Family Relation Resources measures - DPSS

dpss.psy.unipd.it

Family Relation Resources measures - DPSS

CIRF – Università di Padova

RISK & PROTECTIVE FACTORS IN FAMILIES

EXPERIENCES ECONOMIC HARDSHIP:

APPLIED RESEARCH

Mario Cusinato

Walter Colesso

Gi Giovanna Gi Gianesini i i

IAFP Conference

May 13 13-16, 16 2010

Calloway Gardens, Pine Mountain, Georgia USA

Famiglie 2000


IAFP Meeting Meeting, May 2010

STUDY 1: “Linking economic hardship to

partners’ time perspective”

STUDY 2:”Economic Hardship & Family

Relational Resources” .

STUDY 3: “Relational & Emotional

STUDY 3: Relational & Emotional

Competence as protective factors during

economic recession: A family resilience

approach”.


-2- 2

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

Thi This iis a project j iinitiated i i d two years ago bby

the Interdepartmental Research Center for

Family studies (CIRF) at University of

Padua. We were interested in investigating

the effects of economic pressure (as a

direct or indirect risk factor) on individual

(study 1), couple (study 3), and family

( (study t d 2) wellbeing, llb i satisfaction ti f ti and d

quality of relations.


-3- 3

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

WWe also l iinvestigated ti t d th the mediating di ti role l of f

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 p the effects of

the current economic situation on family

relations.


-3- 3

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

Among the variables utilized to evaluate

the economic situation we considered

family consumption in the nord-est of Italy.

However However, study 3 involved a sample of

Italian speaking swiss parents as we

assumed from official statistics that the

socio-demographic characteristics are

similar.


-5- 5

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

Italian Consumption (source Regione Veneto - Regional Statistics

System Management)Data

National private consumption in 2008 declined by 00.9% 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 p g can be explained p in ppart by y the difficulty y in

funding 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 was

recorded in the summer 2008. Consumption of non-durable goods

stagnated, after the declines recorded in the preceding four

quarters, q , while expenditure p on services experienced p a modest

recovery in the last quarter. (Figure 16), (Figure 17) and (Figure 18)


VENETO DATA

-6- 6

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

In Veneto in 2007 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.

CCompared d tto th the other th regions i VVeneto t iis a ddriving i i fforce

in Italian domestic demand.: Final domestic consumption

per pe pe person so ranked a ed higher g e than a the e national a o a figure gu e aand d the e

rate of aggregate growth was higher than the Italian

figure. (Figure 19)


-8- 8

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

Si Since 2000, 2000 ffamily il expenditure dit hhas shifted hift d ffrom

transport, clothes and footwear, furniture and

electrical appliances appliances, recreation recreation, culture and

alcohol towards housing and communication.

For 2008 stagnation had been estimated in

household spending on consumption for Veneto

due to the difficulty y in accessing g credit and the

significant 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)


-9- 9

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

PPartecipants t i t

• In study 1 and 2 we investigated the financial,

economic, i and d work k iinstability t bilit ddue tto th the

worldwide current economic turmoil. The

samples were collected in the North North-East East region

of Italy, named Veneto, with the support and

sponsorship of local associations of volunteers

(CSV).

• The sample for the third study was collected in

Switzerland, in primary schools.


-10- 10

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

Measures

• Th The di dimensions i considered id d and d assessed d were th the

following:

• – economic hardship

• – economic pressures

• – family relational resources

• – social relational resources

• – time perspectives

p p

• - quality of parenting

• – adversity management

• – “decrescita felice”, i.e. a positive attitude toward

financial restrains

• – ffamily il and d iindividual di id l satisfaction

ti f ti


Instruments.

-11- 11

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

• 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 subscales subscales.

Family relational resources ad adversity management are defined according

to the three Relational Styles within Relational Competence Theory

(L’Abate et al., 2010) namely AA (abusive-apathetic), RR (reactiverepetitive),

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.

.


Instruments.

-12- 12

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

• A positive view of family difficulties was operationalized

in four items concerning concerning” decrescita felice” felice as people

can rise above difficulties adopting a more ethical and

spiritual life vision that facilitate social interaction and

solidarity. lid it

• Parenting styles were defined according to Gottman’s

(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

-13- 13

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

Linking Economic Hardship to Couples

Ti Time Perspectives

P ti

Mario Cusinato

University of Padua

Sponsored by CSV


AIM

-14- 14

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

How economic hardships structure couples’ 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?


-15- 15

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

MMeasures

• − Economic hardships items: Income Level, Recent

Reduction Income Income, Work Instability

• − Income Pressures scale (5 items)

• − Stanford Time Perspective Inventory: Present

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

items), Future scale (5 items)

• − Ad Adversity i MManagement: AA scale l (6 i items), ) RR scale l

(3 items), CC scale (7 items)

• − Individual Life Satisfaction Scale (5 items)

• − “Felice Decrescita” scale (4 items): that is a positive

outlook of financial restraints


Results

These are some of the results:

-16- 16

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

(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: p Hedonistic Present 1.61 High g score

Time Perspective: Fatalistic Present 1.16 High score

Time Perspective: Future View -.59 Central score

CC-Difficolties: Resource Change 1.08 High score

RR-Difficulties: To Be Escape .79 Central score

AA-Difficulties: Overwhelming .59 Central score

Life Satisfaction -.99 Central score

“Happy Decrease” -.31 Central score

In particular, economic

hardship ad economic

pressure variables i bl show h a

distribution oriented to low

scores .It It shows a

moderate level of

financial stress.


• (b) Correlations

• Are presented in Table 2

Correlations (** = p > .01)

Monitored Dimensions Economic Preassure Economic Hardships

Time Perspective: Hedonistic Present -.01 -.01

Time Perspective: Fatalistic Present .11 -.02

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

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

RR-Difficulties: To Be Escape .07 .10

AA-Difficulties: Overwhelming .05 .06

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

“Happy Decrease” -.36** -.42**

-17- 17

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

1. Positive statistical significance

for the correlation between fatalistic

present & pressure management

suggests that a large part of the

participants ti i t are oriented i t d ttoward d

living everyday life events with

positive attitudes

2. No direct link between the three

types of adversity management and

economic pressures may y indicate

that they probably are like

personality traits.

3. Economic pressure seems to

diminish individual’s life satisfaction

and to annul the positive

contribution of ethics and

spirituality while considering

possible economic difficulties.


(c) SEM analyses

A summary of the path

analyses is presented

in Figure 1.

Recent reduction

income

Work situation

instability

Income level

.55

.82

-2.06

-18- 18

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

Economic

Pressure

-.15

Time Perspective:

Future View

Time Perspective:

Hedonistic Present

Time Perspective:

Fatalistic Present

CC - Difficulties:

Resource change

-.34

RR - Difficulties:

To be escaped

108 1.08

AA - Difficulties:

Overwhelming

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

1.00

.46

.001

.29

.17

Life Satisfaction

“Decrescita Felice”


-19- 19

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

• HHere are some considerations: id ti

• 1. Economic pressure variables show congruent

parameters t bboth th ffor sign i and d di directions. ti

• 2. Time orientation attitudes and personality

ttraits it (Adversity (Ad it MManagement, t types t AA, AA RR, RR

CC) appear meaningful mediators between

indexes of economic pressure and income levels

& positive outcomes, i.e., individual life

satisfaction and/or ethical evaluation of the

current sometimes difficult situation.


-20- 20

IAFP Meeting, May 2010

• 33. Moreover 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 y management g CC strengthens g

both 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

iincome variable i bl influences i fl both b th di directly tl and d iindirectly di tl th the ethical thi l

reconsideration of possible difficulties and other monitored forms of

economic pressure.

• In conclusion conclusion, participants'’ 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 economic

pressure.

Thank for your attention!


STUDY 2

ECONOMIC CO O C HARDSHIP S

&

FAMILY RELATIONAL RESOURCES

WALTER COLESSO

IAFP Conference

May 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:

- negative impact on spouse’s marital quality (happiness/satisfaction) and

marital instability (thoughts or action related to divorce) divorce), (Conger (Conger, Elder Elder,

Lorenz et al, 1990) in US Midwest counties;

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

Finland;

- marital conflict and disruption in skillful parenting (Conger (Conger, Elder Elder, Lorenz

et al, 1992) in US Midwest counties;

- less parenting efficacy (Scaramella (Scaramella, Preston Preston, Callahan, Callahan & Mirabile Mirabile, 2008)

in New Orleans area;

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

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

Finland.


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

Aim

1. 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.


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

Sex: 50% males, 50% females

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

Participants

Age: M = 40.02; SD = 7.24; range = 23 ÷ 65

Male (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 children

Profession: 16.90% CEO; 38.62% white collar; 6.90% self-employed; 26.55% blu

collar; 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%.


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

Measures

Economic Indexes

EEconomic i Hardship H d hi Scale S l (L (Leinonen, i SSolantaus, l t & PPunamäki, äki 2002) (3 items) it )

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 payments, mortgage and debts debts, savings savings, alternative

sources of income, and consumption reductions.

Family Relational Resources measures

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

Abusive-Apathetic (AA) Subscale (8 items) – dysfunctional relational style

Reactive-Repetititve (RR) Subscale (8 items) – semi functional relational style

Conductive-Creative (CC) Subscale (8 items) – functional relational style

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

External Family y Relational Resources measures

UCLA Loneliness Scale (Russel, Peplau, & Cutrona, 1980) revised:

Social Relations Subscale (9 items) – quantitative relational measure

Network Intimacy Subscale (4 items) – qualitative relational measure

SSocial i l SSeclusion l i SSubscale b l (7 it items)

)


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

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


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

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) 70)

Family Relation Resources measures

Relational Closeness Style y Scales ( (Cusinato & Colesso, , 2010) )

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 measures

External Family Relational Resources measures

UCLA 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)


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

2) Pearson Correlations

Table 1. Person correlations among economic indexes and relational resources (N = 290)

Economic Hardship Economic Pressure

Family Relational style***AA .12* .11

Family Relational style RR .20** 20** .11 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, p , & Cutrona (1980) ( )

Economic Hardship and Economic Pressure have a negative impact on relational

resources, inside and outside the family.


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

3) ANOVA analysis

Table 1 1. Significative compared means between Economic Pressure and Relational resources

Economic pressure* ANOVA

M Low M Medium M High F p ηpartial Family Relational AA Style 15 15.55 55 16 16.07 07 18 18.22 22 345 3.45 .033 033 .09 09

Family 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 22.80 80 22 22.63 63 21 21.46 46 141 1.41 .161 161

UCLA Social Relations 5.15 5.97 6.03 2.30 .102

UCLA Network Intimacy 16.62 15.75 15.46 2.05 .130

UCLA - Social Seclusion 12 12.20 20 13 13.64 64 15 15.14 14 135 1.35 .001 001 .09 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

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

UCLA Social Seclusion Scale Scale.

4) Linear Regression

No significative effects and interactions between gender, Volunteering, levels of

EEconomic i PPressure and d RRelational l ti l MMeasures observed.

b d


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

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

Recent reduction

income

Work situation

instability

.51

.83 83

Economic

Pressure

-.27

.16

Family Relational

AA Style

.45

FFamily il RRelational l ti l -.24 2

RR Style

Family Relational

CC Style

-2.07

Social

Rlti Relations

Income level

.16

.17

1.00

Network

Intimacy

The diagram paths are congruent with

the theoretical constructs. Economic

Hardship and Pressure have a direct

and positive effect on social seclusion

Social

Seclusion

and consequently they act both directly + Seclusion

and consequently they act both directly

and indirectly on family relationships a

negative effect.

-.79

-.44

.73

-.20

_

-.10

Family

Satisfaction

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


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

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.


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

Suggestions for practical implications

Relational 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.

Limits

The participants hasn’t be ppurposly rposl selected as a representati representative e sample of North 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

walter.colesso@unipd.it


IAFP CONFERENCE

“Families in a Changing World: Risks, Challenges and

Resiliencies”

May 13 – 16, 2010

Giovanna Gianesini


STUDY 3

RELATIONAL AND EMOTIONAL

COMPETENCE AS PROTECTIVE FACTORS

ON PARENTING DURING ECONOMIC

RECESSION RECESSION: A FAMILY RESILIENCE

APPROACH


AIM

AIM

IAFP Conference 2010

There is little research on whether emotional and relational competence p have a

moderating 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.


AIM

IAFP Conference 2010

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 quality, singling out three nodal points: emotional

competence, relational competence and resilience.


AIM

IAFP Conference 2010

We were interested in seeing whether relational competence, which is negatively

correlated to affect dysfunction (alexithymia) and implies emotional competence competence, is

powerful enough to moderate the effect of economic hardship on parenting.

Subsequently q y we have explored p how and whether the three dimensions of

Alexithymia (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 p g styles. y

Finally, we have analyzed the mediating and moderating effects of psychological

resilience on parenting styles and its relation with emotional and relational

competences.


SAMPLE

IAFP 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),

with ith a participation ti i ti rate t of f 40 40.5% 5% (N = 324) 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 g and 1.2% were single. g

Children’ age ranged from 1 to 40 (M = 8.5; SD = 4.5), 53.3% males,

46 46.7% 7% females. females Number of children ranged from 1 to 44. 21 21.5% 5% of

parents had only 1 child, 60.3% had 2 children, 14.3 % had 3 children

and only 3.8% had 4 children.


SAMPLE

IAFP Conference 2010

Parents’ education ranged from primary school (0.3%) to

graduate school (21.3%), (21 3%) with a 33 33.3% 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 self-employed, employed 35 35.5% 5% has a white collar and 25 25.3% 3%

were business owner or ceo.


MEASURES

IAFP Conference 2010

1) Relational Answer Questionnaire (RAQ, Cusinato & Corsi, 2005)

tto assess Relational R l ti l CCompetence t (72 it items, 7 ffactors) t )

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 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 Competence

Theory, L’Abate L., 1993, 2000, 2009),

( (E1) ) EMOTIONALITY triggered d by b a relational l lstimuli l

(E2) EMOTIONALITY expressed as an output

(R) RATIONALITY the cognitive appraiser & adjuster

(A) ACTIVITY the behavioral choice

(Aw1) AWARENESS of own emotional response

(Aw ( 2 ) AWARENESS feedback from past p relational experiences p

(C) CONTEXT’ context sensibility


EMOTIONAL COMPETENCE

IAFP Conference 2010

Emotional functioning is based on Emotional Competence, which

involves a wide range of skills including the ability to detect one’s 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

strategies t t i facilitate f ilit t interpersonal i t l interactions i t ti and d is i associated i t d

with healthier pattern of physical and psychologically

functioning (John & Gross, 2004).


ALEXITHYMIA

IAFP 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

whose h emotion ti regulation l ti system t have h been b challenged h ll d bby strain t i lif life

events.

According to Lazarus (2006) (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 stimuli, internal clues about the interaction with the

environment, priming bodily responses and communication (Schultz et

al., 2005).


EMOTION-CONTEXT

IAFP 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 (Rottember& b & Gotlib, G lib 2004) 2004).

These theme could be used to understand the relationship between

emotion ti expression i and d social i l iimpairment. i t IIn many contexts, t t thi 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 frustrate, disrupt and erode interpersonal coordination

and relationship quality (Rottember & Vaughan, 2008).

Moreover rigid and unchanging emotional behavior in social interactions

Moreover, 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.


RESILIENCE

Resilience has been defined as the capacity to maintain relatively stable

levels of healthy psychological and physical functioning in the face of

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

The benefits conferred by resilience have been proved to be direct and

iindirect di t (C (Caspi i et t al., l 2003 2003; GGerbai b i et t al., l 2005) 2005).

SSeveral l global l b l ffactors t have h bbeen id identified tifi d within ithi th the iindividual di id l th that t

seem to promote positive development generally and different ways in

which individuals adapt to the challenges of their environment

(Waaktaar (Waaktaar, T. T & Torgersen SS., 2010) 2010).

IAFP Conference Conference 2010

2010


ECONOMIC HARDSHIP

IAFP 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 discharged discharged.

We then used 3 indirect indicators to assess whether the parents could

feel economic pressure p on a ggeneral

level:

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

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 p g characteristics:

EMOTION COACH

DISMISSING

DISAPPROVING

LAISSEZ FAIRE


ANALYSIS & RESULTS

IAFP Conference 2010

- We first checked the internal consistency of all scales

and d th the overall ll questionnaires, ti i th then verified ifi d with ith

factor analysis that the factor solution of the Italian

version of each measure was in agreement with that

of the original factor structure.

- Finally, we investigate the interaction effects and the

iindependent d d t contribution t ib ti of f all ll variables i bl ddependent d t

ones through path analysis (LISREL).


SCALES RELIABILITY CHECK

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




E1 E2 R

Emotionality

Emotionality

Rationality

( (α = .80) ) ( (α = .72*) *)

(α = .78) (α = .76*)

(α = .86) (α = .75*)

• A AActivity ti it ( (α = .77) 77) ( (α = .73*) 73*)




Aw1 Aw2 C

Awareness (α = .77) (α = .73*)

Awareness (α = .77) (α = .70*)

Context (α = .76) 76) (α = .69*) 69*)

* similar study with clinical-sample (Cusinato & Colesso, 2009)

IAFP Conference 2010

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

Subscales:

T 1 Difficulties in identifying feelings (α = .78) 78)

T2 Difficulties verbalizing feelings (α = .74)

T 3 Externally y oriented style y of thinking g ( (α = .60) )


PARENTING STYLES (Cusinato, 2005)

Subscales:

PS1 DISAPPROVING (α ( = .75) )

PS2 EMOTION COACH (α = .75)

PS3 DISMISSING (α = .74)

PS4 LAISSEZ-FAIRE (α = .62)

SCALE RELIABILITY CHECK

IAFP Conference 2010

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

CD-RISC2: (α = .67)

Vaishnavi, Connor and Davidson (2008)

introduced a 2-item version of their CD-RISC

scale scale, namely item 1 and 88, selected by the

authors “as etymologically capturing the essence

of resilience” (p.3 ). However, the authors’ items

choice was arbitrary and not based on empirical

criteria, the sample was clinical.


PATH ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 1

IAFP Conference 2010

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

Resilience

WORK

STABILITY

.74

-1.48

RATIONALITY

( R )

EMOTONALITY

(E1)

.28

.65

EMOTIONALITY

(E2)

-.22

.21

.50

.28

AWARENESS

( AW1)

.06 .17

AWARENESS

( AW2 )

CONTEXT

( C )

-.47

.26 .10

.03

RESILIENCE

( CD-RISC )

.55

-.13

ACTION

( A )

EMOTION COACH

( PS2 )

DISAPPROVING

( PS1 )

DISMISSING

( PS3 )

LAISSEZ-FAIRE

LAISSEZ FAIRE

( PS4 )


RATIONALITY

( R )

EMOTIONALITY

( E1 )

PATH ANALYSIS DIAGRAM 2

IAFP Conference 2010

Information Processing Model (ERAaWC)

& Parenting Styles

EMOTIONALITY

( EA )

AWARENESS

( AW1 )

AWARENESS

( AW2 )

CONTEXT

( C )

RESILIENCE

( CD-RISC )

ACTIION

( A )

-.15

.19

.24

.19

-.32

EMOTION COACH

( PS2 )

-.15

DISAPPROVING

( PS1 )

DISMISSING

( PS3 )

LAISSEZ-FAIRE

( PS4 )

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

.09

.45

-.35

-.62


Information Processing Model (ERAAWC),

Work Stability & Resilience

1) Work stability enhances the use of Rationality ( R ) and emotion

expression p ( E2 ) while reducing g Emotionality y ( E1 ) ).

2) Emotion expression ( E2 ) is influenced by context sensitivity ( C )

and awareness ( both AW1 e AW2 ).

3) Emotion expression (E2) facilitate action ( A ) and strengthen

Resilience (CD‐RISC) (CD RISC) level level.

FINDINGS

IAFP Conference 2010

Behavioral answers ( A ) are contemporary are a result of expressed

emotionality ( E2 ) and Rationality ( R ) according to the formal

theoretical model proposed by Relational Competence.


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).

FINDINGS

IAFP Conference 2010

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 style. The DISAPPROVING style moderates the LAISSEZ

FAIRE which reinforces the Dismissing style.

The findings are congruent with the formal theoretical model.


In summary summary:

CONCLUSION & IMPLICATIONS

IAFP Conference 2010

• Work (in)stability has no influence on Resilience

• 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 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 f a functional f pparenting gstyle y ( (EMOTION COACH) ) seem a

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


1 ) Central to the Model is the dimension of EXPRESSED

EMOTIONALITY ( E2 ).

DISCUSSION

IAFP Conference 2010

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

) ( ) g

AWARENESS (AW1 e AW2) strengthen RESILIENCE in all

models of the study.


Applied pp Psychology y gy Department p

Giovanna Gianesini , Ph.D Candidate

giovanna.gianesini@unipd.it

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines