Cultural differences in the parents & children interaction in Kuwait society

Abstract

The aim of this study to examine the interaction between parents and children in Kuwait. It examines gender, home types, number of wives, and child age order differences in father and mother dialogue scales. The study also examines the association between the father and mother dialogue scale with some social variables. A sample of 725 Kuwaiti aged 17‒19 years was selected. Respondents’ GPA, some household information, father’s and mother’s Educational levels were collected were used. Father/Mother Dialogue Scale. Significant differences were found between males and females, types of home, have only one wife and those who have more than one wife, the son/daughter order among siblings in the family, the fathers and mothers’ age in both father and mother dialogue scales. Relationship was found between father and mother dialogue and many sociocultural variables. The dialogue between children and their parents is considered to be weak, especially in regard to the father’s side.

Keywords:

• Dialogue
• Parents and Children Interaction
• Cultural Differences
• Kuwait

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

The study concentrated on the interaction between parents and children in Kuwait Society. It shows cultural differences using gender, home types, number of wives, and child age differences in father and mother dialogue. The study also examines the association between the father and mother dialogue scale with some social variables taken into account. This research attempted to address the vital factors that impact dialogue between parents and children. Dialogue is considered a means of socializing children; it enables them to adapt positively within their community. Additionally, this research attempted to raise the importance of dialogue in shaping children’s personalities and encouraging them to affect and be affected positively by the components of a community.

1. Introduction

Dialogue has been an essential means of interaction between members of a society since ancient times (Sazonov et al., 2020). This is reflected in the way members of a community interact with each other in the absence of modern communication methods. Parents have a central role in shaping their children’s social-emotional development, especially when their children are going through their most formative years (Behrendt et al., 2019); “however, children’s influence on their own development is equally important. Parent–child interactions [are] fundamental to secure attachments and social schemes … ” (Kirchhoff et al., 2019: 57). Lessons abound throughout history that assert to the democratic life of any society being dependent on dialogue’s dimensions and backgrounds within the community. This is owing to the idea of a perfect democracy being related to the extent that people are willing to accept—intellectually and emotionally—the democratic values that cannot be formed without dialogue and acceptance of others (Al-Tayar, 2011). Within various domains and at every educational, philosophical, social, and scientific stage, dialogue is an important aspect of people’s lives (Reincke et al., 2020; Tondl, 2017). Twenty-first-century skills, such as critical thinking and problem-solving as well as those involving cognitive function and creativity, etc., are implanted into people this way. Therefore, education can assist people in achieving these skills. “[The] learning process begins in the family with the birth of a child and continues, at school … [so] parents and teachers should work together to create a suitable learning environment for students” (Gündüz, 2018: 491). This is particularly important during adolescence, as a learner at this age “passes through a critical stage and a cope in many aspects of his character and growth” (Al-Tyar, 2011: 139). Dialogue acquires its extreme importance from the fact that humanity cannot progress without the input of all people.

As previously stated, dialogue has an important role in improving critical and creative thinking (Haynes & Murris, 2001). It also plays a key role in educational institutions, helps to improve students’ attitudes toward the subjects they study. Dialogue also contributes to an increased sociological and social compatibility between students (Al-Obaid, 2013; ALTayar, 2001). Furthermore, conversing with their students allows teachers to understand their pupils’ psychologies (Al-Du’aij, 2005). Al-Wae’ely (2004) illustrated that dialogue is an outlet for the learner that allows an individual to express their thoughts. This broadens their mind and makes the individual grow accustomed to logical thinking and arranging their ideas. These traits will lead an individual to confront life situations positively. Through dialogue, Kuo (2020) believes that students “will use wisdom and ethics to guard their use of knowledge, create peaceful coexistence, and become responsible global citizens” (p. 91).

2. The importance of dialogue between parents and children

A Symbolic Interactionism Theory (SIT) that conceived by George Herbert Mead concentrated on society as a product of shared symbols that are “constructed by the meaning that individuals attach to events and social interactions and these symbols are transmitted across the generations through language” (Nickerson, 2021: 1). According to this theory, if the interaction between the spouses and their children does not perform the role it should, a negative influence is inflicted on the entire family, and this influence will manifest in the children’s behavior in wider society.

The global fact that people hold conflicting views leads to their refusal to recognize each other’s outlooks. Qandeel (2006) believes that throughout the last three centuries the world has been promoting the abandonment of authority through encouraging research and dialogue on the concepts of logic and reason. In addition, allowing for dialogue, argument, and logic to be used to solve issues and to respect and appreciate the opinions of others (p. 35).

Dialogue between parents and children plays a large role in forming a child’s morals and conduct, helping them to become courageous and face life’s struggles. This dialogue also helps them to solve other problems (Al-Qurani, 2008). The family is the main source of enablement for a child’s construction of their social skills and relationships. It also has a role in enhancing the capabilities of young children in the forming of social relationships outside of the family. Prizant et al. (2003) said that the family permits children to become accustomed to inter-family dialogue, which helps them develop their social abilities positively. Furthermore, that mutual respect between parents remains in the hearts of their children for a long time, which reflects in their future social relationships outside of the home. This affects children from an early age: “the development of positive communication skills among people occurs and develops through intra-family relationships from the first years of life” (Basit & Omerglu, 2019: 38).

The role of the family within the social structure—which is common among family members and a factor in ensuring the continuation of effective social relations among them—was clarified in the study by Friedman et al., 2000). They asserted that the family emphasizes the development of rules for how positive interactions are handled within the household, which strengthens and enhances social construction. Furthermore, the language of dialogue within the family enhances the social relations of its members. Additionally, the study shows that the presence of positive models of a husband and wife inside the house drives children to emulate them inside and outside the home.

A study by Gordis et al. (2001) revealed a positive correlation between atmospheres that are hostile to the initiation of family dialogues and immoral behaviors in children. Also, a study by Gordis et al. (1997) uncovered a connection between positive participation in family dialogues and children’s psychological health. In addition, a study by Norbert and Stefan (2008) found that objectives cannot be fulfilled without new bases for family dialogue and relations.

In contrast, there are negative aspects to the language of dialogue within the family, such raised voices during conversations between parents and children, and the use of obscene words and expressions, especially those of children directed toward parents (Ahmed, 2000). Persistent futile arguing and dialogue as well as instances of parents trying to impose ideas on their children without either discussion or providing children the opportunity to express their opinions on their own affairs constitute these negative aspects (Samadi, 2007). Such conversations can sometimes turn into a duel of words between children and parents that tend toward defamatory remarks and a refrainment from discussing issues and ideas or personal deeds and intentions (Ezzat, 1991). A negative atmosphere that has spread within the family is the cause of this: the parents lack of a positive strategy for using discourse to deal with their own issues. Undoubtedly, this reflects in their children’s attempts to block opportunities for discussion, dialogue, and consultation between them and their parents. A catalyst for the use of suppressive tools: authority, power, rebellion, and confrontation (Hasan, 2014). Studies of a number of different families (Farr et al., 2019; Harold & Sellers, 2018; Zemp et al., 2019) showed that many married couples do not hold civilized conversations when they discuss their common life. The results revealed that some of the problems currently facing families and society are due to a lack of communication between parents and their children. Although there is a dire need to increase interpersonal communication between parents and children, especially considering the revolutionary communication we now possess, which causes many of the problems facing families and society (Salama, 2001 cited by: Musa, 2011). The absence of constructive family dialogue will lead a family to experience a number of drawbacks, such as tyranny, authoritarianism, intolerance, single-mindedness, violence, terrorism, and indifference (Al-Laboudi, 2003). Therefore, we must develop a culture of constructive dialogue and civilized conversation between parents and children to avoid the disadvantages related to a lack of communication. This will impose the spirit of cooperation and respect in parents toward their children’s opinions. This is necessary in order to reach the goal of a dialogue that will have a positive impact on the behavior of children in their thoughts, relationships, and daily interactions and affairs within the community.

3. Methods of socialization (dialogue) and parental treatment

The family is the most important mediator of socialization, as it contributes through its role in forming the behavior and personality of children. Some empirical studies (e.g., Jensen et al., 2014; Ramírez García et al., 2010) showed how family played the role of a mediator. For example, Mexican American families showed the influences of youth and their parents’ socialization and acculturation of substance use. A mediator of these effects was tested to be conflict between parents and adolescents (Jensen et al., 2014). As it studied by Ramírez García et al. (2010) that there is an impact of inner-city pressures and parent-youth acculturation/enculturation on Mexican American juvenile substance use is mediated by the family. The family was a mediator of this impact. Every family adopts a particular socialization method (Axpe et al., 2019; Bika et al., 2019; Revuelta et al., 2018). There are those that practice an authoritarian method and others that use an indifference method, a neglecting method, or a democratic method. Methods differ from place to place according to the sub-culture of the community as well as the educational and cultural level of the parents within the family (Alholy & Al-Masa’ad, 2003). The family is represented by parents, who act as the first pillar for constructing an individual’s personality. The family is every individual’s first custodian and the main party responsible for their welfare and instilling knowledge and awareness. The family is the first social unit and the most important in forming the individual’s way of life, and it is responsible for their safety and security (Mashaqba, 2007). The role of parents is to enhance their children’s social interaction skills through nurturing their behavioral patterns. Also, they need to preserve the social structure among their family members to continue positive relations among them. (Williams, 2008; cited by Musa, 2011). The methods of parental discourse have an effective and essential role in the upbringing of a child. They are the means of developing an individual’s intellect and emotions while building the distinguished character one needs to achieve goodness and success in all areas of their life (Khuya, 2007: 480).

Among the studies that have been conducted on the importance of parental dialogue and its impact on children, Danijla (2008) specifically aimed to investigate the effect of the practice of dialogue in discussing and planning for family life. The study was a part of the 35 Family Summer program and was entitled “Dialogue in the Family” It focused on a sample group of Christian families The study was conducted in the framework (35 family summer program) entitled “Dialogue in The Family.” It was applied to a sample of Christian families. The results showed that it is very important for married couples to utilize dialogue in overcoming their differences and to implement proper methods of discussion. Since conversation plays an essential role in mutual love and responsible parenthood, proper methods of discussion are impossible without discourse between the spouses (p. 489).

There have been attempts to identify the most practical ways to create a proper dialogue, define the concept of dialogue through Islamic sources, identify the types of family dialogues, and classify the relationship between marital happiness and children’s mental health. A study by Al-Baker (2008) reached these results: dialogue should not take place during times of anger but when the husband and wife are in a good mood. Of the sample families, 73% gained a positive result from the dialogue. Another 91% believed that the dialogue had a positive impact on their spouses or children’s sociological skills. Furthermore, 98% thought it would be possible for them to learn dialogue and acquire skills related to it (p. 32).

In addition, a study by Rachel and Simmons aimed to detect the connection between repeating specific words during family dialogue and the personal and sociological health of the spouses. The study was applied to a group of 59 married couples, who participated in a debate on solving marital problems. The results were that spouses who use plural pronouns (e.g., we) in discourse take a more positive attitude toward resolving family problems than spouses who use singular pronouns (e.g., I). Also, the pronouns used by spouses during a family dispute, settlement, or discussion give an incisive indicator awareness of marital interaction, especially regarding marital and family relaxation and satisfaction.

As a result of the findings of these studies, we can determine the possible causes of children’s disorders, as many of the studies (Grinwald, 2008; Hamill, 1994; Jackson et al., 1998; Pearson et al., 1995) acknowledge that a child can suffer from disorders and mental illnesses when the communication between him and his mother is decreased or distorted. Scherz (1970) describes Communication within the family is “the channel which clarifies the rules and roles, operations on autism, distinguishing, task management, and conflicts and re-solving conflicts.

A survey prepared by the Family Reconciliation Committee for the legitimacy court in Beirut in 2006 asserted that lack of discourse is the third leading cause of divorce (Al-Awad, 2008 cited by Musa 2011). In regard to the impact of family communication on the delinquent conduct of adolescents, the results of studies by Davalos et al. (2005) and Abu Al-hasan (2005) showed that there is a significant connection between teenagers’ awareness of the patterns of their family communication and the types of delinquent behaviors they engage in; however, the variable of gender on the teenagers’ awareness of the levels of their domestic communication produced no effect. There are many studies that address the apparent and latent delinquent conduct of teenagers. The main reasons for this inclination in adolescents to be willing to engage in such behavior lie in poor communicative relationships with their parents, lack of family cohesion and family warmth, and the committing of antisocial behaviors (Abdel-Hameed & Siddiq, 1999; Brenner & Fox, 1998; Clark & Shields, 1997; Engels et al., 2002; Jumah, 1995; Tulloch et al., 1997).

Abu Al-hasan (2005) revealed that the communicative relationship between teenagers and their parents and teenagers’ inability to express themselves and their emotions causes their aggression to be directed toward others. Teens seek to find alternative affiliations and attract the attention of others, which leads to them joining peer groups, even ones that are delinquent and reject society while being rejected by it themselves. Their quest to integrate and unite with these groups pushes them to participate in the groups’ actions and ideas, which has an effective role in the teen’s rejection of social norms and rebellious actions. This causes them to engage in antisocial behaviors, which in turn leads to the generation of more underlying delinquent conduct (p. 184). Therefore, the relationship between children and their parents is the biggest influence the family has on the behavior and character building of children. Using the democratic method, which relies on dialogue, will undoubtedly lead to the creation of a generation that can cope with the difficulties of life, progress, and growth.

The aim of this study is to examine the interaction between parents and children in Kuwait. It examines gender, home types, number of wives, and child age differences in father and mother dialogue scales. The study also examines the association between the father and mother dialogue scale with some social variables taken into account.

4. Research hypotheses

The treatment of parents differs in the Arab culture generally compare with other cultures. These distinctions are based on age and gender (Barakat, 2013). Whether a child is a boy or a girl, parents have different approaches to raising their offspring. Their therapy also varies depending on whether the child was born first, middle, or last in the family. This might have an impact on how parents and kids interact. The living condition is one of the key factors that impact the stability of the family. According to Al-Kandari (2006), there is am association between poor parental behavior and unstable families. The father’s departure from the house for a variety of reasons, such as business travel, nights out, spending time with his other wife, etc., is one of many variables that contribute to family instability. The type of home the family resides in is yet another contributor to family instability. Due to this, the study aims to investigate the following hypothesis:

H1. There are significant differences between males and females in father and mother dialogue scales.

H2. There are significant differences between types of homes (owned or rented homes) in father and mother dialogue scales.

H3. There are significant differences between the number of wives (only one or more than one) in father and mother dialogue scales.

H4. There are significant differences among the son/daughter age order among siblings and fathers’ and mothers’ age categories in father and mother dialogue scales.

H5. There is a significant relationship between the father and mother dialogue scale with some social variables.

5. Methodology

Descriptive analytical method was used in this study by collecting the amount of appropriate data. This method clarifies the differences and relationship among the research variables and use appropriates statistical procedures that fit the nature of the study.

5.1: Sample

A sample of 725 Kuwaiti teens aged 17‒19 years was selected using a random sample from six high schools from all six governorates(male = 350; female = 375). This sample was selected by passing the questionnaire among Kuwaiti teens in classrooms in their school after taking 15 minutes from their class time and after receiving permission from the school administration. Questions had been well defined by the Research Assistants(RAs). Students were selected from all six educational ministry districts, which ensured a good representation of the whole population. Respondents were encouraged to answer the questions, and they agreed to participate in the research voluntarily.

5.2 Variables

The questionnaire was the major tool of this study. The questionnaire is composed of respondents’ demographic information, such as age, gender, and governorate information. The students’ GPA was collected. Some household information was collected: parents’ education, age, number of people living in the same household, average hours the teen spends with his/her father and mother daily, number of brothers and sisters, economic status, type of house(owned or rented), son/daughter order in age among his/her brothers and sisters, son/daughter order(first, mid, and last), and father’s number of wives. Father’s and mother’s educational levels were divided into eight categories, starting from elementary school and below = (1) to higher education = (8).For data analysis, father’s and mother’s age were divided into four categories: 35–44 years, 45–54 years, 55–64 years, and 65 and above.

The questionnaire was composed with the Father/Mother Dialogue Scale. This scale was developed by the third author and was used in another study for the same sample category. The questionnaire included information about the child’s relationships with both their parents. It consisted of 21 sentences for each parent, with the same items being used for each. Some examples of the items are:“My father/mother is angry with me,” “I talk to my father/mother on a lot of household issues,” “My father/mother joins me in choosing my clothes,” … A five-point Likert scale was used to answer these questions, starting from strongly agree = (5) to strongly disagree = (1). The highest possible score using this scale is 105, and the lowest is 21. Five faculty members from the College of Social Sciences at Kuwait University reviewed the scale to ensure its validity. The scale also shows high internal consistency overall when calculating its Cronbach’s alpha, which was(.90) for father dialogue items and(.91) for mother dialogue items.

5.3 Statistical procedures

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used using SPSS(version 21). The t-test, ANOVA, Pearson correlation, and multivariate regression were used. A t-test was used to examine the differences between gender(male/female), type of house(owned/rented), and whether the father has one or more wives in the father and mother dialogue scales. ANOVA was used to examine son/daughter order(first, middle, last) and father and mother ages in the father and mother dialogue scales. A Pearson correlation between the dialogue scales(father/mother) with some social variables was used. A multivariate regression model was used to predict the effect of social variables on the father and mother dialogue scales.

6. Results

H1. There are significant differences between males and females in father and mother dialogue scales.

To examine the differences between males and females in the father and mother dialogue scales, Table 1 shows these differences in means.

Table 1. Mean, standard deviation and t value for father and mother dialogue scale in Male and Female

Gender	Father dialogue scale
	M	SD	t
Male	65.89	14.53	2.03*
Female	62.97	18.57
	Mother dialogue scale
	M	SD	t
Male	72.19	13.52	−9.92**
Female	83.62	15.21

* P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01

Hypothesis (1) is accepted. The data show that there are significant differences between males and females in both father and mother dialogue scales. The data show that males show a higher mean than females in the father dialogue scale. One the other hand, the data show that females have a higher mean than males in the mother dialogue scale.

H2. There are significant differences between types of homes(owned or rented homes) in father and mother dialogue scales.

To examine the differences between the type of home (owned or rented home) in the father and mother dialogue scales, Table 2 shows these differences in means.

Table 2. Mean, standard deviation and t value for father and mother dialogue scale in type of living home(own/rent)

Type of living home	Father dialogue scale
	M	SD	t
Own home	63.77	17.92	.064
Rent home	63.64	14.96
	Mother dialogue scale
	M	SD	T
Own home	80.59	15.57	.383
Rent home	79.89	16.02

Hypothesis (2) is rejected. Table 2 shows that there are no significant differences between the two types of home (owned or rented) of the respondents’ fathers in the father and mother dialogue scales.

H3. There are significant differences between the number of wives(only one or more than one) in father and mother dialogue scales.

Differences between the number of wives (only one or more than one) in father and mother dialogue scales in all samples and for only males and only females have been examined. Table 3 shows these differences in means.

Table 3. Mean, standard deviation and t value for father and mother dialogue scale in father has one or two and more wives

ALL Sample: No. of wives	Father dialogue scale
	M	SD	t
One wife	65.02	16.64	3.97**
2 wives and more	57.94	21.27
	Mother dialogue scale
	M	SD	T
One wife	81.19	14.83	2.48*
2 wives and more	77.29	17.65
No. of wives	Father dialogue scale
	M	SD	t
One wife	66.42	14.31	.459
2 wives and more	64.44	14.97
	Mother dialogue scale
	M	SD	t
One wife	72.46	12.91	.216
2 wives and more	69.39	15.61
No. of wives	Father dialogue scale
	M	SD	t
One wife	64.52	17.38	4.36**
2 wives and more	54.90	23.11
	Mother dialogue scale
	M	SD	t
One wife	84.32	14.21	1.89*
2 wives and more	81.04	17.41

* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.001

Hypothesis (2) is partially accepted. For all participants in the sample, the data show that there are significant differences between respondents’ fathers who have only one wife and those who have more than one wife in both the father and mother dialogue scales. The data show that respondents’ fathers who have only one wife show a higher mean than those who have more than one wife in the father dialogue scale. The same was found for the mother dialogue scale, with respondents’ fathers who have only one wife showing a higher mean than those who have more than one wife. The significant levels for the father and mother dialogues were 0.001 and 0.05, respectively. For the female respondents specifically, the data show that there are significant differences between respondents’ fathers who have only one wife and those who have more than one wife in both the father and mother dialogue scales. The data show that female respondents’ fathers who have only one wife show a higher mean than those who have more than one wife in the father dialogue scale. The same was found for the mother dialogue scale for female respondents, in which female respondents’ fathers who have only one wife show a higher mean than those who have more than one wife. The significant levels for the father and mother dialogue were 0.001 and 0.05, respectively. One the other hand, the data show that there are no significant differences between respondents’ fathers who have only one wife and those who have more than one wife in both father and mother dialogue scales for male respondents.

H4. There are significant differences among the son/daughter age order among siblings and fathers’ and mothers’ age categories in father and mother dialogue scales.

Differences among the son/daughter order among siblings in the father and mother dialogue scales were examined. Table 4 shows these differences.

Table 4. Differences among the son/daughter order in father and mother dialogue scales

				Sum of Squares	df		Mean Square		F	Sig.
Father dialogue scale			Between Groups	2011.083	2		1005.542		3.258	.039
			Within Groups	228,371.520	740		308.610
			Total	230,382.603	742
Mother dialogue scale			Between Groups	3644.182	2		1822.091		7.742	.000
			Within Groups	173,220.218	736		235.354
			Total	176,864.401	738
Son/daughter order			N				Mean		SD
Father dialogue scale		First	154				65.47		17.80
		Middle	478				64.16		17.02
		Last	111				60.10		19.43
		Total	743				63.83		17.62
Mother dialogue scale		First	152				83.69		15.88
		Middle	477				80.63		14.54
		Last	110				76.14		17.78
		Total	739				80.59		15.48

Hypothesis (4) is accepted. Table 4 shows that there are significant differences among the son/daughter order among siblings in the family in both the father and mother dialogue scales. Being the first in the son/daughter order shows a higher mean in both the father and mother dialogue scales. The significant levels were 0.05 and 0.001 for father and mother dialogue scales, respectively. Differences among the fathers’ age categories in father and mother dialogue scales were examined. Table 5 show these differences.

Table 5. Differences among father’s age in father and mother dialogue scales

				Sum of squares	Df		Mean square		F	Sig.
Father dialogue scale		Between Groups		2157.121	3		719.040		2.333	.049
		Within Groups		230,224.256	747		308.198
		Total		232,381.377	750
Mother dialogue scale		Between Groups		4585.074	3		1528.358		6.407	.000
		Within Groups		177,233.580	743		238.538
		Total		181,818.653	746
		Father age		N			Mean		SD
Father dialogue scale		65+ years		61			58.20		21.69
		55–64 years		1313			63.46		15.40
		45–54 years		214			64.40		16.96
		35–44 years Total		345 751			64.50 63.76		17.88 17.60
Mother dialogue scale		65+ years		60			78.10		16.09
		55–64 years		130			75.75		17.45
		45–54 years		213			81.06		15.55
		35–44 years Total		344 747			82.40 80.51		14.43 15.61

The data in Table 5 show that there are significant differences among the fathers’ age categories in both the father and mother dialogue scales. The younger parents(33–44 years) show higher means in both the father and mother dialogue scales. The significant levels were 0.05 and 0.001 for the father and mother dialogue scales, respectively. Differences among the mothers’ age categories in the father and mother dialogue scales were examined. Table 6 shows these differences.

Table 6. Differences among mother’s age in father and mother dialogue scales

					Sum of Squares		df	Mean Square	F	Sig.
Father dialogue scale			Between Groups		808.336		3	269.445	.869	.457
			Within Groups		231,573.041		747	310.004
			Total		232,381.377		750
Mother dialogue scale			Between Groups		4905.080		3	1635.027	6.867	.000
			Within Groups		176,913.573		743	238.107
			Total		181,818.653		746
Mother age			N		Mean		SD
Father dialogue scale		65+ years	35		62.54		14.06
		55–64 years	88		64.94		15.41
		45–54 years	197		62.18		19.37
		35–44 years Total	431 751		64.34 63.76		17.43 17.60
Mother dialogue scale		65+ years	34		79.32		14.97
		55–64 years	88		76.25		18.08
		45–54 years	196		77.94		16.20
		35–44 years Total	429 747		82.65 80.51		14.50 15.61

Table 6 shows that there are significant differences among the mothers’ age categories in the mother dialogue scales. The younger parents(33–44 years) show a higher mean in the mother dialogue scales. The significant level was 0.001. No significant differences were found among the fathers’ age categories in the mother dialogue scales.

H5. There is a significant relationship between the father and mother dialogue scale with some social variables.

The relationship between the father and mother dialogue scales with some social variables was examined. Table 7 shows these associations.

Table 7. Correlation between Dialogue scale(father/mother) with some social variables

Variables	Father Dialogue Scale			Mother Dialogue Scale
	Male	Female	All	Male	Female	All
All Sample: High School GPA Farther Education Mother Education Father age Mother age No. people living in the household Ave hours sped w father daily Ave hours sped w mother daily Economic status Parents marriage years Number of brothers and sisters Number of brothers Number of sisters	.122 .135 .046 .129 .055 -.016 .316** .244** .044 .057 -.143* -.152* -.074	−.003 .126** .064 .057 .011 .040 .409** .068 .076 .041 -.179** -.067 -.197**	.020 .128** .061 .073* .020 .015 .390** .100** .063 .039 -.167** -.083* -.170**	.046 .022 .108 .251** .180* .121 .071 .140* .029 .139 -.131 -.104 -.103	.053 .108* .054 .122** .136** .082 .131** .220** .144** .082 -.102* .025 -.164**	.072* .073* .057 .138** .137** .144** .103** .228** .137** .138** -.111** -.022 -.141**

* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01

Hypothesis (5) is accepted. For the father dialogue scale, the data in(Table 7) show that there are relationships between all respondents(male and female) with the respondents’ GPA, father’s education, father’s age, average hours spent with father daily, average hours spent with mother daily, total number of brothers and sisters, and number of sisters only. For the male respondents, relationships were found between the father dialogue scale and the average hours spent with father daily, average hours spent with mother daily, total number of brothers and sisters, and number of brothers only. For the female respondents, relationships were found between the father dialogue scale and respondents’ GPA, father’s education, average hours spent with father daily, total number of brothers and sisters, and number of sisters only.

For the mother dialogue scale, the data show that there are relationships between all respondents(male and female) and eleven out of fourteen social variables. Relationships were found between all respondents in the mother dialogue scale with respondents’ high school GPA, father’s education, father’s age, mother’s age, number of people living in the same household, average hours spent with father daily, average hours spent with mother daily, economic status, parents’ number of years married, total number of brothers and sisters, and number of sisters only. For the male respondents, relationships were only found between the mother dialogue scale and the father’s age, mother’s age, and average hours spent with mother daily. For the female respondents, relationships were found between the mother dialogue scale and father’s education, father’s age, mother’s age, average hours spent with father daily, average hours spent with mother daily, economic status, total number of brothers and sisters, and number of sisters only.

To predict the effect of social variables on the father and mother dialogue scales, a multivariate regression model was used. Table 8 illustrates the results of the multivariate regression of the father and mother dialogue scales on these social variables.

Table 8. Regression coefficient of significant father and mother dialogue scales and social variables

Variables	B	Beta	t-value
Father dialogue scale
Gender	−5.34	−.138	−3.99***
GPA	1.96	.087	2.64**
Father Education	.736	.072	1.96*
No. of Brothers	−.708	−.060	1.95*
No. of Sister	−.799	−.077	−2.32*
Ave. hours spend w father	6.83	.429	11.66***
Ave. hours spend w mother	−3.59	−.155	−4.19***
Mother dialogue	.363	.327	9.32***
Adjusted R Square	.30	F = 17.284***
Multiple R	.29
Mother dialogue scale
Gender		10.03	.289	8.58***
No. of Sister	−.907	−.097	−2.91**
Son/Daughter Order among siblings	−2.15	−.082	−2.46*
Number of person living in household	1.34	.062	1.96*
Ave. hours spend w father	−1.73	−.121	−3.01**
Ave. hours spend w mother	4.07	.196	5.28***
Family economic status		.950	.091	2.80*
Father dialogue		.298	.332	9.32***
Adjusted R Square	.29	F = 16.350***
Multiple R	.27

* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001

For the father dialogue scale, the data showed that gender, GPA, father’s education, number of brothers, number of sisters, average hours spent with father daily, average hours spent with mother daily, and the mother dialogue scale exerted an effect on the father dialogue scale. For the mother dialogue scale, the data showed that gender, number of sisters, son/daughter order among siblings, number of persons living in the household, average hours spent with father daily, average hours spent with mother daily, family economic status, and the father dialogue scale exerted an effect on the mother dialogue scale.

7. Discussion

This study shows a part of Kuwait’s culture that is related to the relationships between parents and their children. In Kuwait, the dialogue between children and their parents is considered to be weak, especially in regard to the father’s side. This supports the analysis of Barakat (2013) on the current difficulties in Arabic culture concerning relationships between parents and their children. Barakat stated that dialogue in Arabic culture is based on vertical communication not horizontal, which means that it flows up and down between a superior and a subordinate. Rather than using the formula of equal dialogue, the relationship is rife with that of commands and humiliation. “It is an authoritarian model that juxtaposes absolute authority and absolute submission. Paternal will is the absolute will. The son is subordinate to the father and must obey his wishes at all times, as a child and as an adult” (Preville, 2014).

What is known as the strongest element in the differences between sexes was found in parent–child interactions These differences were found in other studies (Russell & Saebel, 1997). The results indicate that a father is more connected to his male child/children than to his female child/children while the opposite is true in the case of the mother. This is also reflected in the cultural phenomena of the Arabic world. The study of Cohen-Mor (2013) supports the findings of these kinds of relationships between parents and children in Arabic countries. Usually, in societies like that of Kuwait, male children are close to their fathers while female children prepare for a future role alongside their mothers. For this reason, it is found that relationships between fathers and their sons, and mothers and their daughters are strongest, although—as reported in this study—there is still a lacking in these relationships.

Parents spending enough time with their children is crucial to the forming of positive social interactions (Bibler, 2020; Renk et al., 2003). The data reported that the more time parents spend with their children the more time they will have to communicate, which enhances the relationship between them. This kind of relationship is not related to house type (rented or owned), but it is related to the level of social relations. Social relations within the family provide vital social support to its members, and this is discussed in many studies (Pérez & Marqués, 2018; Racine et al., 2019; Zheng et al., 2022). It is also found in Kuwait that there is an association between social support and general family wellness: healthy environments are driven by healthy social relations within the family(Al-Kandari & Poirier, 2001). For this reason, dialogue between parents and children enhances this healthy environment.

Some families suffer from stressful conditions, which can affect social relations within the household. One of these conditions relates to the number of people living in the same household. The COVID-19 pandemic has been an example of the effect stressful conditions can have on the social interactions of family members (GARCÉS-PRETTEL et al., 2021). All of whom share common resources. They may provide emotional support, but on the other hand, they may cause stress for each other and affect each other’s health and well-being (World Health Organization, 2018). When there is a high frequency of social contact within the household, it influences the strength of relations. Although the quality and quantity of social relations are important for a healthy family environment (Umberson & Karas Montez, 2010), the quality of relationships is affected more within a small household. The data reported that when an increased number of extended relatives live in a single household (known as living in an extended family), it affects the family’s general social relations and the dialogue between parents and children. It is reported in some studies (Al-Kandari, 2010; Al-Kandari & Poirier, 2001; Al-Thakeb, 1985) that the structure of the nuclear family became the most adopted type among Kuwaiti families. These studies stated that most traditional families were extended. In the latest founded report on family types in modern Kuwait, the percentage of nuclear families increased to 55% (KUNA (Kuwait News Agency), 2004). Larger extended families living in the same household are a common type of family in Kuwait.

Parents’ dialogue with their children is affected by other cultural aspects, such as the amount of time a child spends in a household with a father who has more than one wife. The results report that a father who is married to multiple women has less of a relationship with his children. This result is supported by a study performed in another Arab country: Iraq. Almost half of the study’s sample of fathers who had more than one wife experienced continual social problems with their children (Mahmoud, 2008). Possible reasons for this result may be related to the amount of time that these fathers spend with their children or attending to family conflicts. Both reasons influence the social relationships between parents and their children.

As reported by Barakat (2013), in Arabic culture, the firstborn child is important for family life and to the parents: the first child is the first new member of a family who live in a culture where children are vital. Results support this idea. The first child has a greater social relationship with his/her parents. The more children a couple has, the less dialogue they will engage in with them. This phenomenon may also be related to the amount of time that parents can spend with children in a society like Kuwait which has a high fertility rate. This is reported in some local studies (Abdal 1996; Al Kandari, 2007).

Quality of dialogue was found to be related to the age and education level of parents. The more educated the parents are and the less of an age difference between them and their children, the more social interaction is possible. It is well known that in Arab societies—particularly in Kuwait—people marry at a younger age (Al-Kandari, 2010). Age differences may play a major role in the interactions between parents and children. Young parents are more active and less busy with matters outside of the household. This may be a reason for their greater degree of interaction with their children at the beginning of their married life. Compared to older parents, they may also find more time to stay home, especially the father. Also, more educated parents interact with their children more, which relates to their psychological awareness of the importance of interaction in the family’s social life on their child’s behavior. Positive social behavior can lead to such improvements as a child improving their GPA, which was a benefit of parent–child interaction evidenced in the data for this research. As stated by Al-Qurani (2008), in the same way as educational media is important to develop and activate dialogue, the role of the family prepares children to engage in positive and negative dialogue. The discourse that occurs within a family enables children to develop a basic concept of themselves and their environment, developing their thinking methods.

Loss or lack of dialogue leads to many social problems. A major one facing Kuwait is violence. Al-Kandari and Al-Beleali (2016) reported that this violence is related to the lack of dialogue between children and their parents. In this study, almost one-third of the sample showed that children had been exposed to violence by their parents. The lack of dialogue between the two parties was a key reason for this. Less time spent by parents with their children may lead to these kinds of problems, especially when a father is often absent, as in the Kuwaiti family structure he is considered an authority figure. It is reported by Al-Kandari & Al-Beleali, 2016) that a father who spends more time outside his household due to Diwaniyyah (a traditional daily gathering of men) faces more social interaction problems with his wife and children. As Barakat (2013) explains, the nature of men in Arabic society is to spend most of their time outside the household. This affects the child–parent interactions as reported by this research.

8. Conclusion

This research attempted to address the vital factors that impact dialogue between parents and children. Dialogue is considered a means of socializing children; it enables them to adapt positively within their community. Additionally, this research attempted to raise the importance of dialogue in shaping children’s personalities and encouraging them to affect and be affected positively by the components of a community.

The research found that parental dialogue as a means of socialization can be affected by several factors as mentioned in the results section. However, we were unable to judge these factors as being useful or harmful, or whether they have a positive or negative impact on dialogue. The reason for this is that some of them are considered to be cultural practices within Kuwaiti society and are highly accepted by the community. Often, they possess a religious background, such as a man having more than one wife, although in 2021 it was found that only 5.6% of men marry multiple times according to the Family Consultation Department in the Justice Ministry (Al-Anba’a Newspaper, 29 June 2022). In addition, some of the factors investigated in this research have existed as part of the lifestyle of Kuwaiti families, which has led them to live in either an owned or rented residence. Because of this, we are unable to recommend that parents eliminate factors that negatively affect dialogue with their children. Instead, we believe parents themselves should be aware of factors that impact this dialogue and make efforts accordingly to spend a reasonable amount of time partaking in productive dialogue with their children.

In addition, we recommend that researchers should investigate or identify factors that increase the chances of dialogue between parents and their children in their daily lives. In other words, parents should utilize productive means that are built upon scientific bases to create a healthy environment within the family scope to create healthy dialogue, regardless of the existence of the factors that are investigated in this research.

Finally, we believe the spreading of awareness within Kuwaiti families regarding socialization in general and dialogue in particular to be crucial. This is the responsibility of the whole community of civil society institutions and the media. Awareness might draw parents’ attention to the necessity of having discourse with their children, especially those who already possess the factors that support their ability to do so but do not use them.

It needs to be stated here that this study is limited to a sample of who were studying at Kuwait public schools. Students from private schools were excluded. More studies are needed for comparison purposes between these two types of students who are studying in different kinds of educational environments. In addition, dialogue in this study is limited to the scale and dimension that were developed to show the social interaction between teens and their parents. Other dimensions related to dialogue can be studied in the future for a bigger picture.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.