Contexts of Development:Parents and poverty

Questions What impact does poverty have on children? What do within-child designs contribute to understanding the effects of poverty? Are the effects of poverty (and the estimated effects of a reduction in poverty) greater or

less if the child's caregiver has a partner? if the child's caregiver is employed? What accounts for these effects?

What are the effects of familial instability on children's adjustment problems? How does parental work stress impact  the parent-child relationship? How is the quantity and quality of child care associated with peer competence?

Specifically, how does experience in child-care settings impact observed skill in peer play? And, what impact does quality of child care have on socioemotional and peer outcomes?

NEW: What are risk factors for high SES high schoolers Are they the same or different than those of low SES high-schoolers?

What are two dimensions of parenting and how do they combine to form three-four styles of parenting?

What are the characteristics of the three main styles of parenting? What are the characteristics of children raised with those styles? How would you characterize your own parents' parenting style and what style of parenting

would you favor as a parent?

The Big Picture: Psychosocial ecology of human development Physical and social circumstances are likely

to be the among the strongest predictors of socioemotional development– divorce/remarriage, beginning and changing

schools, economic upturns/downturns - Are these direct or indirect effects?

– The emotional impact of the divorce or the downturn in standard of living?

Policy Implications

Researchers can’t hide in the lab, but they should not be overly prescriptive

They should understand that policy can have unintended repercussions for diverse parties– attachment and daycare– adoption– maternal drug use

• Thompson

Some poverty statistics in U.S.

In 2011, 16.1 million (22.0 percent) children under the age of 18 were in poverty. http://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx

– Children living in poverty more likely to have problems in school, earn less as adults, more likely to be teenage parents

16.7 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life—food insecurehttp://feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/hunger-facts/hunger-and-poverty-statistics.aspx

68% of children live in married-couple families– Single and unmarried couple families likely to be poorer– Only 8% of kids living in married-couple families lived in poverty

14% (10 million kids) have no health insurance• medialab.scu.edu/psychology/faculty/turdan/developmental%20ppts/contexts%20of%20development.ppt

Poverty Rates by Age

Poverty Rates highest for children

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemapdetail.jsp?ind=10&cat=1&sub=2&yr=274&typ=2

Poverty Rate for children (2011)

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemapdetail.jsp?ind=10&cat=1&sub=2&yr=274&typ=2

Consequences of poverty

Worse health, lower cognitive functioning– Most consistent finding is for lower academic

achievement Depends on persistence, depth, and age

– Longer, deeper poverty at early age is the worst

How poverty affects development Lack of warmth in parent-child relationship; fewer

educational opportunities at home Lower quality childcare outside of home Economic pressure creates conflict in the home Lower parental physical, mental health; worse

relations with child Bad neighborhoods, schools Genetics? Mentally unstable, low IQ leads to poverty,

passed to kids?– Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Development,

71(1), 188-196. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00133– Duncan, G. J., Yeung, W. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life

chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63(3), 406-423. doi: 10.2307/2657556

Dynamic associations between family income and child

“Children had fewer externalizing problems during times when their families' incomes were relatively high than during times when their families' incomes were relatively low– the estimated benefits of increased income

were greatest for children who were chronically poor.

• N = 1,132• Dearing, E., K. McCartney, et al. (2006). "Within-child associations between family

income and externalizing and internalizing problems." Developmental Psychology 42(2): 237-252.

Income strongly associated with problems when chronically poor children's mothers were partnered and employed

Why?

Familial Instability

“There are associations between the degree of environmental instability and difficulties in adjustment, such that children exposed to higher levels of family instability (e.g., more frequent separations from parent figures and more frequent residential moves) show worse adjustment across a variety of developmental domains. greater attention in future research on child and adolescent adjustment.”

• Adam, E. K. (2004). Beyond Quality:. Parental and Residential Stability and Children's Adjustment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(5), 210-213.

Parental work stress… Indirect effects of parental work stress on children’s

and adolescents’ adjustment “Work stress is linked to parents’ feelings of overload

and strain, which in turn predict lower parent-child acceptance and higher conflict…

Processes that in turn are related to less positive adjustment of children and adolescents.

In the face of high work stress, withdrawing from family involvement may be adaptive in the short run but ultimately problematic.”

– Crouter, A. C., & Bumpus, M. F. (2001). Linking Parents' Work Stress to Children's and Adolescents' Psychological Adjustment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(5), 156-159.

Rich and poor ‘614 sixth graders from two communities, one low and the

other high – Outcomes: subjective well-being and school competence.

Very affluent children can perceive their parents as emotionally and physically unavailable to the same degree as youth in serious poverty.

Closeness to parents was beneficial for all, just as criticism was deleterious.

Parents' physical absence (e.g., at dinner) connoted vulnerability for distress and for poor school performance in both groups.

– Even after considering the quality of parent-child relationships• Luthar, S. S. and S. J. Latendresse (2005). "Comparable "risks" at the socioeconomic status extremes: Preadolescents' perceptions of parenting."

Development and Psychopathology 17(1): 207-230.

Problems of the rich ‘302 6th & 7th-graders in an affluent, suburban

community showed: high rates of clinically significant depressive symptoms

among older girls, links between various internalizing symptoms and

substance use among both boys and girls, peer approval of substance use among older boys. Associations between achievement pressures (particularly

excessive perfectionistic strivings), and isolation from parents (particularly low perceived closeness to mothers).

• Luthar, S. S. and B. E. Becker (2002). "Privileged but pressured?: A study of affluent youth." Child Development 73(5): 1593-1610.

Substance Use Among Affluent, Suburban High School Students Clusters reporting escalating, declining, and

persistently high use consistently demonstrated relatively poorer psychosocial adjustment -- when compared with a cluster of students reporting minimal use.– Other dimensions of psychosocial adjustment remained

relatively stable despite changes in substance use…social safety net?

• McMahon, T. J. and S. S. Luthar (2006). "Patterns and Correlates of Substance Use Among Affluent, Suburban High School Students." Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 35(1): 72-89.

Its parental criticism and absence – not child overscheduling

• . Negligible evidence for deleterious effects of high

extracurricular involvement per se. Far more strongly implicated was perceived parent criticism

for both girls and boys as well as the absence of after-school supervision.

Low parent expectations connoted significant vulnerability especially for boys.

– At least among early adolescents, converging scientific and media reports may have scapegoated extracurricular involvements, to some degree, as an index of ubiquitous achievement pressures in affluent communities.

• Luthar, S. S., K. A. Shoum, et al. (2006). "Extracurricular Involvement Among Affluent Youth: A Scapegoat for "Ubiquitous Achievement Pressures"?" Developmental Psychology 42(3): 583-597

Related to disabilities

Is emotion relevant to these kids?

‘Parents of children with developmental delays reported lower prioritisation of emotion & focused less on emotion during discourse than parents of controls.

Pathway from developmental status through prioritisation to emotion focus.

Emotion focus predicted children’s social skills as reported on by multiple informants.

Direct & emotion-mediated paths

Patterns of socialization/types of parents

accepting

rejecting

lenient

lenientdemanding

permissiveauthoritaritative

authoritarian permissive

www.fhi.se/upload/BestPractice/FR5101_BHagekull.ppt

Two dimensions of parenting Parental responsiveness (parental warmth or

supportiveness)– "the extent to which parents intentionally foster individuality,

self-regulation, and self-assertion by being attuned, supportive, and acquiescent to children’s special needs and demands.

Parental demandingness (behavioral control) – "the claims parents make on children to become integrated

into the family whole, by their maturity demands, supervision, disciplinary efforts and willingness to confront the child who disobeys“

faculty.augie.edu/~pchanavan/family/chapter3.ppt

Parent Styles Indulgent parents (also referred to as "permissive" or

"nondirective") "are more responsive than they are demanding. They are nontraditional and lenient, do not require mature behavior, allow considerable self-regulation, and avoid confrontation". Two types:

– democratic parents, who, though lenient, are more conscientious, engaged, and committed to the child, and nondirective parents.

Children and adolescents from indulgent homes (high in responsiveness, low in demandingness)

– more likely to be involved in problem behavior and perform less well in school, but they have higher self-esteem, better social skills, and lower levels of depression.

Parenting Styles Authoritarian parents are highly demanding and directive, but

not responsive. "They are obedience- and status-oriented, and expect their orders to be obeyed without explanation".

– Provide well-ordered and structured environments with clearly stated rules. Two types: nonauthoritarian-directive, who are directive, but not intrusive or autocratic in their use of power, and authoritarian-directive, who are highly intrusive.

Children and adolescents from authoritarian families (high in demandingness, but low in responsiveness) tend to perform moderately well in school and be uninvolved in problem behavior, but they have poorer social skills, lower self-esteem, and higher levels of depression.

Parenting Styles

Uninvolved parents are low in both responsiveness and demandingness. In extreme cases, this parenting style might encompass both rejecting–neglecting and neglectful parents, although most parents of this type fall within the normal range.

Children and adolescents whose parents are uninvolved perform most poorly in all domains.

Parenting styles--Baumrind

Authoritarian– “Because I said so!”– Punitive, controlling parenting strategies– Obedience oriented

Authoritative– Structure and rules with an emphasis on reasoning– Less likely to use physical punishment– Involve children in decision, rule making

Permissive– Loose structure– Children given much leeway in deciding activities, rules, and schedules

Which parenting style is best? Outcomes associated with different styles

– Authoritarian Lack of social competence Increased aggression among boys Withdrawal from social contact Heteronomous morality

– Authoritative Greater self-reliance and confidence More sociable, willing to explore

– Permissive Immature, impulsive

Limitations of the research– Culturally biased? (research based primarily on white, middle class)– Confusion of causality? Kids may elicit different parenting styles

Parenting: Current view

What particular features of a parenting style - including affective behavior - produces outcomes in particular circumstances.– More flexibility for older adolescents– Group differences

More restrictive caregiving is seen as more loving and has more positive outcomes among African-American teens (Mason’s work)

Which parenting style were you raised with?

Which do you think produces the best kind of kids?

If you become a parent will you raise your kids the same way your parents raised you?

What will you do differently?What will you do similarly?

Self-determination theory model of internalization Conditional negative regard predicts feelings of

resentment toward parents, then predicts dysregulation of negative emotions and academic disengagement;

Conditional positive regard predicts internal compulsion, which then predict suppressive regulation of negative emotions and grade-focused academic engagement;

Autonomy support predicts sense of choice, which then predicts integrated regulation of negative emotions and interest-focused academic engagement.

Overview

Paths

Parenting and emotion

Try to achieve goals with/for offspring is very emotional!– Discipline strategies are modified by perception

of child’s temperament.– The actual process is bidirectional

Mutual expectations impact next interactions so that relationships impact relationships

Covariance of genotype &environment

Heritable characteristics of children evoke strong and specific responses from their parents…

Moreover, heritable traits that influence parenting are transmitted to children and influence children’s adjustment.

Thus, genetically influenced evocative processes from children and parental-transmission mechanisms influence the covariances between measures of family relationships and child development.

Intervention: alter parental responses to heritable characteristics of children and influence the genetically influenced ontogeny of parenting.

Fathers’ Influence on Children’s Development: The Evidence from Two-Parent FamiliesLewis & Lamb, 2003

“Forgotten Contributors to Child Development”1. Is fathering equivalent to mothering?2. Why do mothers have an edge?3. Parent-infant attachments – mothers might have an

edge4. Longitudinal research - emerging trend favoring fathers

Consider two trends:– Mothers are more sensitive– Cultural variations

FARHAT

Childhood and Adolescence

Patterns in infancy continue on.. Both equally involved in scholastic activities Mothers spend more time with children than

fathers do In adolescence: fathers have more contact

with sons Adolescents report being closer to mothers

FARHAT

What Makes Fathers Different?

Paternal sensitivity – interaction between biology and culture Family system

– Marital dissatisfaction has a negative effect on parental synchrony and infant-father attachment

– Fathers and mothers affect each other differently Linking the family to wider culture – Dual-earner homes

– Both reported feeling anxious about leaving infant with someone else

– Men were less sensitive to four-month olds– Strong traditional cultures – e.g. in New Delhi

FARHAT

Longitudinal Research

Father’s hostility predicted: Degree of hostility and ego-resiliency at age 25

Father’s involvement predicted: Adult children’s satisfaction in

– Spousal relationships– Self-reported parenting skills

Performance in national exams at age 16 Absence/presence of criminal record at 21 Positive correlations with later indices (age 33) of

psychosocial adjustment

FARHAT