RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS IN FAMILIES …cirf.psy.unipd.it/files/IAFP_Meeting_May_2010_CIRF.pdf · RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS IN FAMILIES CIRF – Università di Padova EXPERIENCES

RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS IN FAMILIES

CIRF – Università di Padova

EXPERIENCES ECONOMIC HARDSHIP:APPLIED RESEARCH

Mario CusinatoWalter Colesso

Gi Gi i iIAFP ConferenceMay 13 16 2010

Giovanna Gianesini

May 13-16, 2010Calloway Gardens, Pine Mountain, Georgia USA

Famiglie 2000

IAFP Meeting May 2010IAFP Meeting, May 2010

STUDY 1: “Linking economic hardship to partners’ time perspective”

STUDY 2:”Economic Hardship & Family Relational Resources”Relational Resources” .

STUDY 3: “Relational & EmotionalSTUDY 3: Relational & Emotional Competence as protective factors during economic recession: A family resilience approach”.

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 -2-

Thi i j i i i d b

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 2

This is a project initiated two years ago by the Interdepartmental Research Center for Family studies (CIRF) at University of Padua. We were interested in investigatingPadua. We were interested in investigating the effects of economic pressure (as a direct or indirect risk factor) on individualdirect or indirect risk factor) on individual (study 1), couple (study 3), and family ( t d 2) llb i ti f ti d(study 2) wellbeing, satisfaction and quality of relations.


W l i ti t d th di ti l f


We also investigated the mediating role of Individual Time Perspective, ( study1), Parents Relational Competence and Resilience (study 3) and internal and external Family Resources (study 2).All three studies adopted models from Relational Competence Theory by L’Abate et el. (2010) and explored the effects of ( ) pthe current economic situation on family relations.

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 -3-IAFP Meeting, May 2010 3

Among the variables utilized to evaluate the economic situation we considered family consumption in the nord-est of Italy. However study 3 involved a sample ofHowever, study 3 involved a sample of Italian speaking swiss parents as we assumed from official statistics that theassumed from official statistics that the socio-demographic characteristics are similar.


Italian Consumption (source Regione Veneto Regional Statistics


Italian Consumption (source Regione Veneto - Regional Statistics System Management)Data

National private consumption in 2008 declined by 0 9% compared toNational private consumption in 2008 declined by 0.9% compared to the previous year. In the fourth quarter of 2008 the trend continued to worsen, confirming an underlying weakness and uncertainty. The weakness in purchasing can be explained in part by the difficulty in p g p p y yfunding debt. The widespread uncertainty of the duration and depth of the recession and the increasing worries about the changes in the labour market have induced households to postpone larger purchases; indeed a sharp fall in purchases of durable goods waspurchases; indeed a sharp fall in purchases of durable goods was recorded in the summer 2008. Consumption of non-durable goods stagnated, after the declines recorded in the preceding four quarters, while expenditure on services experienced a modest q , p precovery in the last quarter. (Figure 16), (Figure 17) and (Figure 18)


VENETO DATA


VENETO DATA

In Veneto in 2007 the year for which the most recentIn Veneto in 2007, the year for which the most recent data is available, spending on final consumption was found to be +1.9%, a higher level than that for Italy. C d t th th i V t i d i i fCompared to the other regions Veneto is a driving force in Italian domestic demand.: Final domestic consumption per person ranked higher than the national figure and the pe pe so a ed g e a e a o a gu e a d erate of aggregate growth was higher than the Italian figure. (Figure 19)


Si 2000 f il dit h hift d f


Since 2000, family expenditure has shifted from transport, clothes and footwear, furniture and electrical appliances recreation culture andelectrical appliances, recreation, culture and alcohol towards housing and communication.For 2008 stagnation had been estimated inFor 2008 stagnation had been estimated in household spending on consumption for Veneto due to the difficulty in accessing credit and the y gsignificant acceleration in inflation in the first half of the year. Household consumption felt further in 2009 and then is expected to recover in 2010. (Figure 20) and (Figure 21)


P t i t


Partecipants• In study 1 and 2 we investigated the financial,

i d k i t bilit d t theconomic, and work instability due to the worldwide current economic turmoil. The samples were collected in the North East regionsamples were collected in the North-East region of Italy, named Veneto, with the support and sponsorship of local associations of volunteerssponsorship of local associations of volunteers (CSV).

• The sample for the third study was collected inThe sample for the third study was collected in Switzerland, in primary schools.

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 -10-Measures

Th di i id d d d th


• The dimensions considered and assessed were the following:

• – economic hardshipeconomic hardship• – economic pressures• – family relational resourcesfamily relational resources• – social relational resources• – time perspectivesp p• - quality of parenting• – adversity management• – “decrescita felice”, i.e. a positive attitude toward

financial restrains f il d i di id l ti f ti• – family and individual satisfaction

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 -11-Instruments.


• Stanford Time Perspective Inventory (Zimbardo, 1993). This scale operationalize a future perspective, the present perspective (hedonistic and fatalistic) The short Italian form consist of 3 subscalesfatalistic) The short Italian form consist of 3 subscales.

• Family relational resources ad adversity management are defined according to the three Relational Styles within Relational Competence Theoryto the three Relational Styles within Relational Competence Theory (L’Abate et al., 2010) namely AA (abusive-apathetic), RR (reactive-repetitive), and CC (conductive-creative): the first is considered fully dysfunctional, the second partially dysfunctional, the third fully functional.

• Social relational resources were assessed trough the UCLA Loneliness Scales by Russel & al. (1980) revised and limited to 3 subscales: Social Relations, Network Intimacy, and Social Seclusion.

.

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 -12-Instruments.


• A positive view of family difficulties was operationalized in four items concerning” decrescita felice” as peoplein four items concerning decrescita felice as people can rise above difficulties adopting a more ethical and spiritual life vision that facilitate social interaction and

lid itsolidarity.• Parenting styles were defined according to Gottman’s

(1996) parental meta-emotion approach and assessed(1996) parental meta-emotion approach and assessed with a revised and adapted version of the Parenting Style Questionnaire (Cusinato et al. 2005).

• Resilience was assessed with the Connord-Davidson resilience Scale, 2-items. (2008)


STUDY 1

Linking Economic Hardship to Couples Ti P tiTime Perspectives

Mario CusinatoUniversity of Padua

Sponsored by CSV


AIMHow economic hardships structure couples’How economic hardships structure couples

time and their limitation in perspectives?

Are there some signs testifying the attitude e t e e so e s g s test y g t e att tude“DECRESCITA FELICE” attitude?


M


Measures• − Economic hardships items: Income Level, Recent

Reduction Income Work InstabilityReduction Income, Work Instability• − Income Pressures scale (5 items)• − Stanford Time Perspective Inventory: Present Stanford Time Perspective Inventory: Present

hedonistic scale (9 items), Present Fatalistic scale (5 items), Future scale (5 items)

Ad i M AA l (6 i ) RR l• − Adversity Management: AA scale (6 items), RR scale (3 items), CC scale (7 items)

• − Individual Life Satisfaction Scale (5 items)• Individual Life Satisfaction Scale (5 items)• − “Felice Decrescita” scale (4 items): that is a positive

outlook of financial restraints

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 -16-Results


These are some of the results:(a) Frequency distributions for all(a) Frequency distributions for all

dimensions are shown in Table 1:Monitored Dimensions Skewness Indexes

low scores ±1 high scores*

Economic Preassure 1.16 High score

Time Perspective: Hedonistic Present 1.61 High score

In particular, economic hardship ad economic

i bl hp g

Time Perspective: Fatalistic Present 1.16 High score

Time Perspective: Future View -.59 Central score

pressure variables show a distribution oriented to low scores It shows a

CC-Difficolties: Resource Change 1.08 High score

RR-Difficulties: To Be Escape .79 Central score

AA-Difficulties: Overwhelming .59 Central score

scores .It shows a moderate level of financial stress.

Life Satisfaction -.99 Central score

“Happy Decrease” -.31 Central score

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 -17-• (b) Correlations

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 171. Positive statistical significance for the correlation between fatalistic• Are presented in Table 2

Correlations (** = p > .01)

for the correlation between fatalistic present & pressure management suggests that a large part of the

ti i t i t d t dMonitored Dimensions Economic Preassure Economic Hardships

Time Perspective: Hedonistic Present -.01 -.01

Time Perspective: Fatalistic Present .11 -.02

participants are oriented toward living everyday life events with positive attitudes

Time Perspective: Future View -.07 -20**

CC-Difficolties: Resource Change -.11 -.07

2. No direct link between the three types of adversity management and economic pressures may indicate

RR-Difficulties: To Be Escape .07 .10

AA-Difficulties: Overwhelming .05 .06

Individual Life Satisfaction -.33** -.26**

ythat they probably are like personality traits.3. Economic pressure seems to

“Happy Decrease” -.36** -.42**

3. Economic pressure seems to diminish individual’s life satisfaction and to annul the positive contribution of ethics andcontribution of ethics and spirituality while considering possible economic difficulties.

IAFP Meeting, May 2010 -18-(c) SEM analysesA summary of the path


A summary of the path analyses is presen-ted in Figure 1.

Time Perspective:Future View

Time Perspective:

.17

Life Satisfaction

Hedonistic Present

Time Perspective:Fatalistic Present

Recent reduction income

.001

.46

.82

“Decrescita Felice”CC - Difficulties: Resource change

Work situationinstability

Economic Pressure

-2.06

.55

.29

RR - Difficulties:To be escaped

Income level

1 08

-.34

-.15

AA - Difficulties:Overwhelming

1.08

1.00

χ 2 = 53.40; df = 52; (χ 2 /df) = 1.03; Pvalue = .42; RMSEA = .0069; CFI = 1.00; GFI = .97


H id ti


• Here are some considerations:• 1. Economic pressure variables show congruent

t b th f i d di tiparameters both for sign and directions.• 2. Time orientation attitudes and personality

t it (Ad it M t t AA RRtraits (Adversity Management, types AA, RR, CC) appear meaningful mediators between indexes of economic pressure and income levelsindexes of economic pressure and income levels & positive outcomes, i.e., individual life satisfaction and/or ethical evaluation of thesatisfaction and/or ethical evaluation of the current sometimes difficult situation.


• 3 Moreover I on one side the economic pressure reduces both


• 3. Moreover, I on one side the economic pressure reduces both outputs, on the other these outputs are monitored by controlled attitudes and traits. Specifically, the future perspective sustains individual life satisfaction. Adversity management CC strengthens y g gboth individual satisfaction and diminished ethical view.

• 4. It is worth a special attention the fact that ethical perspective works when the income level is satisfactorily consistent. In fact, the i i bl i fl b th di tl d i di tl th thi lincome variable influences both directly and indirectly the ethical reconsideration of possible difficulties and other monitored forms of economic pressure.

• In conclusion participants'’ income level appears the consistent• In conclusion, participants income level appears the consistent element of their current life management.

• The hypothesis of “happiness fading” is not confirmed or, at least , not rationally considered by participants not under economicnot rationally considered by participants not under economic pressure.

Thank for your attention!

STUDY 2ECONOMIC HARDSHIPCO O C S

& FAMILY RELATIONAL RESOURCES

WALTER COLESSO

FAMILY RELATIONAL RESOURCES

WALTER COLESSO

IAFP ConferenceMay 13-16, 2010

Calloway Gardens, Pine Mountain, Georgia USA

introduction – aims – method – analysis – results – discussion – conclusions

Literature review on Economic Hardship and Family Relational Resources shows that Economic pressure in previous economic recessions was associated to:recessions was associated to:

- negative impact on spouse’s marital quality (happiness/satisfaction) and marital instability (thoughts or action related to divorce) (Conger Eldermarital instability (thoughts or action related to divorce), (Conger, Elder, Lorenz et al, 1990) in US Midwest counties;

- hostile marital interactions (Leinonen Solantaus & Punamäki 2003) in- hostile marital interactions (Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki, 2003) in Finland;

- marital conflict and disruption in skillful parenting (Conger Elder Lorenz- marital conflict and disruption in skillful parenting (Conger, Elder, Lorenz et al, 1992) in US Midwest counties;

- less parenting efficacy (Scaramella Preston Callahan & Mirabile 2008)- less parenting efficacy (Scaramella, Preston, Callahan, & Mirabile, 2008) in New Orleans area;

- increased punitive parenting (Leinonen Solantaus & Punamäki 2003) in- increased punitive parenting (Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki, 2003) in Finland.


Aim1. To verify correlations between economic hardships and family internal1. To verify correlations between economic hardships and family internal

and external relational resources in the North-East part of Italy.

2. To evaluate the impact of family participation in social volunteering on those family relational resources.


Participants

N 290 (145 co ples)N = 290; (145 couples)

Sex: 50% males, 50% females

Age: M = 40.02; SD = 7.24; range = 23 ÷ 65Male (M = 41.28; SD = 7.23); Female (M = 30.77; SD = 7.06)

Origin: North-East of Italy: Veneto region

Status: married (or cohabiting) 100%, with or without childrenStatus: married (or cohabiting) 100%, with or without children

Profession: 16.90% CEO; 38.62% white collar; 6.90% self-employed; 26.55% blucollar; 1.38% unemployed; 7.93 housewife.

Education: 0.34% primary school; 12.07% middle school; 12.41% vocational; 42.07% high school; 8.62% college, 24.14% university.

Participation in Family Volunteering Associations: Yes = 36.9%; No = 62.1%.


MeasuresEconomic Indexes

E i H d hi S l (L i S l t & P äki 2002) (3 it )Economic Hardship Scale (Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki, 2002) (3 items) items: Income Level, Recent Change Income, and Instability of Work Situation

Economic Pressures scale (Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki, 2002) (5 items)items: difficulties in tax payments mortgage and debts savings alternativeitems: difficulties in tax payments, mortgage and debts, savings, alternative sources of income, and consumption reductions.

Family Relational Resources measuresRelational Closeness Style Scales (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010) revised:

Abusive-Apathetic (AA) Subscale (8 items) – dysfunctional relational styleReactive-Repetititve (RR) Subscale (8 items) – semi functional relational style Conductive-Creative (CC) Subscale (8 items) – functional relational styleConductive-Creative (CC) Subscale (8 items) – functional relational style

Family Satisfaction Scale (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010), (5 items)

External Family Relational Resources measuresyUCLA Loneliness Scale (Russel, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980) revised:

Social Relations Subscale (9 items) – quantitative relational measure Network Intimacy Subscale (4 items) – qualitative relational measureS i l S l i S b l (7 it )Social Seclusion Subscale (7 items)


Analysis

1) Cronbach’s Alpha (and Exploratory Factorial Analysis) where used to verify the internal reliability of the scales.

2) Pearson Correlations were calculated to assess relations among Economic Indexes and Relational Resources

3) Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to evaluate the effects of Economic Indexes and Volunteering

4) Linear Regressions were run to control interactions between independent variables

5) Structural Equation Modeling, and its Causal Model for Observed Variables were used to select the best confirmative fit for the data


1) Acceptable even if not always satisfactory reliability have registered the instruments used in research

Economic Indexes (Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki, 2002)Economic Hardship Scale (3 item; in this study α = .63) Economic Pressures scale (5 items; in this study α = 70)Economic Pressures scale (5 items; in this study α = .70)

Family Relation Resources measuresRelational Closeness Style Scales (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010)y ( , )

Abusive-Apatethic AA (8 items; in this study α = .71)Reactive-Repetitive, RR (8 items; in this study α = .66)Conductive-Creative, CC (8 items; in this study α = .79)

Family Satisfaction Scale (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010), (5 items; in this study α = .71)

External Family Relational Resources measuresExternal Family Relational Resources measuresUCLA Loneliness Scale by Russel, Peplau, & Cutrona (1980) revised, composed of three subscales:

Social Relations scale (9 items; in this study α = .81)Network Intimacy scale (4 items; in this study α = .87)Social Seclusion scale (7 items; in this study α = .69)


2) Pearson CorrelationsTable 1. Person correlations among economic indexes and relational resources (N = 290)

Economic Hardship Economic PressureFamily Relational style***AA .12* .11

Family Relational style RR 20** 11Family Relational style RR .20** .11

Family Relational Style CC -.15* -.08

Family Satisfaction**** -.17** -.11

UCLA**** - Social relations -.15** -.10

UCLA - Network intimacy -.12* -.09

UCLA - Social seclusion .22** .18*** p < .05; ** p < .01;

***Family Closeness Styles Scales (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010)****Family Satisfaction Scale (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010)***** The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale Russel, Peplau, & Cutrona (1980)

Economic Hardship and Economic Pressure have a negative impact on relational

, p , ( )

Economic Hardship and Economic Pressure have a negative impact on relational resources, inside and outside the family.


3) ANOVA analysisTable 1 Significative compared means between Economic Pressure and Relational resources Table 1. Significative compared means between Economic Pressure and Relational resources

Economic pressure* ANOVAM Low M Medium M High F p ηpartial

Family Relational AA Style 15 55 16 07 18 22 3 45 033 09Family Relational AA Style 15.55 16.07 18.22 3.45 .033 .09Family Relational RR Style 12.44 12.41 14.14 2.58 .001 .12 Family Relational CC Style 35.33 36.08 33.70 1.72 .003 .11 Family Satisfaction 22 80 22 63 21 46 1 41 161Family Satisfaction 22.80 22.63 21.46 1.41 .161UCLA Social Relations 5.15 5.97 6.03 2.30 .102UCLA Network Intimacy 16.62 15.75 15.46 2.05 .130UCLA Social Seclusion 12 20 13 64 15 14 1 35 001 09

Medium effect sizes of Economic Pressure on Family Relational AA - RR - CC Styles, and UCLA Social Seclusion Scale

UCLA - Social Seclusion 12.20 13.64 15.14 1.35 .001 .09 *Low Economic Pressure: scores < M - 1 DS; Medium Economic Pressure: M - 1 DS < score < M + 1 DS; High Economic Pressure: scores > M + 1 DS

UCLA Social Seclusion Scale.4) Linear Regression

No significative effects and interactions between gender, Volunteering, levels of E i P d R l ti l M b dEconomic Pressure and Relational Measures observed.


5) SEM (Causal Model for Observed Variables): Path Diagram

Family Relational AA Style

F il R l ti l 2

.45

Family

Family Relational RR Style

Family Relational

Recent reduction income

.73

-.24-.10

83

-.27 -.20

.16Family

Satisfaction

Social R l ti

Family Relational CC Style

Work situationinstability

Economic Pressure

-2.07

.51

.83

Relations

NetworkIntimacy

Income level 1.00.16 .17

-.44The diagram paths are congruent with

_Intimacy

Social Seclusion

-.79

The diagram paths are congruent with the theoretical constructs. Economic Hardship and Pressure have a direct and positive effect on social seclusion and consequently they act both directly

+Seclusion

χ 2 = 59.99; df = 43; (χ 2 /df) = 1.14; Pvalue = .041; RMSEA = .038; CFI = .98; GFI = .96

and consequently they act both directly and indirectly on family relationships a negative effect.


Findings

1. The current economic recession seems to have a negative impact on relational resources in North-East Italian families.

2. Results suggest that Economic Pressure acts directly on social networks and consequently on family relations.

3. Volunteering has no effects on relational resources.

4. The results for the Italian sample are congruent with Conger & Elder (1994) and Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki (2002) research findings on American and Finnish people.

5. The Theory of Relational Competence seems confirmed.


Suggestions for practical implicationsRelational competence in social network relationships can reduce the negative

effects of economic hardship on family relations.

In Social Volunteering the resources invested inside and outside family contexts need to be further monitored for congruence and balance.

LimitsThe participants hasn’t be p rposl selected as a representati e sample of NorthThe participants hasn’t be purposly selected as a representative sample of North-

East Italian families.

We didn’t have enough data to evaluate the effect of number of children on the processes investigated (the data collection is still ongoing).

Thank you for your attention

[email protected]

IAFP CONFERENCE“Families in a Changing World: Risks, Challenges and

Resiliencies”May 13 – 16, 2010

Giovanna GianesiniGiovanna Gianesini

STUDY 3STUDY 3RELATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL

COMPETENCE AS PROTECTIVE FACTORSCOMPETENCE AS PROTECTIVE FACTORS ON PARENTING DURING ECONOMIC RECESSION A FAMILY RESILIENCERECESSION: A FAMILY RESILIENCE

APPROACH

AIMIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

AIM

There is little research on whether emotional and relational competence have a pmoderating effect on parenting, shielding its quality from negative influences.

Parent’s ways of interacting with the children are not a separate set of capabilities, but part of the fundamental identity of the person which is affected by his/her psychological resources (Leinonen, Solartau & Punamak, 2002).

Therefore, the impact of risk factors such as economic hardship on parenting quality might be expected to be dependent on the relational and emotional resources (i.e. competences) of each parent.


We examined the mediating paths between economic hardship, emotional and relational competence, resilience and parenting.

The model attempted to explain economic hardship and parenting quality singling out three nodal points: emotionalparenting quality, singling out three nodal points: emotional competence, relational competence and resilience.


We were interested in seeing whether relational competence, which is negatively correlated to affect dysfunction (alexithymia) and implies emotional competence iscorrelated to affect dysfunction (alexithymia) and implies emotional competence, is powerful enough to moderate the effect of economic hardship on parenting.

Subsequently we have explored how and whether the three dimensions of q y pAlexithymia (affective, cognitive and social) are meaningfully linked to the five relational competence dimensions of Relational Competence Theory (ERAAwC model, L’Abate, 1990) and Gottman’s (1996) four parenting styles. ) ( ) p g y

Finally, we have analyzed the mediating and moderating effects of psychological resilience on parenting styles and its relation with emotional and relational competences.

SAMPLEIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

A sample of 800 parents with children in primary school was recruited in two different districts (Riva San Vitale and Mendrisio, Ticino Canton),

ith ti i ti t f 40 5% (N 324)with a participation rate of 40.5% (N = 324).

Parents’ age ranged from 26 to 66 (M = 41.1, SD = 5.3), 123 fathers (38%) and 201 mothers (62%). 84.9% were married, 5.9% were cohabiting, 3.7% were divorced still single, 3.1% were divorced and remarried, 1.3% were divorced and cohabiting and 1.2% were single. , g g

Children’ age ranged from 1 to 40 (M = 8.5; SD = 4.5), 53.3% males, 46 7% females Number of children ranged from 1 to 4 21 5% of46.7% females. Number of children ranged from 1 to 4. 21.5% of parents had only 1 child, 60.3% had 2 children, 14.3 % had 3 children and only 3.8% had 4 children.

SAMPLEIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

Parents’ education ranged from primary school (0.3%) to graduate school (21 3%) with a 33 3% having an highgraduate school (21.3%), with a 33.3% having an high school diploma, 41.0% a vocational degree, 4.0% middle school.

A very low percentage of parents were unemployed (1.2%), 23.7% were housewife, 9.3% had a blue collar job, 4.6% was self employed 35 5% has a white collar and 25 3%was self-employed, 35.5% has a white collar and 25.3% were business owner or ceo.

MEASURESIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

1) Relational Answer Questionnaire (RAQ, Cusinato & Corsi, 2005) t R l ti l C t (72 it 7 f t )to assess Relational Competence (72 items, 7 factors)

2) Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS–20, Parker J, Taylor G, & Bagby R, 2003) to determine emotional competence (20 items,3 factors)

4) Gottman’s Parenting Styles Questionnaire (Cusinato et al., 2005) to measure parenting emotional styles (54 item, 4 factors).

5) Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RIS2, 2 items) to measure psychological resilience.

All scales were translated into Italian language

ERAAwC IAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

The INFORMATION PROCESSING (ERAAwC) model is an integrative model of relational competence based on individual resources available and exchangeable in relationships with others (Relational Competenceexchangeable in relationships with others (Relational Competence Theory, L’Abate L., 1993, 2000, 2009),

( ) d b l l l(E1) EMOTIONALITY triggered by a relational stimuli (E2) EMOTIONALITY expressed as an output(R) RATIONALITY the cognitive appraiser & adjuster (A) ACTIVITY the behavioral choice (Aw1) AWARENESS of own emotional response(Aw2 ) AWARENESS feedback from past relational experiences( 2 ) p p(C) CONTEXT’ context sensibility

EMOTIONAL COMPETENCEIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

Emotional functioning is based on Emotional Competence, which involves a wide range of skills including the ability to detect one’sinvolves a wide range of skills including the ability to detect one s own emotional state, an effective analysis of their causes, and consequences (Meerum et al., 1989; Saarni, 1999).

In social contexts , the use of adaptive emotion regulation t t i f ilit t i t l i t ti d i i t dstrategies facilitate interpersonal interactions and is associated

with healthier pattern of physical and psychologically functioning (John & Gross, 2004).

ALEXITHYMIAIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

Alexithymia describes problems in affect regulations, such as difficulties with recognizing, processing and regulating emotions.

Generally, health problems are more pronounced in alexithymic people h ti l ti t h b h ll d b t i lifwhose emotion regulation system have been challenged by strain life

events.

According to Lazarus (2006) emotions can impair or facilitateAccording to Lazarus (2006), emotions can impair or facilitate psychological adaptation, the accuracy of judgment and task performance. The adaptive function of emotions deals with attention to environmental stimuli internal clues about the interaction with theenvironmental stimuli, internal clues about the interaction with the environment, priming bodily responses and communication (Schultz et al., 2005).

EMOTION-CONTEXT IAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

The attenuated or inappropriately modulate expression of positive and negative emotions indicate a lack of behavioral responsiveness to change in the emotional environment, called emotion context-insensibility (R b & G lib 2004)(Rottember& Gotlib, 2004).

These theme could be used to understand the relationship between ti i d i l i i t I t t thiemotion expression and social impairment. In many contexts, this

emotional impoverishment, or lack of emotional competence, may violate other’s expectations about the interaction as a lack of emotional-expressive reciprocity and may frustrate disrupt and erode interpersonal coordinationreciprocity and may frustrate, disrupt and erode interpersonal coordination and relationship quality (Rottember & Vaughan, 2008).

Moreover rigid and unchanging emotional behavior in social interactionsMoreover, rigid and unchanging emotional behavior in social interactions could frustrate the other person desire for dynamic feedback on their own performance and the state of their relationship.

IAFP Conference 2010RESILIENCE

IAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010 IAFP Conference 2010

Resilience has been defined as the capacity to maintain relatively stable levels of healthy psychological and physical functioning in the face of

ti t (B 2004)negative events (Bonanno, 2004).

The benefits conferred by resilience have been proved to be direct and i di t (C i t l 2003 G b i t l 2005)indirect (Caspi et al., 2003; Gerbai et al., 2005).

S l l b l f t h b id tifi d ithi th i di id l th tSeveral global factors have been identified within the individual that seem to promote positive development generally and different ways in which individuals adapt to the challenges of their environment (Waaktaar T & Torgersen S 2010)(Waaktaar, T. & Torgersen S., 2010).

ECONOMIC HARDSHIP IAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

In our sample, direct questions pertaining family’s income and economic situation were not approved by the school principals and therefore had to be dischargedbe discharged.

We then used 3 indirect indicators to assess whether the parents could feel economic pressure on a general level: p g

1)family size and composition (number of adults and children) ,2)work situation,)3)income level,4)step-families

Of all factors only 2 (work situation and income level) correlated significantly (r = .20*) with the mediators and were coded as “Work Stability”.

PARENTING IAFP Conference 2010

The type of parenting children receive play an important role in their social

IAFP Conference 2010

The type of parenting children receive play an important role in their social development, health and problematic behavior (Lagacé-Sèguin & d’Entremont, 2006).

Gottman (1996) proposed that parents who internalize versus those who express the “emotional” knowledge of themselves and their children exhibitdistinct parenting characteristics: p g

EMOTION COACH

DISMISSING

DISAPPROVING

LAISSEZ FAIRE

ANALYSIS & RESULTSIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

- We first checked the internal consistency of all scales d th ll ti i th ifi d ithand the overall questionnaires, then verified with

factor analysis that the factor solution of the Italian version of each measure was in agreement with thatversion of each measure was in agreement with that of the original factor structure.

- Finally, we investigate the interaction effects and the i d d t t ib ti f ll i bl d d tindependent contribution of all variables dependent ones through path analysis (LISREL).

SCALES RELIABILITY CHECKIAFP Conference 2010

RAQ (Cusinato & Corsi, 2005; Cusinato & Colesso, 2008)( ) ( *)

IAFP Conference 2010

• E1 Emotionality (α = .80) (α = .72*)• E2 Emotionality (α = .78) (α = .76*)• R Rationality (α = .86) (α = .75*)

A A ti it ( 77) ( 73*)• A Activity (α = .77) (α = .73*)• Aw1 Awareness (α = .77) (α = .73*)• Aw2 Awareness (α = .77) (α = .70*)• C Context (α = 76) (α = 69*)• C Context (α = .76) (α = .69*)* similar study with clinical-sample (Cusinato & Colesso, 2009)

TAS-20 (Toronto Alexithymia Scale; Taylor, Bagby, & Parker; 1992) (α = .70)Subscales:

T1 Difficulties in identifying feelings (α = 78)T1 Difficulties in identifying feelings (α = .78) T2 Difficulties verbalizing feelings (α = .74) T3 Externally oriented style of thinking (α = .60)3 y y g ( )

SCALE RELIABILITY CHECKIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

PARENTING STYLES (Cusinato, 2005) Subscales:

PS1 DISAPPROVING (α = .75) ( )PS2 EMOTION COACH (α = .75) PS3 DISMISSING (α = .74)

Gottman J., Declaire J., Goleman D., (1997). The heart of parenting. Raising an emotionally intelligent child.

PS4 LAISSEZ-FAIRE (α = .62)

CD-RISC2: (α = .67) Vaishnavi, Connor and Davidson (2008) introduced a 2-item version of their CD-RISC scale namely item 1 and 8 selected by thescale, namely item 1 and 8, selected by the authors “as etymologically capturing the essence of resilience” (p.3 ). However, the authors’ items choice was arbitrary and not based on empiricalchoice was arbitrary and not based on empirical criteria, the sample was clinical.

PATH ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 1IAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

Information Processing Model (ERAAWC) Work Stability &Information Processing Model (ERAAWC), Work Stability & Resilience

RATIONALITY( R )

AWARENESS( AW1)

EMOTION COACH ( PS2 ).74

.55.50

WORK STABILITY

EMOTONALITY(E1)

( )

AWARENESS ( AW2 )

ACTION ( A )

DISAPPROVING( PS1 )

.28

-.13

.21

.65

-1.48

.06 .17

EMOTIONALITY(E2)

CONTEXT

DISMISSING( PS3 )

LAISSEZ-FAIRE

.28

-.22-.47

.28

CONTEXT ( C )

RESILIENCE ( CD-RISC )

LAISSEZ FAIRE( PS4 )

.03

.26 .10

PATH ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 2IAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

Information Processing Model (ERAaWC)Information Processing Model (ERAaWC)& Parenting Styles

RATIONALITY( R )

AWARENESS( AW1 )

ACTIION ( A )

EMOTION COACH( PS2 )

.19

.19-.15

.24

EMOTIONALITY( E1 )

EMOTIONALITY( EA )

AWARENESS ( AW2 )

( A )

DISMISSING ( PS3 )

DISAPPROVING( PS1 )

-.15-.35

-.32

( EA )

CONTEXT ( C )

LAISSEZ-FAIRE( PS4 )

-.62.09

.45

RESILIENCE ( CD-RISC )

χ 2 = 55.05; df = 50; (χ 2 /df) = 1.10; Pvalue = .38; RMSEA = .012; CFI = 1.00; GFI = .98

FINDINGSIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

Information Processing Model (ERAAWC),Work Stability & Resilience

1) Work stability enhances the use of Rationality ( R ) and emotion expression ( E2 ) while reducing Emotionality ( E1 ). p ( ) g y ( )

2) Emotion expression ( E2 ) is influenced by context sensitivity ( C ) and awareness ( both AW1 e AW2 ).and awareness ( both AW1 e AW2 ).

3) Emotion expression (E2) facilitate action ( A ) and strengthen Resilience (CD RISC) levelResilience (CD‐RISC) level.

Behavioral answers ( A ) are contemporary are a result of expressed emotionality ( E2 ) and Rationality ( R ) according to the formalemotionality ( E2 ) and Rationality ( R ) according to the formal theoretical model proposed by Relational Competence.

FINDINGSIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

Information Processing Model (ERAaWC) & Parenting Styles

1) The EMOTION COACH style ( PS2 ) is significantly influenced by awareness ( AW1 e AW2 ) and moderated by EMOTIONALITY (E1).

2) The DISAPPROVING style ( PS1 ) is positively influenced by awareness (AW1 e AW2) but negatively by ACTION ( A ) and EXPRESSED EMOTIONALITY ( E2 ).

3) The LAISSEZ FAIRE style ( PS3 ) is enhanced by EMOTIONALITY ( E1).

4) The EMOTION COACH style influences the DISAPPROVING STYLE and the DISMISSING while reducing the DISAPPROVING style The DISAPPROVING style moderates the LAISSEZwhile reducing the DISAPPROVING style. The DISAPPROVING style moderates the LAISSEZ FAIRE which reinforces the Dismissing style.

The findings are congruent with the formal theoretical model.

CONCLUSION & IMPLICATIONSIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

In summaryIn summary:

• Work (in)stability has no influence on Resilience• Parenting Styles are not mediated by Rationality ( R ) and Context sensibility• Parenting Styles are not mediated by Rationality ( R ) and Context sensibility

( C ). • General Awareness (AW 1 e AW2 ) and Emotion Expression ( E2) seem

fundamental elements for functional PARENTINGfundamental elements for functional PARENTING• Resilience has no direct influence on Parenting Styles but indirect trough

parents’ relational competence

In practice: Strengthening the emotional and relational competences that are characteristics of a functional parenting style (EMOTION COACH) seem a f f p g y ( )better preventive and intervention strategy than discouraging negative parenting styles.

In conclusion:Further research is needed to account for a combined resilience effect on co‐Parenting Styles

DISCUSSIONIAFP Conference 2010IAFP Conference 2010

1 ) Central to the Model is the dimension of EXPRESSED EMOTIONALITY ( E2 ).

2) WORK (in)STABILITY enhances the use of RATIONALITY( R ) , the EXPRESSION OF EMOTION ( E2 ) and moderate EMOTIONALITY ( E ) confirming the hypotheses of this study.

2) EXPRESSED EMOTIONALITY ( E2 ) and general ) ( ) gAWARENESS (AW1 e AW2) strengthen RESILIENCE in all models of the study.

Applied Psychology Departmentpp y gy p

Giovanna Gianesini , Ph.D [email protected]

Documents

RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS IN FAMILIES …cirf.psy.unipd.it/files/IAFP_Meeting_May_2010_CIRF.pdf · RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS IN FAMILIES CIRF – Università di Padova EXPERIENCES