The purpose of this study is to explore the psychological process in families of patients with schizophrenia. The informants are 10 families of patients with schizophrenia. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using the grounded theory approach, and the families' life stories were described. As a result, the following categories were generated:【 started about the incident】,【 coping with the incident】, and【 difficulty of the connection to the medical treatment】 as categories of〈 after the pathogenesis〉;【 confusion to the disorder】,【 coping with the disorder】, and 【concomitance of normality and abnormality】 as categories of 〈after a diagnosis〉; 【evaluation to the disorder and the patient】,【 anxiety】, and【 expectation】 were generated as categories of 〈present〉. Characteristic process of the family was found; patient’s “concomitance of normality and abnormality” cause the instability of “evaluation for the disorder and the patient” by the family, and therefore the family vacillates between “expectation” and “anxiety” regardless of elapsed years. And it was also found that the “expectation” and “anxiety” for patients could bring about the subsequent thought and the action of the family. This could mean that the family does “reframing” the meaning of the thought and the action, from ‘for the patient’ to ‘for the society and themselves’. The result indicates that, in supporting the family of the patients with schizophrenia, it is important to prepare the suitable support for each stage and empower them by supporting positively their various activities.

　　There have been few studies which examine the relationship between family images based on the adjective rating scale and maladjusted behaviors in adolescence. The biggest one in several reasons is that the SD method standard doesn't seem appropriate to assess a family image clinically, at least as far as the factors extracted in several precedent studies are concerned. Therefore, the purpose of this study is following: The first (study 1) is to compose a bipolar adjective rating scale to assess a family image. The second (study 2) is to examine the relationship between family functioning image and tendency to maladjustment in adolescence by the scale established in study 1.

　　Study 1: In this study, in terms of mental function, suppose family function is defined as two dimensions, “affection” and “socialization”, the former is regarded as “emotional bond among family members (Kizuna-kan)” and the latter is “flexible discipline for children (Jyunan-sei)”. The scale consists of 16 pairs of adjectives corresponding to the two contents. The results of factor analysis, G-P analysis, and test-retest method targeted for 468 high school students (1st and 3rd grade; 179 boys and 289 girls) show sufficient internal validity of the scale.

　　Study 2: According to the family image score, the same subject has been divided into four groups. Significant difference can be seen at p＜.01 level statistically as a result of one-way analysis of variance where each score of “tendency of PST-Ⅲ concerning asocial/antisocial behaviors” is a dependent variable, and groups are factors. As a result of multiple comparisons by the LSD method, there is a parabolic relationship between groups in two dimensions. That is, it is confirmed that subjects in the middle image level have the least tendency toward maladjustment, just like Olson's hypothesis of Circumplex Model (1979).

　　The present study aims to examine the reliability and validity of the Deviant Family Nicknames (DFNs).

　　Research A examined individual test-retest and familial inter-rater reliabilities of the DFNs. Participants were 164 female technical college students and their parents (41 fathers and 47 mothers). They answered questionnaires regarding the DFNs and students re-answered at 3 or 4 months. Results suggested that DFNs ensured a long-term stability (Kappa = .690, and .616, respectively) and inter-rater reliability among couple and family members (Kappa = .782, alpha = .864), but had only fair inter-rater agreements between parents and daughter (Kappa = .459 [father], and .388 [mother], respectively). Generational boundaries between parents and daughters might lower the agreement rates.

　　Research B verified criterion-related and constructive validities of the DFNs. Participants were 117 male high school students. They answered questionnaires, including the Family Assessment Device, Rosenberg Self Esteem Scale, and questionnaires regarding the DFNs. Results showed that unbound family nicknames, which were one of the DFNs and indicated aggressive relationships, had an indirect effect on students’ self esteem through general family function (r = .31). Meanwhile, bizarre family nicknames, which were also one of the DFNs and indicated familial conflict, had a direct correlation with their self esteem (r =－.27). To elucidate linkage patterns of these variables, a model was built using structural equation model and had preferable indexes (GFI = .983, AGFI = .944, CFI = 1.00, and RMSEA=.00). The model suggested that each nickname might be independent and produce different effects on individuals and families.

　　Implications and Limitations of the present study are discussed.

　　The Family System Test (FAST) evaluates family structure by combining measures of family cohesion and hierarchy. Previous studies using the FAST in Japan excluded three-generation families since the FAST didn't indicate any clear way of evaluating them. The purpose of this study was to explore its evaluation system for three-generation families.

　　The FAST and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ) were administered to 45 university students from three-generation families. The original means of evaluating family cohesion was applicable for large families and the present results showed that it was suitable for use with the three-generation families, but the same was not the case for family hierarchy. In the original means of evaluating family hierarchy, grandparents' and parents' generations could be considered as one generation, and at first we evaluated them as such. However, preliminary results showed that it was not suitable because shifts in power between grandparents' and parents’ generations had happened in many families. Therefore, we developed a new way of evaluating family hierarchy based on the FAST's theoretical background, that is, whether the generation boundary is clear or not. According to this new evaluation of family hierarchy, subjects were divided into two groups after examining boundaries of two generations in each family.

　　With the combination of the family cohesion and hierarchy judged by the above methods, the evaluation of family structure was examined with respect to its relation to the GHQ score. Results showed that a group of high cohesion families with and without clear generational boundaries could be considered as a ‘Balanced’ type, a group of medium cohesion families with and without clear generational boundaries and a group of low cohesion families with clear generational boundaries as ‘Labile-balanced’ type, and a group of low cohesion families without clear generational boundaries as ‘Unbalanced’ type.

　　Nurturance is defined as “empathy and skills used to promote the healthy development of another person.” In previous research using a survey questionnaire, the authors showed that a woman's nurturance during pregnancy is lower in primipara women than multipara women, and that nurturance is lower in the later weeks of pregnancy (from around week 28 onwards). In this study, women in the late stages of pregnancy (9 new mothers, 5 experienced mothers) were interviewed to consider the causes for this reduction in nurturance. Based on their “stories”, the results were categorized into four themes: “pregnancy,” “childbirth,” “children,” and “raising children.” Then, the number of references to each theme and content of such references (whether the reference was positive or negative) were tabulated for each participant. The results were also separated and compared for primipara women and multipara women. The above analyses suggested that “lack of understanding” and “uncertainty/worry” about “childbirth” were factors that lowered nurturance for primipara women. Additionally, many multipara women felt “the joy of children” from their experience in “raising children” and this is thought to have increased their “confidence” and lead to increased nurturance. Meanwhile, primipara women envisioned the negative aspects of “children” before giving birth and these were suggested as factors for reducing nurturance. Also, it has been understood that nurturance scale is appropriate to some degree. Moreover, the necessity of a psychological support of the pregnancy period was considered.