marriage (less than a third). In more cases, they also disagreed with the claim that childless people lead an empty life (one in ten only). Among Dutch respondents, there was a relatively lesser support for the statement that it is beneficial when people who want to enter a marriage live together for some time. However, this in fact might have evidenced their tolerance; the respondents could have felt it is each couple’s responsibility, which was why they did not agree with the wording.

Respondents from all former socialist countries more frequently felt that people are happier in marriage: a half of them agreed with the statement, with Slovakia showing a little lesser support. In countries that have been in the EU longer, only every fourth person (at most) agreed with the statement. The respondents from post-communist countries also showed the least support for both statements regarding unmarried partners.

The statements that one parent can provide as good an upbringing as two garnered a surprisingly high support in Poland and Spain. Both these countries are highly Catholic in comparison with the rest. The reason for such a widespread opinion might have been, to an extent, the negative perception of abortion; the respondents might have felt it was better if a child was born even in an incomplete family. In the Czech Republic, there was a comparatively high support in 2002 for the statement that bad marriage is better than no marriage; almost one in five agreed. In other countries, it was one in ten at most (Spain and Poland) and two out of a hundred (Netherlands).

With the exception of Netherlands, the most supported statement was that watching children grow is the greatest joy in life. Hungary showed the greatest rate of support (95%); however, the differences from the Czech Republic and other countries were minimal. In Netherlands, only eight in ten people supported this statement.

For some statements, the influence of gender was marked. In all states, women showed a statistically significant increase in the view that one parent can provide as good an upbringing as both parents. In case of partners split, women take care of children almost exclusively. Because of this, most women felt only one parent can also cope with the situation. In most countries, men thought married people are happier than singles (except for Slovakia). In France, Netherlands and Sweden, men stated more frequently that people who plan to have children should enter into marriage. In these countries, the experience with informal partnerships has been more extensive; thus, men may have felt the disadvantages of these types of cohabitation, especially in cases when a couple with children split.

The influence of education on individual answers was lesser among Slovaks and the Dutch. In all countries, less educated people were more conservative (including the abovementioned ones); however, they usually agreed with the statement regarding divorce. On the other, people, graduates of secondary schools with a final examination and universities tended to agree with the statements concerning unmarried couples and did not feel people should enter marriage because of children (Chaloupková and Šalamounová 2004).

The research performed by the Institute of Sociology of the Czech Academy of Sciences that was focused on the relations between changes in job market and in private life examined the extent to which family lifestyle is influenced by the time dedicated to work (Dudová 2005). This survey took place in the last quarter of 2005 and included 5510 respondents aged 25–54 let (2778 males and 2732 females) selected via the method of quota sampling.

This representative survey also focused on the influence of marital status on time dedicated to work, showing that in females, time demands of work had no relation to marital status as the distribution was identical in all categories. It is therefore not possible to claim that married women work less intensely in their salaried jobs than single and divorced women.

However, in males, time demands of work were clearly dependent on marital status. Divorced men spent most time working, and married ones most frequently worked with an average intensity. Unexpectedly, single males did not work more intensely than others; in fact, this category included the greatest number of respondents who worked less intensely or not at all. This corresponds to the fact that single males are members of lower social and economic classes and include higher share of economically inactive individuals than other categories of marital status.

Respondents’ marital status also influenced their willingness to work at weekends. A decidedly highest rate was found among divorced males without a stable partner (60%). Among women, however, this was not the case, probably because they had to take care of children from previous marriages.

The extensive research of family life in Slovakia in the context of social transformation was performed by the UMB in Banská Bystrica (Višňovský et al. 2010).

It focused on demographic development and an increase in divorce rate, family behaviour, unemployment and its impact on family life, troubles in family functions, stress situations in family and relevant coping strategies, occurrence of sociopath logical phenomena in families, surrogate family care and cooperation of family and school, with a special attention paid to Roma families.

P. Ondrejkovič performed a remarkable survey focused on the influence of current social conditions, which include rapid change, on family life, entitled The Manifestation of Anomie in Contemporary Slovak Family (Ondrejkovič 2010). He noted that contemporary “modern” family is inconsistent, its internal relations are chaotic, its structure changes frequently, and it often produces feelings of helplessness. In a growing number of cohabitations, helplessness was typical, together with a difficult grasp of the contemporary complex world, which lacks clear rules and standards; this produced feelings of loneliness, pessimistic moods, indifference and apathy.

Notably, results and conclusions of this survey showed that out of all questions, the highest score was achieved by the answers “As an individual, I cannot change anything about our current troubles” and “The world has become so complex today one can no longer grasp it”. Overall, the author claimed that the symptoms of anomie in contemporary family were proved beyond doubt (Ondrejkovič 2010).

The already mentioned survey Tradition and modernity in the life-style of the families of the Visegrad countries (Kraus and Jedličková 2007) was focused directly at family lifestyle. Given the general trends in recent family transformations, it is possible to supplement this by a demonstration of the extent to which there has been a shift away from tradition towards modern lifestyle, beginning with cultural habits. Table 1.2 shows that family life has been most affected in the Czech Republic and Hungary. On the contrary, Polish and Slovak families have been keeping traditional habits and customs to a significantly greater degree, and they are more conservative.

Table 1.2 Family cultural habits in terms of subjective indicators (as % of the national sample)
Full size table

The situation is similar regarding value orientation (Table 1.3). In this case, modernization has most influenced the value system of families in the Czech Republic and also in Hungary. The greatest adherence to traditional values has been discovered in Poland.

Table 1.3 Family value system in terms of subjective indicators (as % of the national sample)
Full size table

The following part of this chapter is dedicated to methodological basis of the present survey.

1.2.2 The Research Project Contemporary Family Lifestyle

Aims of the Research

The aim of this research was to ascertain the lifestyle of contemporary families. It was performed, as noted in the introduction, in the project “Development and Support of the Multidisciplinary Scientific and Research Team for the Study of Contemporary Family at the UHK”, which included the topic “Contemporary Family Lifestyle”.

The research team established the following partial aims in four areas:

  • Life satisfaction:

    • How respondents picture a happy family.

    • What influences the happiness of a family.

  • Economic situation of families:

    • What the main income is and who contributes to it.

    • What the biggest costs are associated with.

    • How much the families have been influenced by unemployment and dependence on social welfare.

    • How they perceive their living standard.

  • Family spare time:

    • What the proportion is of time spent on one’s own to time spent together.

    • How much spare time individual family members have.

    • What activities constitute spare time occupation.

    • Whether family spent their spare time according to their wishes.

  • Media in the family:

    • Equipment of households by selected types of electronic media.

    • Frequency and manner of using media in the family.

    • Attitudes towards the role of media in family life.

The stated entries will also be examined for a connection to independent variables: the size of the place of residence, the number of children in the family, parents’ age, job, attained education.

1.2.3 Method Employed

The issue of examining lifestyle is highly problematic. It has to be noted that lifestyle is such a multifarious category and it is virtually almost unrecordable empirically. It is linked to a number of other categories that are also difficult to grasp, such as the tempo of life, the rhythm of life, the intensity of life, life orientation, self-experiencing, the meaning of life, life ideals and the harmony of life (Petrusek et al. 1996).

Despite these caveats and difficulties, lifestyle is researched, or at least some of its components are. That is also the case here; the aforementioned categories of lifestyle were selected. Lifestyle can then be examined from the perspective of lifecycle stages, generational perspective, territorial perspective, etc. These variables were also considered in the present research.

There are various techniques available to gain specific data, e.g. a time-lapse photography in relation to examining spare time. Quantitative research performed via anonymous questionnaire in the family was selected to the empirical inquiry.

A custom non-standardized questionnaire (see Appendix) was chosen as the most suitable research technique. When preparing the questionnaire, there were selected fields which functioned as a basis—satisfaction with life, economic situation of families, family spare time and media in the family. Its advantage was a relatively quick and economic collection of a relatively large amount of data from a corresponding number of respondents. The disadvantage was that it was only possible to discover the perception the respondents had of themselves, i.e. their subjective perspective of reality, not their real nature. Thus, the data may be slightly distorted.

During the preparation of the questionnaire, the effectiveness of each item and the appositeness of its formulation were evaluated, with a special attention paid to the assessment of the relevance of items for the research aims. The questionnaire contained 31 questions/items. The questions had the form of closed items, closed polychromous items, half-closed items and open items. The first five questions inquired about sociodemographic data (the place of residence, the number of children in the family, age, attained education and employment of both spouses/partners). The remaining questioned were intended to provide data for the remaining four areas: 6–11 economic situation of families; 12–14 happiness and living standard of families; 15–22 and 30 spare time in the family; and 23–29 media in the family. Thus, besides inquiring about the abovementioned independent variables (the place of residence, age, etc.), the questionnaire also included questions ascertaining what the family income was, who the earner was, whether the family received any welfare or whether family members had any experience of unemployment, what the greatest costs in family budget were associated with and whether the family manage to save some money.

Further items were focused on what amount and quality of spare time were available, which spare time activities were the most typical of the family, which activities the family members would have liked to do and why it was not possible, whether they engaged in sports, how often and in what types of sports, and whether they played video games.

The research also enquired which media were available in the household, who used them most often and how frequently it was, whether family members watched TV together and what type of shows they preferred, and how the media influenced the family life (question no. 26).

The category of satisfaction with life was also covered. Despite marked differences, most definitions of life satisfaction, happiness and subjective well-being share the emphasis on the subjectivity of the assessment—people are satisfied if they feel that way or if they state they feel that way—people are happy and content, if they say they are. Can happiness and satisfaction be measured?

At the same time, the issues inherent in a survey of satisfaction with life, happiness and subjective well-being are not limited to the rather small consensus on what the terms really mean. Empirical sociology also raises the question whether and how happiness or satisfaction can be measured. For this purpose, psychologists created complex indices; however, life satisfaction/happiness is generally measured in a few questions or even in a single question asking respondents how happy/satisfied they are.

Using more questions and scales is certainly better than only using a single one; surprisingly, however, both methods of measurement have the same reliability. Even it seems a crude research tool at first glance, the results of discussions and long-term research show that even a simple question (or questions) may meaningfully record individual satisfaction, which can then be considered in the context of demographic and social factors (Hamplová 2004, 13). The present research employed this procedure and included questions regarding how the respondents imagine a happy family, what they would need to be satisfied and which aspect of life has the greatest impact on life satisfaction.

1.2.4 Research Sample and the Course of the Survey

The questionnaires were distributed by students of both daily and combined study programmes at the Faculty of Education of the UHK. Given that the students did not come from Eastern Bohemia only, the research sample covered a majority of the country and could be considered relatively representative, given the overall number of 1307 questionnaires. The questionnaires were transmitted to families; family was understood as a cohabitation of at least one parent and one supported child (i.e. a child from birth to graduation, including university graduation, living in one household). Parents were defined as both partners in an informal relationship and married couples. The survey aimed at an even distribution, including parents according to the size of the place of residence and according to their education. Thus, the respondents primarily included parents, who provided answers to the questions in the survey for whole families.

The survey took a similar form in other countries, specifically in Slovakia, Poland, Germany, Ukraine and Latvia. The questionnaires were also distributed by students of collaborating universities. Even though the research samples in these countries were not even, we believe it is possible to perform a comparison.

The numbers of respondents were as follows: Czech Republic: 1307 respondents, Slovakia: 288 respondents, Poland: 126 respondents, Ukraine: 209 respondents, Latvia: 381 respondents and Germany: 126 respondents.

The collection of data took place from May to October 2013. In foreign countries, the process was more difficult and continued until the end of 2014. The data in questionnaires was processed gradually, and incomplete or faulty questionnaires were excluded. The gathered data was recorded (encoded) into a prepared template in MS Excel and subsequently exported to the statistics software SPSS. There, the data was checked and divided into nominal, ordinal and metrical for the purposes of further processing. Nominal data was further categorized into the most frequent types (e.g. for items nos. 8, 11, 13, 16, 28 of the questionnaire).

Selected figures concerning research samples:

The respondents’ spread of age in all included countries was 25–65 in males and 20–55 in females. The majority of respondents were aged 25–45.

Regarding the number of children in families, in all countries except for Germany and Slovakia, three quarters of families had one or two children. In both Germany and Slovakia, they only comprised a little over a half of the total number. The German research sample was set apart by the number of childless families (25.4%). In Slovakia, on the other hand, 30.6% of families had three children, while the share of such families in all other countries was roughly 10%.

In terms of attained education, the research sample of males comprised virtually in all included countries roughly two-thirds of secondary school graduates, with the exception of Germany (just under 40%). Roughly one in four graduated from university (only 14% in Slovakia and 33% in Germany). The representation of respondents who attained basic education was minimal (highest in Latvia—6%).

The spread was similar in females, but university education was less frequent (especially in Latvia—16%, and in Slovakia and Poland—19%). The share of respondents who attained basic education was also neglectable.