National Council On Family Relations Family Relations

The Impact of Economic Pressure on Parent Positivity, Parenting, and Adolescent
Positivity into Emerging Adulthood

Author(s): Tricia K. Neppl, Shinyoung Jeon, Thomas J. Schofield and M. Brent Donnellan
Source: Family Relations, Vol. 64, No. 1 (February 2015), pp. 80-92
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/43695481
Accessed: 15-10-2022 00:22 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Family Relations
This content downloaded from 94.66.136.158 on Sat, 15 Oct 2022 00:22:15 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Tricia K. Neppl, Shinyoung Jeon, and Thomas J. Schofield Iowa State University
M. Brent Donnellan Texas A &M University *
The Impact of Economic Pressure on Parent

Positivity, Parenting, and Adolescent Positivity into
Emerging Adulthood
This study describes how positivity can be incor- influence adolescent development into emerging
porated into the family stress model to explain adulthood.
resilience to disrupted family processes in the
face of economic distress. Prospective, longi-
Economic pressure and hardship places fami-
tudinal data came from 451 mothers, fathers,
lies at risk for multiple disadvantages (Conger,
and youth participating from their adolescence
Conger, & Martin, 2010). Studies show that chil-
through early adulthood. Assessments included
dren growing up under conditions of economic
observational and self- report measures. Infor-
hardship are at increased risk of behavioral prob-
mation regarding economic pressure, parental
lems (Evans, 2002), a decrease in social compe-
positivity, and parenting were collected dur-
tence (Bolger, Patterson, Thompson, & Kuper-
ing early adolescence, positivity was collected
in late adolescence and emerging adulthood. smidt, 1995), and lower cognitive abilities (Ger-
Results indicated that economic pressure was shoff, Aber, Raver, & Lennon, 2007). According
indirectly associated with adolescent positivity to the family stress model (FSM; e.g., Conger
through parental positivity. Economic pressure & Conger, 2002), parenting is a key mediator
was negatively associated with parent positiv- between the experience of economic hardship
ity, whereas parental positivity was positively and child outcomes. Thus, factors that help pro-
associated with parenting. Moreover, parental mote positive parenting may serve as protective
positivity and parenting were related to positiv- factors that help foster resilience in youth whose
ity in adolescence. Results suggest that personal families experience economic stress. This study
resources linked to a positive outlook can fos- is in a unique position to integrate the FSM with
ter nurturant parenting, even in times of eco- perspectives from the resilience literature to clar-
nomic strain. Such parenting seems to positively ify the relationship among economic hardship,
positive family processes, and youth outcomes
over time.
The term resilience often refers to "the ability
Department of Human Development and Family Studies, to withstand and rebound from disruptive life
Iowa State University, 4389 Palmer Suite 2356, Ames, IA
challenges" (Walsh, 2012, p. 399), and thus
50011 (tneppl@iastate.edu).
involves processes that help foster positive
* Department of Psychology, Texas A & M University, 4235
adaptation during times of significant adversity
TAMU, College Station, TX 77843.
(Masten, Cutuli, Herbers, & Reed, 2009). In
Key Words: economic pressure, positive parenting, positivity. other words, resilience refers to developmental
80 Family Relations 64 (February 2015): 80-92

DOL10.1 1 1 1/fare. 12098
Economie Pressure , Positivity , and Parenting 8 1
perspective, the
processes rather than intrinsic attributes ofability
indi- to attribute positive
viduals. Nonetheless, individualmeanings
characteristics
to stressful situations is a key process
have been implicated in the process offamily
related to resilience
resilience. That is, how a fam-
such as self-regulatory skills, ily cognitive
successfully copesabil-
with adversity is related
ity, and achievement motivations (see Masten,
to subjective characteristics such as a sense of
2001). The identification of individual-level fac- of how difficult a
mastery and the evaluation
tors is consistent with early research that
stressful eventfocused
will be. Such positive attributes
on those individuals who thrived may have so-called
despite family compensatory effects
dysfunction (Walsh, 2012). However, it might
(Masten, 2001) whereby they help offset the
be useful to broaden this approach by taking
risks associated a
with financial hardships. Thus,
family systems orientation in we which
propose individual
that positivity may help individuals
characteristics and family resources are viewed
and their families interpret and cope with stress-
as contributors to the processes of resilience.
ful conditions. However, relatively few studies
For example, the combination of
haveindividual
prospectively or
evaluated how parental
personal attributes (i.e., self-efficacy, self-
positivity worth,
is related to family processes and ado-
and hope) and family attributeslescent(such as sup-
development over time (Castro-Schilo
portive, high quality parenting) may lead
et al., 2013). This toaddresses this gap
study
positive adaptation to risk (Masten et al.,how
by evaluating 2009;
parental positivity can be
Walsh, 2012). Indeed, earlierincorporated
findings intofrom
the FSM to explain resilience
the longitudinal study used for this analyses
to disrupted family processes in the face of
(Conger & Conger, 2002) have demonstrated
economic distress.
evidence of resilience-promoting processes
such as self-confidence and effective family
problem-solving skills that seem to increase
Theoretical and Empirical Framework
positive adaption to economic adversity.
The positive psychology movement
Economic (Selig-
Pressure and Its Impact on the
man & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) has renewed Family
interest in optimal functioning and positive
psychological outcomes, topics The
thathypotheses
were for this
oftenstudy derive from the
FSM (Conger
closely identified with humanistic psychology. & Conger, 2002), a model origi-
nally designed
This movement within psychological science to explain how financial adversity
emphasizes that individual qualities and socialthe agricultural
affected families going through
interactions can help fostereconomic
adaptationrecession in the late 1980s, and since
and
has been extended
resilience (Masten et al., 2009). As it stands, to a range of economic sit-
uations and cultural
a number of personal characteristics contextsas
such (see Conger et al.,
the disposition to approach life with a positive economic pres-
2010). This theory proposes that
outlook, optimism, self-efficacy, sure , defined
and asathegeneral
perceived inability to pay for
sense of satisfaction with life seem to facilitatebasic needs, the inability to make ends meet, and
instrumental competence. This cluster of relatedhaving to cut back on necessary expenses, leads
attributes has been called positivity (see Caprarato increased risk for parental distress. Parents
et al., 2012). Conger and Donnellan (2007) who are distressed by their economic problems
extended previous work on the determinants of are unable to engage in developmentally sup-
parenting (e.g., Belsky, 1984) and suggested that portive parenting practices marked by warmth,
personal characteristics might promote positive supportiveness, and involvement with their chil-
parenting, even in the face of adverse socioeco- dren. These kinds of impaired parenting behav-
nomic conditions. This study tests some of those iors, in turn, disrupt developmental outcomes
conceptual arguments by integrating positivity for children. Consistent with the FSM, Mis-
into a family process model related to resilience try, Lowe, Benner, and Chien (2008) reported
using longitudinal data. that mothers with difficulties affording basic
An important conceptual question concerns needs had higher levels of distress that led to
the mechanism by which positivity should less parental control. This lack of control was
facilitate resilience in the face of economic chal- related to decreases in adolescent positive behav-
lenges. One possibility draws on the insights ior and increases in problematic behavior. Sim-
offered by Patterson (2002). According to this ilarly, economic hardship was associated with
82 Family Relations
lower et al., 2012). These individual

self-esteem, elements of pos-
higher
all happinessitivityinseem to contribute
a to functioning and
long-term
(Sobolewski & Amato,
are developmentally important individual out-20
Nonetheless,comes (seethere is
Caprara et al., 2012). cons
For example,
how families and
self-esteem children
or a high global self-regard (Harter,
hardship (Conger
1993) influences the development & Con
of important
who are able life outcomes
to such as relationship and job satis-
maintain t
skills, even faction, inpositivethe face
and negative of
affect, depression,
children who are more resilient to the effects and physical health (Orth, Robins, & Widaman,
2012). Optimism has been linked with bet-
of economic pressure. Indeed, studies show
that children raised by supportive parents areter psychological adjustment, more construc-
tive coping strategies, and even better physical
more likely to demonstrate greater psychosocial
and academic competence (Neppl, Conger,health (e.g., Assad, Donnellan, & Conger, 2007;
Scaramella, & Ontai, 2009; Zhou et al., 2002).Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010). Likewise,
there is accumulating evidence that happiness
This raises interesting questions about the per-
sonal characteristics and resources that facilitate and positive affect might lead to success in a
developmentally supportive parenting practices. range of critical outcomes such as close rela-
Earlier findings from the ongoing longitudinal tionships, health, and success in the agentic con-
study used for these analyses demonstrated that texts of life like work (Lyubomirsky, King, &
resilience to economic disparity was promoted Diener, 2005). In general, individuals who read-
by marital support and a sense of mastery (Con- ily experience positive affect, display optimism,
ger & Conger, 2002). More recently, it was found and have a sense of self-confidence and mas-
that personal characteristics such as conscien- tery seem to have better life outcomes, consistent
tiousness and low levels of neuroticism were with our claim about the potential importance of
important factors when considering how individ- positivity for family functioning, even in the face
uals and families adapt to challenging economic of adversity.
conditions (Donnellan, Conger, McAdams, &In light of such general findings about positiv-
Neppl, 2009). Testing the FSM with a sampleity, ofwe propose that positively oriented individu-
Mexican-origin mothers, Taylor, Larsen-Strife, als should be better at dealing with stressors such
Conger, Widaman, and Catrona (2012) found as economic pressure as well as the challenges of
that mothers who were more optimistic parenthood.
had Indeed, Taylor et al. (2010) found
fewer internalizing problems and demonstrated that optimistic mothers demonstrated greater
higher levels of nurturant and involved parent- resilience to the negative impact of economic
ing. These positive parenting practices were
stress. In terms of parenting, Brody, Murry, Kim,
and Brown (2002) found that mothers with high
associated with positive changes in their child's
social development. Taken together, results
levels of self-esteem along with a more opti-
of these studies highlight the important role mistic outlook on life were more likely to display
for individual characteristics in the processcompetence-promoting
of parenting. These parent-
resilience to family economic hardship. ing behaviors, in turn, predicted child psycho-
logical adjustment. More recently, Castro-Schilo
et al. (2013) found that optimistic mothers and
Positivity and Family Functioning
fathers displayed more positive parenting, which
Positivity might be one kind of personal charac-was associated with their child's social com-
petence. This work highlights the importance
teristic that facilitates adaptation and resilience
to economic hardship. Positivity is a relativelyof examining models that include mothers and
enduring attribute defined as the dispositional fathers, as previous studies have often focused
tendency for an individual to view oneself, hisexclusively
or on mothers.
her life, and the future with confidence and a pos- Besides the proposition that positivity might
relate to parenting, it is possible that parents
itive outlook. It is a higher-order construct that
encompasses narrower constructs such as high may play a significant role in the develop-
ment of adolescent positivity. Schofield et al.
levels of self-esteem, life satisfaction, and opti-
mism that correspond to an individual's positive (2012) examined the degree to which positive
evaluation of his or her subjective experiences parental characteristics and positive parenting
(Alessandri, Caprara, & Tisk, 2012; Caprara were associated with positive characteristics of
Economie Pressure , Positivity ; Parenting 83
adolescents. They found thateconomic pressures and

positive personal characteris-
parental
characteristics and positiveticsparenting
(e.g., Conger & Donnellan,
predicted 2007). Accord-
later adolescent positive characteristics. More-
ingly, we expected that economic pressure would
over, there was an indirect be relationship
negatively related to parental positivity. The
between
basic idea is that
parental positive characteristics and individual characteristics and
adolescent
life circumstances
positive characteristics through positive parent- develop in concert through
ing practices (Schofìeld et al.,
mutual 2012).
influence In In
processes. other
this study we thus
words, parenting seemed to suggest
bethatone positivity
conduititself might
by be impacted
by economic
which characteristics of parents conditions.
were associated
with the characteristics of their children.
Method
This Investigation
Participants
This investigation evaluated how parental posi-
Data come from the Iowa Youth and Families
tivity was related to observed parenting practices
Project (IYFP). In the IYFP, data from the family
in the face of economic distress. We used data
of origin ( N = 45 1 ) were collected annually from
from a two-decade longitudinal study of a cohort 1989 through 1992. Participants included the tar-
of focal individuals and their families followed
get adolescent (52% female), his or her parents,
from their adolescence to adulthood. We mea-
and a sibling within 4 years of age of the target
sured family economic pressure, parental pos- adolescent. These two-parent families were orig-
itivity, and positive parenting when the focalinally recruited for a study of family economic
youth were in early adolescence. The positivity stress in the rural Midwest. When interviewed in
of the focal youth was then measured in late ado-1989, the target adolescent was in seventh grade
lescence and emerging adulthood. This allows
(M age = 12.7 years; 236 females, 215 males).
us to test longitudinal relations between parent-
Participants were recruited from public and pri-
ing and youth outcomes. This is an importantvate schools in eight rural Iowa counties. Due to
feature of this study as relatively few studiesthe rural nature of the sample, there were few
have tested the associations between economic minority families (approximately 1 % of the pop-
hardship, positivity, and parenting on adolescent
ulation); therefore, all of the participants were
development into early adulthood. In addition,White. Seventy-eight percent of the eligible fam-
though there is a tendency for previous devel-ilies agreed to participate. The families were pri-
opmental studies to primarily focus on mothers,marily lower-middle or middle class. In 1989,
we include mothers and fathers in these analysesparents averaged 13 years of schooling and had
(see also Castro-Schilo et al., 2013). a median family income of $33,700. Families
All told, this study was designed to test theranged in size from 4 to 13 members, with an
conceptual model depicted in Figure 1. There average size of 4.94 members. Fathers' average
are at least two features of this model worth age was 40 years, whereas mothers' average age
emphasizing. First, we tested the prediction that was 38. In 1994, the families from the IYFP con-
parental positivity is related to positive parenting
tinued in another project, the Family Transitions
and the development of positivity in offspring Project (FTP). The same target adolescents par-
during adolescence and emerging adulthood. We ticipated in the FTP to follow their transition into
expected that mothers' and fathers' positivity adulthood. Beginning in 1995, the target ado-
would promote observed positive parenting that, lescent (1 year after completion of high school)
in turn, would be related to adolescent positivity.
participated in the study with his or her romantic
Furthermore, we predicted that the adolescents' partner. The FTP has followed the target youth
positivity would be directly associated with theirfrom as early as 1989 through 2007 (M target
positivity in emerging adulthood. Second, within age = 32 years), with a 90% retention rate.
the same model, we also tested whether life This study includes targets who participated
experiences in the form of economic pressure from adolescence through early adulthood. The
can act to diminish positivity by considering the data were analyzed at the three developmental
impact of economic pressure on parental posi- time points. The first was when the target adoles-
tivity. This prediction follows from recent theo- cent was age 13 (1989). The second period was
rizing about transactional associations between during late adolescence when the target was age
84 Family Relations
Figure 1 . Conceptual Model.
( Mother ' /^MotheT'

i. Positivity J Positive )
V Parenting J " -
Family^Nv ^
( Economic ^ Positivity J-Á Emerging J
'^Pressure^/
Father ' ./ Father '
AVPositivity ) [ Positive
/ ' Parenting
Early Adolescence Late Adolescence Emerging Adulthood
18 (1994). Finally, the last time point occurred

by trained interviewers. During that visit, these
when the target was in emerging adulthood adults
at completed a series of questionnaires on
age 21 (1997). topics such as individual characteristics and cop-
ing. The means and standard deviations for all
study variables are provided in Table 1 .
Procedures
When the target was an adolescent, all fami- Measures

lies of origin were visited twice in their homes
each year by a trained interviewer. Each visit Family Economic Pressure in Early Adoles-
lasted approximately 2 hours, with the sec-cence. Economic pressure was measured as a
ond visit occurring within 2 weeks of the firstlatent construct with three indicators: unmet
visit. During the first visit, each family mem- material needs, cannot make ends meet, and
financial cutbacks (Conger & Conger, 2002).
ber (mother, father, target adolescent, and sibling
closest in age to the target) completed question- Each indicator for economic pressure was col-
naires pertaining to subjects such as individuallected in 1989 when the adolescent was age 13.
characteristics and parenting. During the sec-Unmet material needs included six items ask-
ond visit, family members participated in struc- ing both parents of the adolescent whether they
tured interaction tasks that were videotaped. had enough money to afford their home, cloth-
In these analyses, observer ratings from the ing, furniture, car, food, and medical expenses.
parent -adolescent discussion task were used. Each item ranged from 1 (, strongly agree) to 5
This 30-minute task involved the adolescent (. strongly disagree). All items were summed for
and his or her parents engaging in a conversa- each parent, then averaged across mother and
tion about family rules, events, and problems. father responses with an alpha coefficient of .89.
Trained observers coded the quality of these The second indicator for economic pressure
interactions using the Iowa Family Interaction was not being able to make ends meet. This
Rating Scales (Melby et al., 1998), which included have asking both parents whether they had
been shown to demonstrate adequate reliability difficulty paying their bills (1 =a great deal of
and validity (Melby & Conger, 2001). difficulty to 5 = no difficulty at all) and how
Beginning in 1995 the target adolescents, much now money they have left at the end of each
adults, participated in data collection. Each tar-month (1 =more than enough money left over
get adult was visited biennially in their home to 4 = not enough to make ends meet). The first
Economie Pressure , Positivity ; ara/ Parenting 85
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Study

Parental Variables
Positivity in Early Adolescence. Mater-
(N = 451) nal and paternal positivity was measured as a
Variables M SD À Standard À
latent construct with three separate indicators:
mastery, self-esteem, and positive emotion. Each
Economic Pressure indicator for parental positivity was collected
Cutbacks 5.18 3.81 .52 .79 in 1989 when the adolescent was typically age
Material needs 14.69 4.12 .60 .88 13. For mastery (Perlin, Lieberman, Menaghan,
Ends meet .00 1.65 .51 .78 & Mullan, 1981), each parent reported on how
Parental Positivity
strongly he or she agreed with seven statements
about themselves such as, "There is no way
Father mastery 3.81 .53 .37 .72
Father self-esteem 4.02 .51 .42 .86
I can solve some of the problems I have, I
often feel helpless in dealing with the prob-
Father positive emotion 3.57 .53 .31 .61
lems in my life, and sometimes I feel that I
Mother mastery 3.78 .56 .37 .71
am being pushed around in life." The above
Mother self-esteem 3.97 .57 .42 .81
responses were on a 5 -point scale, ranging from
Mother positive emotion 3.80 .56 .31 .62 strongly agree to strongly disagree. All items
Observed Parenting were averaged together and coded to indicate
Father positive parenting 2.95 .61 .63 .96 high levels of self-mastery. Scores were inter-
Mother positive parenting 3.15 .56 .63 .96 nally consistent for mothers (alpha =.77) and
Adolescent Positivity fathers (alpha = .75).
Mastery 3.89 .64 .53 .84 The second indicator for parental positivity
Self-esteem 3.93 .66 .62 .95 was Rosenberg's (1965) self-esteem scale that
Life satisfaction .80 .21 .40 .55 included questions such as, "I am inclined to
Coping skills 3.60 .55 .25 .46 feel that I'm a failure, I do not have much to be
Emerging Adult Positivity proud of, and I feel useless at times." Responses
Mastery 3.92 .63 .53 .83 ranged from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly
Self-esteem 3.99 .67 .62 .92 disagree). A total of 10 self-reported items were
Life satisfaction 3.40 .76 .40 .52
combined for mothers (alpha = .88) and fathers
(alpha = .85). All items were averaged and coded
Coping skills 3.72 .59 .25 .41
in order to reflect a high level of self-esteem.
Control Variables
The last indicator for positivity was the pos-
Parent per capita income 37,698.9 25,795.2 - -
itive emotion scale from the NEO Personality
Father education level 13.48 2.13 - -
Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1985). Mothers and
Mother education level 13.28 1.65 - -
fathers were asked whether they had ever lit-
erally jumped for joy, were considered to be
"light-hearted," and used words like "fantastic"
or "sensational" to describe experiences. A total
item was reverse-coded and then both items
of 10 items were used ranging from 1 (strongly
were standardized and summed together agree)for to 5 (strongly disagree). All items were
each parent, then averaged across mother and
averaged and coded to indicate high levels of
father responses. The correlation between the
positive emotions. Scores were internally con-
two items was .73. sistent for both mothers (alpha =.81) and fathers
The last indicator, financial cutbacks, con- (alpha = .78).
sisted of 17 items that asked both parents
whether they had made significant financial cut- Positive Parenting in Early Adolescence. Ob-
backs in the past 12 months. Questions included server ratings were used to assess each par-
items such as postponing medical or dental care, ent's warmth, communication, listener respon-
changing food shopping or eating habits to save
siveness, assertiveness, and prosocial behavior
money, and taking an extra job to help meet toward the target youth as well as the relation-
expenses. Each item was answered by 1 =yes or ship quality between the parent and his or her
0 = no. All items were summed together for each adolescent during the family discussion task.
parent, then averaged across mother and father Data on the discussion task was collected in 1989
responses with adequate internal consistency when the adolescent was age 13. Each rating was
(alpha = .91). scored on a 9-point scale, ranging from low (no
86 Family Relations
evidence of the
Responses ranged frombehavior)
1 (, strongly agree) to 5
ior is highly (. strongly disagree). A total of 10 items were
characteristic
scale was used
averaged togetheras a
(alpha = .90). separ
latent construct. Life satisfaction (adapted
Warmth from Diener,
praise, care, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) included
concern, or su
cent. Communication
five items, which asked whether the adolescent enta
explanation, was satisfied
and with his orsolicitati
her life the way it is, if
point of he or shein
view was happy a with the way things were
neutral o
tener in his/her life, if he or she would relive
responsiveness his or
invo
validating her life in theverbalizatio
the same way, whether he or she had
through thegottenusethe important of things in life that he or she
nonver
Assertiveness wanted, and if his or her life was close to ideal. th
measures
presentation Each itemin ranged terms
from 1 (, strongly disagree)
of to e
fidently and 5 ( strongly agree) and were averaged together wh
positively,
with the (alpha = .86).
responses of the
ior is the Coping (Conger, 1993)
extent to consisted of four
which t
tively to items asking
his or the adolescent
her when he or sheadoles
had
eration, sensitivity, helpf
a problem, how much does he or she try to figure
to change out the cause and do something about it,
behavior fortry to th
ship qualityforgetmeasures
about it, try to do things that will keep a wa
emotionally him or her from thinking about it, and try to
satisfying rel
parent and talk to other people about it. Each item ranged
adolescent.
During the
from 1 (, family
strongly disagree) to 5 (, strongly agree).discu
and their All items were coded to indicate high levels of
adolescents disc
a series of coping and averaged (alpha =labeled
cards .50). sp
the parent or the teenag
dren took Positivity in Emergingreading
turns Adulthood. Positivity qu
jects such when theschool
as adolescents were in emerging adult-
activit
parental hood was assessed through self-reportThe
discipline. in 1997 pe
was instructed at an average ageto of 21 years. Positivity was
read each
give his or measured as a latent
her construct with four indica-
answers firs
ily members tors: mastery
were (alpha = .83), self-esteem
instruc (alpha =
vidual answers .90), life satisfaction
next (alpha =.82), and
and coping th
together about (alpha = .54). All
the indicators were assessed with
answers
were to go the same measures
on to used in late adolescence.
the next c
had said It should be noted that for parent they
everything positiv-
question. ity, Mastery, Self-Esteem,
Scores were and Positive Emotions
aver
ent and were were used as internally
measures in the model. For adoles- c
for mother; cents and
alphayoung adults, Mastery, =Self-Esteem,
.90 fo
strated acceptable Life Satisfaction, and Coping were used. We
inter-ra
included Positive Emotions for parents because
Positivity Life Satisfaction
in Late and Coping was not available
Adolesc
itivity was inassessed the early years of the study. However,throug we
when the believe that the adolescentwas,
target and parent constructs on a
itivity was reflect the higher-order construct of positivity.
measured as a
four indicators: For example, the Positive Emotion NEO PI-R
mastery,
isfaction, Facet Scale and coping.
and the Satisfaction with Life Scale Ado
self-esteem were assessed with the same mea- are correlated (Schimmack, Oishi, Furr, & Fun-
der, 2014). In fact, the Positive Emotion NEO
sures as used with their parents. Mastery (Perlin
et al., 1981) was assessed with seven items mea-
Facet Scale is the strongest Extraversion-related
sured on a 5-point scale ranging from strongly correlate of Life Satisfaction.
agree to strongly disagree. Item responses were
Control Variables. The control variables
averaged (alpha = .83). Adolescents also com-
pleted Rosenberg's (1965) self-esteem scale.included parent per capita income, mother
Economie Pressure , Positivity ; ara/ Parenting 87
Table 2. Comparisons of Fit Between Nested Models
Model X1 df RMSEA CI TLI A/2 A df p
la. Seven-factor model, factors freely 280.5 158 .038 [.031,. 045] .941 - - -
correlated
lb. Model la, with constraints in A 290.3 166 .037 [.030, .044] .943 9.8 8 .28
lc. Model lb, with restricted pattern of 298.9 173 .036 [.029, .043] .945 8.6 7 .27
regression weights in B
Id. Model lc, with invariance of 303.9 179 .035 [.028, .042] .947 5.0 5 .41
regression weights across parents in B
le. Model Id, setting to zero 309.1 182 .035 [.029, .042] .947 5.2 5 .39
nonsignificant weights in B
Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence int

TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; A/2 = change in chi-squared from the immediately preceding
freedom from the immediately preceding model; p = probability associated with the A/2 v
and father education (0 = kindergarten toin a multiple-group frame-

fitting these models
20 = education beyond a master's degree
work. Because ), and
none of the structural paths varied
adolescent gender (0 = male , 1 =significantly
female).by adolescent gender, what follows
are results based on the overall sample. In other
Results words, we found no compelling evidence that
adolescent gender moderated the associations in
Structural Equation Models question.
We used M plus Version 7 (Muthén & Muthén, Information regarding the measurement
model from Model le is presented in Table 2.
2012) to estimate each model using full informa-
tion maximum likelihood estimation (Allison,
Standardized loadings of manifest indicators
2003) rather than deleting cases with any miss-
onto latent factors ranged from .41 to .96 (see
ing data. We went through a series of Table
nested
1 for all factor loadings). For example,
model tests (see Table 2) and settled on the most
standardized loadings for the three indicators of
appropriate model based on statistical and con- pressure were .79 for unmet material
economic
ceptual grounds. For example, Model laneeds, allows.88 for can't make ends meet, and .78
all seven factors to correlate freely and for
freely
financial cutbacks. As loadings for parent
estimates all factor loadings separately forpositivity
moth- and positive parenting were equated
ers and fathers. Model lb tests whether mother
across parents in Model lb (see Table 2), the
and father latent variables can be constrained to
unstandardized loading are equal for mothers
have equivalent measurement models. Model lc and fathers.
tests our primary hypotheses by trimming the
Correlations among the seven latent factors
structural model, allowing only within-time cor-
derived from Model le are presented in Table 3.
relations and paths predicted by our theoretical
Economic pressure was negatively correlated
model. Model Id tests whether the hypothesized
with adolescent positivity (r=-.16, /?<.05).
paths differ in magnitude between mothers and
Parent positivity was positively correlated with
fathers. For example, the regression weight of
the paths from mother parenting to adolescent positive parenting (r = .14, /?<.05 for fathers;
positivity was constrained to the same values as r = . 1 7, p < .05 for mothers) and adolescent posi-
the regression weights associated with the paths tivity was positively correlated with parent posi-
from father parenting to adolescent positivity. tivity (r = .09, p < .05 for fathers; r = . 1 8, p < .05
In the interests of parsimony, Model le sets to for mothers). In addition, adolescent positivity
zero all nonsignificant paths. Based on the non- was positively correlated with positivity during
significant drop in fit for each of these models, early adulthood (r = .67, p < .05).
Model le was selected as the final and most par- Figure 2 contains the paths and coefficients
simonious representation of study findings. We associated with Model le, with within-time cor-
initially examined the possible moderating role relations among latent variables omitted from
of adolescent gender on these associations by the figure for the sake of clarity. Although the
88 Family Relations
Table 3. Correlations Betw
Study constructs 1 23 4 5 6 7. 89 10 11
1 . Economic pressure -
2. Paternal positivity .35* -
3. Maternal positivity .33* .09 -
4. Father positive parenting -.13* .14* .08 -
5. Mother positive parenting -.16* .02 .17* .47* -
6. Adolescent positivity -.16* .09 .18* .16* .07 -
7. Emerging adult positivity -.19* .09 .16* .01 -.04 .67* -
8. Parent per capita income -.51* .24* .09* .12* .15* .01 .08 -
9. Father education level -.25* .15* .08 .28* .14* .10* .08 .25* -
10. Mother education level -.26* .09* .18* .21* .25* .12* .10* .32* .46* -
1 1 . Adolescent gender -.06 .01 .03 -.04 -.04 -.05 -.03 .01 .06 .02 -
*/?<.10, */7 <.05.
associated
correlation between economic pressure with later positivity in em
and ado-
adulthood
lescent positivity was statistically (/?
significant, it = .67, SE = .03). There w
direct association
became nonsignificant after accounting for the from economic pre
positivity
associations between parent variables in emerging adulthood (/
and ado-
SE = .04).
lescent positivity. Instead, economic The model was also tested w
pressure
inclusionposi-
was indirectly associated with adolescent of economic pressure duri
tivity through parent positivity adolescence, using the same constructs
( b= - .04, 95%
confidence interval [CI] [-.16, cators
- .03]).of economic pressure as were used
Economic pressure was associated with
early adolescent variable. Results showe
parent positivity (/?=-.35, SE economic pressure during early ado
= .04), which
was related
was in turn associated with positive to economic pressure dur
parent-
adolescence
ing (/? = .15, SE = .04). Adolescent ( ß = .79, p < .001), pointing
positivity
was predicted by parent positivity ( ß = A2
consistency of ,economic conditions acro
SE = .04), as well as positive parenting ( ß = .07,
In addition, neither mother nor father po
was associated
SE = .03). Because of the constraints with late adolescent economic
mentioned
previously, the coefficients were pressure, equal forthat positivity did not exac-
suggesting
mothers and fathers. Adolescent erbate or attenuate economic
positivity was conditions for the
Figure 2. Coefficients from Model (p < .05).
/ uuMother
/ *u ' / *u
Mother
' ' / .A. ''
. . h- .15{.04)*-n positive .A.
' positivity . . L ' . . f
-A ' parenting . . /
J&i-04)* 12(.04)*V::^^ ^ ^
[ economic J Adolescent ' J os'^v^ 'A
V
x^.pressure J J positivity
pressure positivity j ^^ /
y j 'adulthood/ /
^ .07(.03)* V
/ Father Í Father X
l positivity / positive
' J ' parenting/
Economie Pressure, Positivity, and Parenting 89
Generation 1 parents. In terms parenting

of controlskills that
vari-lead to positive outcomes
ables, father positive parentingfor adolescents
was related overto
time. The results also
father education ( ß = .20, SE = replicate
.05) and andmother
extend previous studies examining
education (/? = .12, SE = .05). Mother positive
the effects of positive parental disposition on
positiveeducation
parenting was related to mother parenting and child outcomes (Brody
(ß = .25, SE = .05). et al., 2002; Castro-Schilo et al., 2013; Taylor
et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2012). In particular,
Discussion
this study helps to expand previous studies
that have often focused exclusively on mothers
This investigation evaluated how parental to posi-
show that path coefficients are essentially
tivity can be incorporated into the FSMidentical
to testfor mothers and fathers. This attests to
how this latent personal characteristic wasa similarity
asso- in parenting processes for mothers
and fathers and further underscores the impor-
ciated with positive parenting and the develop-
tance of
ment of adolescent positivity in the context ofexamining models that include mothers
economic pressure. Our model is broadly and con-
fathers in family research.
sistent with the family resilience frameworkItthat
is worth emphasizing that these results sug-
gest that adolescents who have positive parents
indicates that individual attributes and family
resources help promote positive adaptation may beto more likely to develop a similar positive
disposition
adversity or resilience. This study therefore adds themselves. Research shows that
optimistic
to the sparse literature that has examined the role and positive individuals have better
of parental positivity within the contextpsychological
of eco- adjustment to stressful life cir-
cumstances (Carver et al., 2010). Thus, children
nomic pressure, positive parenting, and positive
youth outcomes. who are exposed to parents who maintain a
As hypothesized, parental positivity and outlook may be more likely to display a
positive
positive parenting during early adolescencesimilar level of positivity. This positivity may in
were related to late adolescent positivity,turn
whichhelp adolescents adapt to future challenges
was related to positivity during emerging and stressful life events such as future exposure
adult-
to economic
hood. Moreover, family economic pressure as pressure. This idea highlights
experienced in early adolescence was signifi-
the utility of taking a developmental approach
to understanding
cantly associated with adolescent positivity 5 those personal characteris-
tics implicated
years later although this direct relationship was in the processes that facilitate
no longer significant after accounting forresilience.
the
associations between the other variables in the
We should also acknowledge that there are
model. This suggests that economic pressure
alternative explanations for some of the present
was indirectly associated with adolescent posi-findings. The first is the possibility that shared
genetic factors between parents and offspring
tivity through mother and father positivity. The
analyses also revealed that economic pressure helps to explain some of the observed associa-
tions. Genetic factors might be passed directly
was negatively associated with parent positivity,
a finding consistent with recent transactionalfrom parent to offspring. Indeed, in a sample
models suggesting that economic conditions and of twins, results from a multivariate genetic
personal characteristics are often reciprocallyanalysis revealed that a common genetic factor
related in a dynamic developmental process explained the covariation between self-esteem,
(Conger & Donellan, 2007). life satisfaction, and optimism (Caprara et al.,
Altogether, these results support the notion2009). Likewise, genetically influenced indi-
that the combination of individual and familyvidual differences of adolescents might elicit
resilience processes lead to positive adaptationcertain kinds of parenting practices, thereby
to risk. Specifically, we found that parental modifying the direction of influence in Figure 1 .
positive attributes are associated with positiveThus, future research should explore the genetic
parenting that seems to facilitate adolescent influence of parents and children in the context
positive adaptation into young adulthood. Con- of economic pressure, parenting, and child
sistent with insights in Patterson (2002), theseoutcomes.
findings suggest that if parents have the per- There are several limitations to this study
sonal resources to cope in the face of economic worthy of comment. First, the data are correla-
pressure, they may be able to maintain positive tional. To provide a more adequate test of model
90 Family Relations
effects, quasi-experimenta
these findings illustrate that such intervention
are needed. One
efforts option
may help to foster long-lasting posi- w
intervene to promote
tive developmental outcomes for adolescents po
acteristics exposed
to see
to economic if
hardship. this
These results
changes in hint
parenting and
that an emphasis on accentuating positive
Second, the personal
lack characteristics
of mightracial,
be one viable
sample diversity may
path toward a positive adaptation in the face lim
ity of results.
of economic adversity. TheOn the other hand,resu
we
however, as
emphasize they
that positivity is but are
one angle for con
from a study using
interventions and that more direct antipovertya m
(Taylor et programs
al., are also2012). Fina
important avenues for helping
should include early
families cope with economic adversity. This ado
positivity that
is consistent with would
our findings that economic pro
test of associations
pressure is negatively associated withbetw posi-
parenting tivity,
and later
thereby suggesting chil
that socioeconomic
were limited conditionsin our
might negatively abilit
affect those per-
measures insonal this
characteristics thatstudy
facilitate personal be
cators of
positivity were
resilience. In other words, direct efforts to alle- n
waves.
viate economic pressure might also help foster
In closing, these results suggest that a positive
positivity. Moreover, we found no indication
orientation may contribute to those that parenting
parental positivity was associated with
practices that seem to be associated
futurewith
economicthe pressure in a set of supple-
development of adolescent positive devel-
mentary analyses, suggesting that a more potent
opment, even into early adulthood.
pathwayIn isshort,
probably from economic pressure
positivity might be a personal characteristic
to parental positivity rather than the other way
that serves as an adaptive resource for
around. In those
short, there is no single solution
parents dealing with economic problems. This
for addressing the complex issues facing fam-
is an important insight with potential applied
ilies in economic crisis, but this work suggests
implications. It seems reasonable that preven-
that positivity is one consideration because it
tion and intervention programs designed
appears to foster to
positive parenting in the face of
promote healthy development should draw on
adversity.
the research evidence that identifies factors
that contribute to resilience and effective fam-
ily functioning (Masten et al., 2009). Thus, Note
this study suggests that efforts to bolster pos-
itivity might be worthwhile. Moreover, these This research is currently supported by a grant
results hint at the possibility that efforts to from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
enhance parental positivity might contribute Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
to the development of positivity in the nextment (HD064687). The content is solely the
generation. These kinds of basic research find- responsibility of the authors and does not neces-
ings can motivate clinicians and policy makers sarily represent the official views of the funding
to use and develop effective educational and agencies. Support for earlier years of the study
preventive interventions designed to promote also came from multiple sources, including the
positivity. National Institute of Mental Health (MH00567,
Indeed, there are current interventions MH 19734, MH43270, MH59355, MH62989,
designed to promote positivity. For example,MH48165, MH051361), the National Insti-
programs that utilize the family resilience tute on Drug Abuse (DA05347), the National
framework target key processes such as hav-Institute of Child Health and Human Devel-
ing a positive outlook and providing parentalopment (HD027724, HD051746, HD047573),
nurturance during times of stress (Walsh, the Bureau of Maternal and Child Health
2012) or the use of positive psychotherapy that (MCJ-109572), and the MacArthur Foundation
teaches people who are at risk to be positiveResearch Network on Successful Adolescent
(see Seligman, Rashid, & Parks, 2006). By Development Among Youth in High-Risk
increasing positivity and supportive parenting,Settings.
Economie Pressure , Positivity ; am/ Parenting 9 1
References and individual development. Journal of Mar-

riage and Family, 72, 685-704. doi: 10. 1 1 1 1/
Alessandri, G., Caprara, G. V., & Tisk, J. (2012).
j.l741-3737.2010.00725.x
The unique contribution of positive orientation to R. D., & Donnellan, M. B. (2007). An
Conger,
optimal functioning. European Psychologist,interactionist
17, perspective on the socioeconomic
44-54. doi: 1 0. 1 027/ 1 0 1 6-9040/a000070
context of human development. Annual Review
Allison, P. D. (2003). Missing data techniques of Psychology, 58, 175-199. doi:10.1146/
for structural equation modeling. Journal annurev.psych.58. 1 10405.08555 1
of Abnormal Psychology, 112 , 545-557. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R, R. (1985). The NEO
doi: 1 0. 1 037/002 1 -843X. 1 1 2.4.545
Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psy-
Assad, K. K., Donnellan, M. B., & Conger, R. chological Assessment Resources.
D. (2007). Optimism: An enduring resource Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S.
for romantic relationships. Journal of Person- (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal
ality and Social Psychology, 93, 258-297. of Personality Assessment, 49, 71-75.
doi: 10. 1037/0022-35 14.93.2.285
Donnellan, M. B., Conger, K. J., Mc Adams, K. K.,
Belsky, J. (1984). The determinants of parenting: A
& Neppl, T. K. (2009). Personal characteristics
process model. Child Development, 55, 83-96.
and resilience to economic hardship and its con-
doi: 10.2307/1 129836
sequences: Conceptual issues and empirical illus-
Bolger, K. E., Patterson, C. J., Thompson, W. trations. Journal of Personality, 77, 1645-1676.
W., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1995). Psycholog-
doi: 10.1 1 1 1/j. 1467- 6494.2009.00596.x
ical adjustment among children experiencingEvans, G. W. (2002). The environment of child-
persistent and intermittent family economic
hood poverty. American Psychologist, 59, 77-92.
hardship. Child Development, 66, 1107-1129. doi : 1 0. 1 037/0003-066X.59.2.77
doi: 10.1 1 1 1/i. 1467-8624. 1995.tb00926.x
Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., Raver, C. C., & Lennon,
Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Kim, S., & Brown,
M.C. (2007). Income is not enough: Incorporating
A. C. (2002). Longitudinal pathways to com-
material hardship into models of income associa-
petence and psychological adjustment among
tions with parenting and child development. Child
African-American children living in rural
Development, 78, 70-95. doi: 10.1 1 1 l/j.1467-
single-parent households. Child Development,
8624.2007.00986.x
73, 1505-1516. doi: 10.1 1 1 1/1467-8624.00486
Harter, S. (1993). Causes and consequences of low
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., Eisenberg, N., Kupfer,
self-esteem in children and adolescents. In R. F.
A., Steca, P., Caprara, M. G., ... Abela, J. (2012).
The Positivity Scale. Psychological Assessment, Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: The puzzle of low
24, 701-712. doi : 1 0. 1 037/a002668 1 self-regard (pp. 87 - 1 16). New York: Plenum.
Caprara, G. V., Fagnani, C., Alessandri, G., Steca, Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The
P., Gigantesco, A., Cavalli-Sforza, L. L., & Stazi, benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happi-
M. A. (2009). Human optimal functioning: The ness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131,
803 - 855. doi: 1 0. 1037/0033-2909. 1 3 1 .6.803
genetics of positive orientation towards self, life,
and the future. Behaviour Genetics, 39, 277 - 284. Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience
doi : 1 0. 1 007/s 1 05 1 9-009-9267-y processes in development. American Psychologist,
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. 56, 227-238. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.3.227
(2010). Optimism. Clinical Psychology Review, Masten, A. S., Cutuli, J. J., Herbers, J. E. & Reed,
30, 879-889. doi : 10. 101 6/j.cpr.2010.0 1.006 M. J. (2009). Resilience in development. In S. J.
Castro-Schilo, L., Taylor, Z. E., Ferrer, E., Robins, Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of
R. W., Conger, R. D., & Widaman, K. F. (2013). positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 117-131). New
Parents' optimism, positive parenting, and child York: Oxford University Press.
peer competence in Mexican-origin families. Melby, J. N., & Conger, R. D. (2001). The Iowa Fam-
Parenting : Science and Practice, 13, 95-112. ily Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument summary.
doi: 1 0. 1 080/1 5295 1 92.20 1 2.709 1 5 1 In P. Kerig & K. Lindahl (Eds.), Family obser-
Conger, R. D. (1993). Life Satisfaction and Coping. vational coding systems: Resources for systematic
Developed for Iowa Youth and Families Project. research (pp. 33-58). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ames, IA: Iowa State University. Melby, J., Conger, R., Book, R., Rueter, M., Lucy, L.,
Conger, R. D., & Conger, K. J (2002). Resilience in Repinski, D., ... Scaramella, L. (1998). The Iowa
midwestern families: Selected findings from the Family Interaction Rating Scales (5th ed.). Ames,
first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. IA: Iowa State University, Institute for Social and
Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361-373. Behavioral Research.
doi: 10.1 1 1 1/j. 1741-3737. 2002.00361.x Mistry, R. S., Lowe, E. D., Benner, A. D., & Chien,
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. N. (2008). Expanding the family economic stress
(2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes, model: Insights from a mixed-methods approach.
92 Family Relations
Journal of Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.

Marriage and(2000). F
doi: 10. 1 11 Positive
1/j. psychology:
1741 An introduction.
-3737.2 Ameri-
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus can Psychologist, 55, 5-14. doi: 10. 1037/0003-
user's guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén 066X.56.1.89
& Muthén. Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C.
Neppl, T. K., Conger, R. D., Scaramella, L. V., (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psy-
& Ontai, L. (2009). Intergenerational continu- chologist, 61, 774-788. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
ity in parenting behavior: Mediating pathways 61.8.774
and child effects. Developmental Psychology, 45, Sobolewski, J. M., & Amato, P. R. (2005). Eco-
1241 - 1256. doi : 1 0. 1 037/a00 1 4850 nomic hardship in the family of origin during child-
Orth, U., Robins, R. W., & Widaman, K. F. (2012). hood and psychological well-being in adulthood.
Life-span development of self-esteem and its Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 141-156.
effects on important life outcomes. Journal of Per- doi: 10.1 1 1 l/j.0022-2445.2005 .0001 1.x
sonality and Social Psychology, 102, 1271 - 1288. Taylor, Z. E., Larsen-Strife, D., Conger, R. D.,
doi:10.1037/a0025558 Widaman, K. F., & Cutrona, C. E. (2010). Life
Patterson, J. M. (2002). Integrating family stress, maternal optimism, and adolescent compe-
resilience and family stress theory. Journal tence in single-mother, African-American fami-
of Marriage and the Family, 64, 349-360. lies. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 468-477.
doi: 10.1 1 1 l/j.l741-3737.2002.00349.x doi: 10. 1037/a00 19870
Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., Taylor, Z. E., Widaman, K. F., Robins, R. W., Jochem,
& Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Jour- R., Early, D. R., & Conger, R. D. (2012). Dis-
nal of Health and Social Behavior, 22, 337-356. positional optimism: A psychological resource
doi: 10.2307/2136676 for Mexican-origin mothers experiencing eco-
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and adolescent nomic stress. Journal of Family Psychology, 26,
self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 133-139. doi:10.1037/a0026755
Press. Walsh, F. (2012). Family resilience: Strengths forged
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., Furr, M. R., & Funder, through adversity. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family
D. C. (2014). Personality and life satisfac- processes : Growing diversity and complexity (4th
tion: A facet-level analysis. Personality and ed., pp. 399-427). New York: Guilford.
Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1062-1075. Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S. FL, Fabes, R.
doi:10.1 177/0146167204264292 A., Reiser, M., Gutherie, I. K., ... Shepard, S. A.
Schofield, T. J., Conger, R. D., Donnellan, M. B., (2002). The relations of parental warmth and pos-
Jochem, R. J., Widaman, K. F., & Conger, K. itive expressiveness to children's empathy-related
J. (2012). Parent personality and positive parent- responding and social functioning: A longitu-
ing as predictors of positive adolescent personality dinal study. Child Development, 73, 893 - 915.
development over time. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, doi: 10.1 1 1 1/1467-8624.00446
58, 255-283. doi:10.1353/ mpq.2012.0008

National Council On Family Relations Family Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

National Council On Family Relations Family Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

National Council On Family Relations Family Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Impact of Economic Pressure on Parent Positivity, Parenting, and Adolescent

Positivity into Emerging Adulthood

M. Brent Donnellan Texas A &M University *

The Impact of Economic Pressure on Parent

80 Family Relations 64 (February 2015): 80-92

lower et al., 2012). These individual

adolescents. They found thateconomic pressures and

Figure 1 . Conceptual Model.

( Mother ' /^MotheT'

Early Adolescence Late Adolescence Emerging Adulthood

18 (1994). Finally, the last time point occurred

When the target was an adolescent, all fami- Measures

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Study

Table 2. Comparisons of Fit Between Nested Models

Model X1 df RMSEA CI TLI A/2 A df p

Note. RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CI = confidence int

and father education (0 = kindergarten toin a multiple-group frame-

Table 3. Correlations Betw

*/?<.10, */7 <.05.

Figure 2. Coefficients from Model (p < .05).

Generation 1 parents. In terms parenting

References and individual development. Journal of Mar-

Journal of Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M.

You might also like

/?<.10, /7 <.05.