economic hardship family relational...

CIRF – Università di Padova

ECONOMIC HARDSHIP& &

FAMILY RELATIONAL RESOURCESMARIO CUSINATO

& WALTER COLESSOWALTER COLESSO

5th Congress of the ESFR 29 September-2 October 2010 p

Milano - ItalyFamiglie 2000

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 countries;

- 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.


A preliminary study (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010) with North-East Italian couples, presented at the

20th Anniversary Conference IAFP - International Academy of Family Psychology

“Families in changing world: Challenges, risks, and resilience” Callaways Gardens. Pine Mountain, Georgia USACallaways Gardens. Pine Mountain, Georgia USA

13 -16 May 2010

... showed: 1 The results for the Italian sample are congruent with Conger & Elder (1994) and1. The results for the Italian sample are congruent with Conger & Elder (1994) and

Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki (2002) research findings on American and Finnish people.

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

3 R lt t th t E i P t di tl i l t k d3. Results suggest that Economic Pressure acts directly on social networks and consequently on family relations.

4 Preliminary study can’t explain the effects on relational resources of families4. Preliminary study can t explain the effects on relational resources of families included in social network.


Aim

A further collection of data has been run in order to:1 Verify preliminary findings (Cusinato & Colesso 2010) on relations1. Verify preliminary findings (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010) on relations

between economic hardships and family internal and external relational resources in the North-East of Italy.

2. Evaluate the impact of social volunteering on families relational resources.


Participants

N = 356 participants = 178 couplesN 356 pa c pa s 8 coup es

Origin: North-East of Italy: Veneto region

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

n1 = 250 ( =125 couples) with no social network.

A M 40 5 SD 8 0 20 60Age1: M = 40.5; SD = 8.0; range = 20 ÷ 60

Sex1: 50% males, 50% females.

n2 = 106 ( = 53 couples) with a social network*.

Age2: M = 39.8; SD = 5.3; range = 28 ÷ 53ge2 39 8; S 5 3; a ge 8 53

Sex2 : 50% males, 50% females.

*Volunteers attending social skills enhancement trainingVolunteers attending social skills enhancement training.


Measures and their reliabilityEconomic Indexes (Leinonen, Solantaus, & Punamäki, 2002)

Economic Hardship Scale in this study α = 63Economic Hardship Scale in this study α = .63Economic Pressures scale in this study α = .71

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

Abusive-Apatethic AA in this study α = .72Reactive-Repetitive, RR in this study α = .67Conductive-Creative, CC in this study α = .78y

Family Satisfaction Scale (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010) in this study α = .83

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

Social Relations scale in this study α = .82Network Intimacy scale in this study α = 87Network Intimacy scale in this study α .87Social Seclusion scale in this study α = .67

“decrescita felice” – “happy decrease” Scale in this study α = .70(positive and ethical attitude toward adversities)(positive and ethical attitude toward adversities)


Analyses

1) T – Test Analysis was performed to evaluate differences between non volunteers and volunteers families.

1) Pearson Correlations to assess relations among Economic Indexes and Relational Resources for the two groups.

3) Structural Equation Modeling (Causal Model for Observed Variables) were used to select the best confirmative fit for the two groups.


1) T-Test Between non volunteers (Group 1) and volunteers (Group 2)Table 1. Ordinary and volunteering families comparison (T-Test ) on relational resources (N = 356)

Group1M1

Group 2M2

t (355) p - value Choen's D

Family Relational style***AA 9.30 8.71 3.58 .001 .41Family Relational style RR 20.49 19.21 3.06 .002 .36Family Relational Style CC 17.37 15.67 2.77 .006 .32Family Satisfaction**** 13 27 12 20 2 28 023 26Family Satisfaction**** 13.27 12.20 2.28 .023 .26UCLA**** - Social relations 34.91 36.01 -2.12 .035 -.25UCLA - Network intimacy 22.48 22.44 0.13 .899 .01

UCLA - Social seclusion 33.38 33.55 -0.25 .806 -.03

“Happy Decrease” 15.48 15.98 -1.35 .178 -.16

***Family Closeness Styles Scales (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010)****F il S ti f ti S l (C i t & C l 2010)

Volunteer families show higher levels of relational features, according to their training to improve social skills Size dimensions of significative differences are small

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

improve social skills. Size dimensions of significative differences are small.


2) Pearson Correlations within the two groups Table 2.Economic indexes and relational resources (n = 250) Table 3. Eeconomic indexes and relational resources (n = 106)

Non volunteers Economic Hardship

Economic Pressure

Family Relational style***AA .06 .06

Volunteers Economic Hardship

Economic Pressure

Family Relational style***AA .21* .18

Family Relational style RR .18* .12

Family Relational Style CC -.16* -.10

Family Satisfaction**** 19** 19*

Family Relational style RR .19* .10

Family Relational Style CC -.04 .02

Family Satisfaction**** 13 08Family Satisfaction**** -.19** -.19*UCLA**** - Social relations -.15* -.16*UCLA - Network intimacy -.09 -.13

Family Satisfaction**** -.13 .08

UCLA**** - Social relations -.16 .01

UCLA - Network intimacy -.12 .06

UCLA - Social seclusion .12 .10

“Happy Decrease” -.42** -.36*** p < .05; ** p < .01;

UCLA - Social seclusion .27** .14

“Happy Decrease” .21** .18*** p < .05; ** p < .01;

E i H d hi d E i P h i i l i l i id d

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

***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 resources, inside and outside the family, in both groups.

Volunteers how higher levels of resilience (they experience less pressure).


3.1) SEM (Causal Model for Observed Variables): Path Diagram of NON volunteers

Family Relational AA Style

F il R l ti l

.41

Family Satisfaction

Family Relational RR Style

Family Relational

Recent reduction income

.2290

-.12

-.14 -.36

-.49

Satisfaction

Social R l ti

Family Relational CC Style

Work situationinstability

Economic Pressure

-2.19

1.22

.90

“Happy Decrease”-.35

.39

Relations

NetworkIntimacy

Income level .98

-.66

.23

-The diagram paths are congruent with the

.18

Intimacy

Social Seclusion

-.70

-The diagram paths are congruent with the theoretical constructs.

- Economic Hardship and Pressure have a negative effect on social network (by “Happy Seclusion

χ 2 = 43.82; df = 52; Pvalue = .81; RMSEA = .001; CFI = 1.00; GFI = .96

g ( y ppyDecrease”). Consequently they have a negative effect on family relationships.


3.2) SEM (Causal Model for Observed Variables): Path Diagram of Volunteers

Family Relational AA Style

- 20.22

Family Satisfaction

Family Relational RR Style

Recent reduction income

.24.22

-1.66-.26

.20

1.10 -.44

-.14

Social

Family Relational CC Style

Work situationinstability

Economic Pressure

.15

- 8618“Happy Decrease”

-.25

.27

Social Relations

Network

Income level

-2.42 .86

1.36

.18

44-The diagram paths are congruent with the theoretical

ppy

-.40

.41

Intimacy

Social

-.25

18

-.44The diagram paths are congruent with the theoretical constructs.

- Economic Hardship and Pressure are not related as expected.

- Economic Hardship and Pressure have a direct and Seclusion.18

χ 2 = 41.85; df = 50; Pvalue = .787; RMSEA = .001; CFI = 1.00; GFI = .94

- Economic Hardship and Pressure have a direct and negative effect on family relationships and Social Network.

-”Happy decrease” is the final output of the process.


Findings

1. The preliminary study research’s results (Cusinato & Colesso, 2010) are confirmed.

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

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

4 Volunteering families show higher levels of relational features as result of4. Volunteering families show higher levels of relational features, as result of their training. However they show also negative effects of the current economic crisis on family relationships and social network.


Suggestions for practical implicationsRelational competence in social network relationships can

reduce the negative effects of economic hardship on family relationsrelations.

LimitsThe participants were not purposely selected as a p p p p y

representative sample of North-East Italian families.

Future Investigations- Economic hardship and gender roles (in progress)

Th ff t f b f hild th id d- The effect of number of children on the processes considered.

CIRF – Università di Padova

Thank you for your attention

[email protected]

[email protected]

economic hardship family relational...

Documents