Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
The immediate and long term legacy of relationships with grandparents for the well-being of grandchildren
(USC Thesis Other)
The immediate and long term legacy of relationships with grandparents for the well-being of grandchildren
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
THE IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM LEGACY OF RELATIONSHIPS WITH
GRANDPARENTS FOR THE WELL-BEING OF GRANDCHILDREN
by
Sarah Ruiz
_____________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(GERONTOLOGY)
May 2008
Copyright 2008 Sarah Ruiz
ii
Dedication
To my wonderful parents, Karen & Luis Ruiz and my siblings, Jonathan and
Amanda Ruiz, who have been graciously patient with me through completion of my
degree. I am especially grateful to the sacrifices my parents made so that I could
receive my Ph.D. Both my parents have been amazing role models to me and I am
thankful for their unwavering support.
To Kevin, my favorite supporter, who became my husband on January 19,
2008, and has been a living example of 1 Corinthians 13 love. I hope we can be
amazing grandparents some day.
In loving memory of my three grandparents who are in heaven. To my
maternal grandfather, Park Heller, who passed away this fall, and represented to me
what an extraordinary human being looks like. To my maternal grandmother, Charity
Heller, who is a strong and vibrant example to me. And to my paternal
grandparents Alfonso and Cecilia Ruiz, te amo. My siblings and I grew up next to
my maternal grandparents, and we are the perfect case example of three individuals
who have benefited tremendously from the wisdom and social support that
grandparents can offer.
And to that one person that makes all things possible, thank you. Whatever I
can do in life is because of your love. Thank you for my raw materials. I hope I can
use my degree in a way that honors you.
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee for their kind,
valuable guidance and continuous support: Dr. Lynne Casper, Dr. Eileen Crimmins,
and Dr. Merril Silverstein. I am grateful to every one of my committee members for
encouraging me and for their mentorship. I am honored to have had the opportunity
to learn from such extraordinary scholars in my field. Special thanks to Dr. Merril
Silverstein, my advisor, for his mentorship and for allowing me to observe,
participate, and learn from his esteemed research and writing abilities. There are
several colleagues who have been invaluable during my time at USC: Zhen Cong,
In Hee Choi, Amber Watts Hall, Aaron Hagedorn, and Daphna Gans.
I would also like to extend special thanks to my previous mentors from
University of Delaware, Dr. Donald Peters for his interest in my professional
development; Dr. Bahira Sherif-Trask for her mentorship and inspirational attitude;
and Dr. Sally Bould for exposing me to gerontology. I want to acknowledge the
Davis School of Gerontology for providing me world-class training in gerontology.
Finally, I acknowledge support of the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development for this research from grant #R01 HD042696-01 and the minority
supplement awarded to me for completion of this research.
iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables v
List of Figures vi
Abstract vii
Preface viii
Chapter One: Introduction, Background, and Conceptual Framework 1
Chapter Two: Data Description: National Survey of Families and
Households (NSFH) 21
Chapter Three: Grandparent relations and emotional well-being of
adolescent and young adult grandchildren 28
Chapter Four: Cohesion with Grandparents and Behavioral Adjustment of
Grandchildren in Turbulent Home Environments 48
Chapter Five: Grandparents and educational aspirations of their
Grandchildren 71
Chapter Six: Discussion and Conclusions 85
References 94
v
List of Tables
Table 2.1: Ages of NSFH Focal Children by Waves 21
Table 2.2: Factor Loadings for Grandparent Cohesion Score 22
Table 2.3: Items and Subscales from the Behavioral Problem Index 23
Table 2.4: Factor Loadings for Dependent Variables 24
Table 3.1: Characteristics of sample (N=925) 33
Table 3.2: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting
Depressive Symptoms (N=932) 38
Table 3.3: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting
Self-Esteem (N=932) 40
Table 4.1: Characteristics of sample (N=1326) 61
Table 4.2: Bivariate Correlations Predicting Behavioral Problems 62
Table 4.3: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting
Behavioral Problem Index 64
Table 4.4: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting
Behavioral Problem Index Subscales 65
Table 4.5: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting
Externalizing and Internalizing Behaviors 67
Table 5.1: Characteristics of sample (N=1,215) 77
Table 5.2: Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting
Grandchild Educational Aspirations 82
vi
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: Cohesion with Grandparents and Depressive Symptoms by
Early Family Structure 42
Figure 3.2: Cohesion with Grandparents and Depressive Symptoms by
Quality of Parent-Child Relationship 43
vii
Abstract
This dissertation aimed to explain how involvement with grandparents
influences psychosocial outcomes of grandchildren. More specifically, the
objectives were to: (1) identify whether close and supportive relationships with
grandparents reduce depressive symptoms and improve self-esteem of their late
adolescent and young adult grandchildren, including whether grandchild-
grandparent relationships moderate the negative effects of having been raised in
alternative family structures or of having emotionally distant relationships with
parents; (2) Describe the role of family functioning (turbulent home life, parental
involvement) and explain under what conditions relationships with grandparents
improve behavioral outcomes for grandchildren; and (3) Evaluate the role of
grandparents in improving the educational aspirations of adult grandchildren.
Analyses were performed using data from the National Survey of Families and
Households (NSFH)—a three wave multigenerational study. Multiple regression
results from the first study (N=932) showed that relationships with parents and
cohesion with grandparents work together to improve psychological outcomes of
grandchildren in single-parent homes. The second study (N=1326) demonstrated
that grandparents reduce behavioral problems for grandchildren growing up in
turbulent home environments. Finally, the third study (N=1215) demonstrated that
greater cohesion with grandparents could increase the education aspirations of
granddaughters but not grandsons. Taken together, this dissertation demonstrated
that grandparents represent an adaptive resource in the family life of grandchildren
from childhood through adulthood.
viii
Preface
The role of grandparents in providing short and long-term emotional,
financial, and instrumental support to their grandchild has aroused much interest in
social gerontology and family studies. However, the effects of their psychological,
social, and material support on grandchild well-being are not well understood.
Current demographic trends imply that is an increase in years of shared life between
grandparents and grandchildren (Uhlenberg, 1996). At the same time, changes in
family have resulted in serious disruption for most children. Recent estimates
indicate that over 54% of children will spend some part of their life in a single-parent
home (Casper & Bianchi, 2002).
It is necessary that we understand how involvement with grandparents
influences grandchild success and well-being. This dissertation contributes to a
better understanding of the complex relationship between grandparent support and
grandchild well-being, and the degree to which a benefit persists over time. The
specific aims of this dissertation are to: (1) identify whether close and supportive
relationships with grandparents reduce depressive symptoms and improve self-
esteem of their late adolescent and young adult grandchildren, including whether
grandchild-grandparent relationships moderate the negative effects of having been
raised in alternative family structures or of having emotionally distant relationships
with parents; (2) describe the role of family functioning (turbulent home life, parental
involvement) and explain under what conditions relationships with grandparents
improve behavioral outcomes for young grandchildren; and (3) evaluate the role of
grandparents in improving the educational aspirations of adult grandchildren.
ix
Family systems, resiliency, and bioevolutionary theories present a valuable
conceptual framework to examine and understand grandparent influences on their
grandchildren. Evolutionary biologists assert that grandmothers have a genetic
incentive to insure the quality and success of their grandchildren (Hawkes, 2003).
The empirical evidence for grandmotherhood as an evolutionary mechanism to
support the family is mounting and vast in scope (see Voland, Chasistis, &
Schiefenhovel, 2005). Family systems theory provides an overarching framework
that stresses the importance of looking beyond the mother-child relationship to
better understand child development and the capacity of the family to adapt to
change and handle challenges to its integrity (Cox & Paley, 2003). The wider family
network can serve as an invaluable resource for individuals and families to cope
successfully with the stresses of contemporary life by providing a cushion of support
which helps adsorb family pressures, diffuse social stresses, and provide needed
aid and assistance (Kahn & Antonucci, 1980). Finally, resiliency theories allow us to
understand the adaptive processes of children during family stress when
grandparents may be an instrumental “resiliency tool” against poor outcomes
(Margolin, Oliver, & Medina, 2001)
The dissertation address these topics using the National Survey of Families
and Households (NSFH), a nationally representative sample consisting of 13,007
adults 18 years and older first surveyed in 1987-88 (over-samples were drawn of
Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans, single-parent families, families with
stepchildren, cohabiting couples, and recently married persons). One adult per
household was randomly chosen as a “primary” respondent for an in-person
interview. At this time, a child was randomly identified from the families of primary
x
respondents with offspring between the ages of 5-18 for more focused questions.
These children, known as “focal children” (FC), were themselves interviewed by
telephone at W-2 of the NSFH conducted in 1992-1994 when they were 10-23 years
old (N=2,505), as were the original W-1 respondents. At the W-3 follow-up, focal
children were interviewed again in 2000-2003 when they were aged 18-34
(N=2280). While this dissertation cannot address all the possible determinants
associated with the family system, it addresses several of the factors and aims to
contribute to a better of understanding of this long hypothesized relationship
between grandparents and grandchild well-being.
The Format of this Dissertation
This dissertation includes six chapters. The first chapter has an introduction,
a discussion of the relevance of the topic, a conceptual framework, and a literature
review. The second chapter represents a discussion of the data set used for all of
the analyses in this dissertation. The following three chapters are three empirical
papers, each presented with its specific background and literature review as well as
a methods section. The sixth chapter presents a summary of the major findings,
implications for future studies, conclusions, and ties the three research papers
together as well as to the conceptual framework that guided this dissertation.
1
Chapter One: Introduction, Background, and Conceptual Framework
A. Introduction
This dissertation examines the impact of grandparent involvement on the
home life and developmental outcomes of young and adult grandchildren.
Improvements in health have made today's grandparents more physically fit and
socially more active than the grandparent portrayed in traditional images.
Employment in late life and better financial conditions have also made grandparents
less dependent on subsequent generations. While greater attention is given to the
social and demographic characteristics of grandparents (see Szinovacz, 1998a) and
the roles they play in the lives of younger grandchildren (Silverstein & Marenco,
2001), far less is known about the importance of grandparents for the emotional
well-being of grandchildren, particularly as they grow older and make the transition
to adulthood. Questions remain concerning whether and under what family
conditions older grandchildren benefit from strong relationships with their
grandparents, and whether those benefits are net of their relationships with parents.
This dissertation examines whether the strength of social and emotional ties
with grandparents has the capacity to reduce poor psychosocial outcomes among
young grandchildren through adulthood, and whether the capacity of these ties to do
so is heightened when parental resources were strained in childhood or
adolescence. What role might grandparents play with respect to young, adolescent,
and adult grandchildren who were raised in families that may have elevated risks for
negative psychological or behavioral outcomes? Can grandparents level the playing
field for grandchildren at risk? It is not uncommon for grandparents to increase their
involvement with grandchildren after marital disruption, with grandmothers in
2
particular providing instrumental help, babysitting, and giving advice on personal
problems to their children, particularly their daughters (Gladstone, 1988; Johnson,
1988). Grandparents, as both family insiders and outsiders, are in a position to offer
grandchildren a form of unconditional love that parents, , because of conflicting
responsibilities and time shortages, may be less able to demonstrate (Kornhaber &
Woodward, 1981). This is particularly true for grandchildren in non-traditional
families. The role of grandparents in mitigating adjustment difficulties experienced
by children in non-traditional families has been documented with respect to
coresidence of grandparents (Solomon & Marx, 1995; Deleire & Kalil, 2002).
However, the large majority of grandchildren have not and never will coreside with
their grandparents, yet may still benefit from having them in their social networks as
attachment figures and sources of emotional support.
This dissertation examines whether and how grandparents support
grandchildren exposed to turbulent home environments and reduce risk of poor
psychological well-being and behavioral outcomes into adulthood. Specifically, the
models explore the moderating role of grandparents to ensure the well-being of
grandchildren whose family experiences may increase chances of developmental
stress in adolescence and adulthood. The purpose of this dissertation is to
determine the immediate and long-term legacy of relationships with grandparents for
grandchildren.
B. Importance of this Study
The extraordinary contributions of grandparents to the family have been
cited often yet remain poorly understood. This dissertation aims to fill a void in the
literature of the importance of grandparents to grandchild well-being outcomes.
3
Literature has focused almost exclusively on the effects of co-residence (e.g.
grandparents raising grandchildren), often focusing on disadvantaged populations
such as low income households. This dissertation looks at the large majority of
grandparents who do not co-reside with a grandchild but nevertheless may provide
significant amounts of time, support, and emotional transfers to their grandchildren.
There has been little investigation of the effects of more normative styles of
grandparenting on the long-term life chances, emotional states, and adaptive
capacities of grandchildren. In sum, a great need exists for longitudinal analyses of
how grandparents influence grandchild well-being.
This dissertation aims at contributing to a better understanding of the
complex relationships between grandparents and grandchildren, and the degree to
which grandchildren benefit from involvement with their grandparents. More
specifically, the objectives of this dissertation are to: (1) identify whether close and
supportive relationships with grandparents reduce depressive symptoms and
improve self-esteem of their late adolescent and young adult grandchildren,
including whether grandchild-grandparent relationships improve the emotional well-
being of grandchildren, independent of the quality of their parental relationships; and
moderate the negative effects of having been raised in alternative family structures
or of having emotionally distant relationships with parents; (2) describe the role of
family functioning (turbulent home life, parental involvement) and explain under what
conditions relationships with grandparents improve behavioral outcomes for
grandchildren; and (3) evaluate how grandparents influence educational aspirations
of grandchildren.
4
A. Conceptual Framework
Family Systems Perspective
A family systems perspective is used to examine the role of grandparents in
promoting the long-term well-being of grandchildren. The basic premise of a
systems approach is that family members act interdependently in response to
internal and external threats to family equilibrium (Klein & White, 1996). This broad
and inclusive approach to family life has directed researchers to consider
relationships beyond those between child and parent in order to more fully account
for the familial forces that shape children’s development and adaptation (Cox, Paley,
& Harter, 2001). In the case of intergenerational research, this implies that
generations beyond the parent be considered in identifying the principle agents of
child socialization and attachment.
General systems theory (GST, von Bertalanffy, 1968), looks at human
behavior as shaped by multiple systems of influence, with a fundamental concept of
interdependence, or interconnectedness of component systems. GST also
considers mutual influence, hierarchy, holism, equifinality, and multifinality. Mutual
influence considers how behaviors in one system echo through the entire system
while hierarchy stipulates that all systems are comprised of subsystems. Holism
states that a system is more than the sum of its parts. One cannot understand a
family system by looking at individuals in isolation. Equifinality means that a system
can achieve a particular goal in multiple ways. For example, grandparents may
improve psychosocial well-being of a grandchild by providing extra monitoring,
offering financial support for tutoring services in school, or giving parents respite
from children during marital crisis. Multifinality is that idea that same process can
5
influence multiple outcomes. While grandparent involvement may be beneficial for
some grandchildren, the extra monitoring could possibly worsen outcomes for some
grandchildren who desire attention from a parent. In the end, it is important to
recognize that children are also a source of their own development. They induce
particular behaviors and increasingly select the environments in which they spend
time (Harris, 1995).
While GST is a widely used theory to understand family systems, this
dissertation also draws on the similar properties of family systems articulated by
Cox & Paley (2003): wholeness and order, hierarchal structure, and adaptive self-
organization under stressful and challenging conditions. These elements of family
systems theory provide a useful framework for understanding how grandparents
serve as surrogate attachment figures when the parent’s ability to engage in quality
parenting has been compromised. As a second-line of defense, grandparents have
been called the “national guard” of the family—always vigilant and ready to respond
if needed (Hagestad, 1985). Implicit in this formulation is the notion that
grandparents serve as functional substitutes for parents who are no longer capable
or willing, or need help, to fulfill their parental duties. One striking example is the
case of grandparents stepping in to raise grandchildren in the face of parental
incapacity through AIDS, drug and alcohol addiction, unemployment, divorce, single
parenting, or imprisonment (Minkler & Roe, 1993).
Parental Absence Perspective
Parental absence has serious adverse consequences for children, as a
result of socialization deficits, decreased parental attention, and a lack of parental
role models (Hetherington et al., 1998). The structure of the family within which a
6
child is raised defines a host of social, economic, and psychological factors that are
important for childrearing. Parental marital status and adult household composition
determines for young children their access to economic resources as well as the
social and emotional relationships they form with adults (Haurin, 1992). Research
finds that children in single-parent families are subject to less consistent parenting
styles and less social control and supervision than are children in two-parent
families (Astone & McLanahan, 1991; Dornbusch et al., 1985).
Generally, adolescence is a vulnerable period ripe for the development of
affective illness and major depressive disorder (Hirsch, Moos, & Reischl, 1985;
Weissman et al., 1997). Young adulthood is a time of intensive role and identity
acquisitions when negative experiences have the potential to cause long-term
psychological harm (Roberts & Bengtson, 1993). Early family relationships play a
pivotal role, as parent-child relationships may variably protect young adults against
mental health risks or enhance their emergence (Resnick, Bearman, Blum, Bauman,
Harris, & Jones, 1997). When extended relatives such as grandparents intervene,
they may provide a social environment that shields children from some of the
implications of family disruption as well as provide social resources that directly
strengthen their resiliency and coping skills.
For the purposes of analyses in this dissertation, a non-traditional family is
one where the children are not living with two biological parents. Children in non-
traditional families that include single-, divorced- and step-parent families may
experience a loss of time, assistance, and affection by the absent parent, and
particularly in the case of the step-family as an “incomplete institution” (Cherlin,
1978) within which intergenerational role expectations remain ambiguous (Ganong
7
& Coleman, 1998). Thus, non-traditional family structures may adversely affect
child development and the quality of intergenerational relationships along two broad
avenues of influence: parental absence and its consequences for resource
insufficiency in the household, and interpersonal strains with parents that are
engendered by martial dissolution and remarriage.
Resiliency Theory
A great mystery for those that work with families and children is why some
families respond positively to serious threats and challenges to their well-being, and
others do not. When researchers initially studied the positive adaptation of children
under adverse circumstances, the concept of resilience was development.
Resilience Theory is described in multiples ways that encompass biological,
psychological, and environmental processes (Rolf & Johnson, 1999). Generally
speaking, good outcomes despite adversity, and sustained competence under
stress or recovery from trauma, are the hallmark of resilience (Masten &
Coastworth, 1998). Dynamic in nature, resilience changes with time and
circumstance (Cicchetti & Toh, 1998), and researchers once used the terms
“invulnerable” and “invincible” to describe at-risk children who developed well
(Wyman et al, 1999).
While individual resilience has been explored for some time, the empirical
evidence on family resilience is rather sparse. Several “family resilience” factors
have been identified as adaptive and associated with better outcomes for children—
positive parenting practices (Walsh, 1998), active involvement by non-residential
fathers or other father figures, and multigenerational co-residence offer protection
against poverty, single parenthood, and teen pregnancy. Garmezy (1991) identified
8
a set of categories of individual protective factors: (1) dispositional attributes of child
(temperament and intelligence); (2) family cohesion and warmth; and (3) availability
and use of external support systems by parents and children. Grandparents can be
considered a “family resilience” tool to promote positive outcomes despite adversity.
Several themes have emerged from evaluation of intervention programs to
improve family functioning that can be applied to the value of grandparent
involvement. First, early intervention is key to obtaining positive results.
Grandparent involvement at the beginning and throughout family crisis is key.
Second, interventions should vary by family environmental differences and display
cultural competence. Perhaps, grandparents are best equipped to respond to family
change because they are aware of the intricacies of the conflict, and can be
sensitive to family culture. However, this may be more difficult for grandparents of
multiracial unions, who may not be aware of the cultural norms of their in-laws.
Finally, in addition to building protective factors for families, interventions should aim
to reduce risk. Grandparents may work to shield grandchildren from violence or drug
addition in the family when they might otherwise experience severe trauma. Still,
the field of family resilience is in its early stages and we are only beginning to
understand the mechanisms that allow individuals and families to thrive.
Evolutionary Biology and The Grandmother Effect
The value of grandparents, particularly grandmothers, to the well-being of
the family is often thought to have an evolutionary basis (Voland, Chasiotis, &
Schiefenhovel, 2005). Evolutionary biologists contend that long-lived and healthy
grandparents improve the survival chances of their grandchildren by serving as
surrogates to the biological parent in the event of maternal death, or by serving as
9
second lines of defense against environmental threats to the grandchild (Hawkes,
O’Connell, Jones, Alvarez, & Charnov, 1998; Pashos, 2000). If the grandchild has a
better chance of surviving with grandparent support, then the potential of that
grandchild to reach puberty, reproduce, and pass that grandparent’s “longevity”
gene to the next generation will be enhanced. Although this bio-evolutionary model
has relevance today for appreciating the important role that grandparents play in
maintaining the integrity—and in some cases the survival—of the family under
conditions of social stress, it leaves unexplained the conditions for grandparent
involvement. We have yet to understand the conditions under which grandparents
are more or less involved, and importance of social-cultural contexts in structuring
the appropriate response of grandparents to family contingencies.
The “grandmother hypothesis” contends that a grandmother has a decidedly
beneficial effect on the reproductive success of her children and survival of her
grandchildren (Hawkes, 2004). Empirical evidence is mounting in support of this
hypothesis. In March 2004, an entire issue of Nature was dedicated to empirical
evidence supporting the grandmother hypothesis and a recently released book,
Grandmotherhood: The Evolutionary Significance of the Second Half of Female Life,
(Voland, Chasiotis, & Schiefenhovel, 2005) provides a multidisciplinary approach to
understanding why postmenopausal women make a large difference in the survival
story of human populations. Reductions in infant mortality are largely responsible
for the gains made in life expectancy, and Hawkes (2003) argues that the large
proportion of older adults has implications for all human social organizations.
It is a widely held assumption that the large fraction of elders in human
populations represents a human social safety net. In reality, natural selection favors
10
flow of help from older to younger kin. Developments in evolutionary theory suggest
that instead of help for older members of the population, it is help from post-
menopausal grandmothers that accounts for the age structure of human societies.
Evolutionary biologists ask, “What caused the extension of lifespan in human
evolution?” Increasingly, evolutionary scholars are suggesting that the answer lies
in grandmothers’ contribution to childcare. Unlike other primates, including
chimpanzees, human children are unable to feed themselves when they reach
weaning age. Grandmothers are able to assist in feeding grandchildren to help
ensure survival (Hawkes, 2004).
The “grandmother hypothesis” has recently stood up to scrutiny in the
scientific community because it has been able to account for similarities and
differences between the life histories of human females and those of our nearest
relatives. We live longer, mature later, space births more closely during child-
bearing years, and our fertility declines while we reach menopause at similar ages.
Lahdenpera and colleagues analyzed data from eighteenth and nineteenth century
Finnish (slow-growing) and Canadian (fast-growing) populations and found that the
duration of women’s postmenopausal survival affects both the reproductive success
of her children and survival of grandchildren. Doblhammer and Oppen (2003)
identified a strong relationship between postmenopausal longevity and numbers of
children and different grandmother effects through sons and daughters. Beise
(2005) studied a French immigration population in Quebec (1921) and found that
risk of death decreased for grandchildren by around 20 to 30 percent at ages one
and two years when grandparents had longer post menopausal longevity.
11
Evolutionary biology has also emerged as a force in the perspectives that
drive intergenerational relationships (Bianchi, Hotz, McGarry, & Seltzer, 2007).
Donald Cox has largely advanced the use of evolutionary biology in the social
sciences through his research on intergenerational transfers in the field of
economics (Cox, 2007). He argues that much human behavior may be motivated
by a desire to ensure the survival of one’s genes. With respect to intergenerational
transfers, this evolutionary perspective hypothesizes that the older generation
invests in the younger generation to further their own genetic line rather than out of
concern for the happiness or well being of their offspring. In particular, parents will
care for their children to ensure that they are healthy and survive to reproductive
age and, in more modern times, invest in their schooling so that they will be
successful and have children of their own. This investment by parents in the
survival of their genes continues on to subsequent generations as well. For
example, Cox and Stark (2005) posit that parents can use cash transfers to
“purchase” grandchildren. If adult children are delaying childbearing until they can
afford a home, for example, a parent might hasten the process by providing funds
for the home’s purchase.
A more controversial element of the evolutionary perspective predicts
differences in the ties between mothers and fathers and their children (Bianchi et al,
2007). Because ties are based on the desire of an individual to pass along her
genetic material, the strength of the tie depends on the strength or certainty of a
genetic link, known as parental certainty. A mother is always certain that the child to
whom she gave birth is her own child, and thus half of the child’s genes are hers. A
father, however, may be less certain of his paternity. In this model then, a mother
12
has greater incentive to invest in her child and the ties between mother and child will
be stronger than those between a father and his purported child. Similarly, ties to a
grandchild born of a daughter will be stronger than ties to the child of a son. In
principle, these predictions are testable and provide a way of validating the
evolutionary model. A major weakness of the evolutionary model is its failure to
predict transfers that flow upstream to elderly individuals. Once an individual’s
capacity for reproduction has been exhausted, the species no longer needs the
individual to survive. One could argue that the presence of a member of the older
generation assists in the survival of the younger generation; thus, there is incentive
to prolong the life of the grandparent (Lee, 1997). However, younger family
members regularly assist the older generation who are far too physically or
cognitively impaired to provide any assistance to the young generation.
The Life Course Perspective
Intergenerational family relationships are best understood in the context of
the life course perspective. Providing a developmental and historical framework for
the study of family relationships (Hareven, 1996), the life course perspective
stresses the importance of change over time and the various micro and macro
contexts within which intergenerational relations take place (Bengtson & Allen,
1993). In gerontology, the life course perspective draws our attention to the
interaction of demographic forces and cultural factors in shaping family relations and
processes over the life course (Hareven, 1995). Elder and Johnson (2002) have
outlined five main principles that guide the life course perspective: (1) The principle
of life span development where individuals continue to develop meaningfully
throughout life and late life adaptation and aging should be studied from a
13
longitudinal perspective; (2) The principle of agency where individuals construct
their lives through their actions and choices within the opportunities and constraints
of history and social circumstances; (3) The principle of time and place so that the
life course of individuals is embedded within and shaped by historical events, and
the effect of the same event may differ across different places; (4) The principle of
timing where similar events may affect individuals in different ways depending on
their placement in the life course; (5) The principle of linked lives where individual’s
lives are interdependent and influenced by one another.
Through the principle of linked-lives, the life course perspective implies that
life-course transitions and trajectories of individuals are inextricably linked to the
transitions and trajectories of the family (Elder, 1994). The choices and options
available to members of one generation are influence by the needs and preferences
of those in other generations. Families can be seen as a system of interlocking
individuals who continually adapt both their own needs and those of others in the
family system of kinship matrix (Riley & Riley, 1993). The paradigm of link-lives
considers human development as a relationship process, and stresses the
importance of relationships in shaping the resources and well-being of individuals as
they age (Bengtson, Biblarz, & Roberts, 2002).
D. Literature Review
Changing Households and Families
The families examined in this dissertation must be placed within the
historical and dynamic changes that are taking place in American society. Family
demographers have identified five key demographic trends that are relevant to an
14
understanding of family change (McLanahan & Casper, 1995; DeVanzo & Rahman,
1993; Casper & Bianchi, 2002):
1. The delay in forming marriages, increasing the time adults spend outside
marriage, often living in their parents’ homes, with friends, or with unmarried
partners.
2. The increase in heterosexual cohabitation, either as a precursor or
alternative to marriage or as an alternative to living alone, combined with
growing acknowledgement of same-sex cohabitation and concerns of gay
and lesbian families.
3. The growth in single parenting due to widespread divorce (and, more
recently, a growing tendency for births to occur outside marriage as
marriages are postponed) and the increasing number of years adults and
children spend outside of married-couple families
4. The steady increase in women’s labor force participation, especially among
married women, in the second half of the 20
th
century and the accompanying
decline in the one-wage-earner, two-parent family (what some refer to as the
“traditional” family)
5. Delayed and declining fertility and declining mortality resulting in fewer
children, smaller families, and also a lengthening of life, adding to the time
adults spend “postchild,” which has fueled the growth of married couples
without children and elderly who increasingly live independently, apart from
their children or extended kin.
In the past, families have accounted for a large majority of households, but that is
now changing (Bryson & Casper, 1998). The households and families examined in
15
this dissertation are interacting with a system in flux. Many of these changes put
children at risk for poor developmental outcomes, and force families to draw on
resources outside the immediate household.
Determinants of Grandparent-Grandchild Relations
Grandparent availability has increased dramatically from 24% of the 1900
birth cohort born with all four grandparents alive to over 68% today (Uhlenberg,
1996). Around 70% of adults over age 50—approximately 53 million adults—are
grandparents in the U.S. (Watson & Koblinsky, 1997). Mortality, fertility, and
migration all shape grandparent-grandchild relations in a given population
(Uhlenberg & Kirby, 2005). While there is a lack of data to examine past trends of
grandparent availability at various life stages, generally speaking, lower mortality
has resulted in a greater likelihood that young adults will have relationships with
grandparents. Declining fertility rates result in fewer numbers of grandchildren
available to grandparents and more resources for each grandchild. Greater mobility
and migration patterns affect geographic proximity of grandparents and
grandchildren, and the nature of the relationship over large distances is likely to
differ markedly. However, advances in communication and technology enable
families to stay in touch across the world via email, online chat, and cell phones.
Sociodemographic changes over the past century have altered the experience of
grandparenthood.
Grandparent-grandchild relations are embedded in societal, environmental,
cultural, familial, and individual contexts that are interdependent and change over
time (King, Russell, & Elder, 1998). Grandparent-grandchild relations range from
grandparents with sole custody of grandchildren to grandparents on opposite sides
16
of the world. A great body of literature has focused on the family circumstances of
grandparents raising grandchildren (Bryson & Casper, 1999; Minkler, 1999;
Goodman & Silverstein, 2002), but this discussion will focus solely on the
grandparent-grandchild relations in the family when a parent or parents are raising
the child. In a review of the grandparent literature, Aldous (1995) discovered a wide
range of factors that impact grandparent-grandchild relations. They include gender,
lineage (paternal or maternal), grandparent and grandchild age, family structure,
and race. These factors will receive careful consideration in the models explored in
this dissertation.
Characteristics of Grandparent-Grandchild Relations
One of the benchmark studies of grandparenthood (Cherlin & Furstenberg,
1985; 1986) used nationally representative data to develop a typology of
grandparenting styles based on the extent of exchange services, the degree of
parent-like behavior (authority), and frequency of contact. They labeled those who
score low on all three dimensions as “detached” grandparents. “Passive”
grandparents were those who had minimal amount of service exchange and parent-
like behavior, but had frequent contact with grandparents. “Active” grandparents
were those who exchanged services and had some parent-like influence on
grandchildren’s lives. Active grandparents were further categorized as “supportive”
(only scoring high on exchange), “authoritative” (scoring high only on authority), and
“influential” (scoring high on both). Using their typology, they found 26% of
grandparents in the sample were detached, 29% were passive, 17% were
supportive, 9% were authoritative, and 19% were influential. Over 70% of
17
grandparents did not assume parent-like roles with their grandchildren. For the
most part, grandparents adhered to the norm of noninterference.
Cherlin and Furstenberg (1985) also discovered how characteristics of the
grandparent can differ. Detached and passive grandparents tended to be older and
the most influential grandparents were often the youngest. Geographic distances of
over 100 miles were common among detached grandparents. Both the aging
process and geographic limitations play a role in determining grandparent styles.
Over the past twenty years, the most repeated finding in the literature is that
grandmothers generally have closer relationships with their grandchildren than do
grandfathers (Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1986). Grandmothers and grandfathers
interact differently with grandchildren, with grandmothers acting as caregivers and
grandfathers more like mentors (Eisenberg, 1988). Grandchild age plays a major
role in a grandchild’s involvement with grandparents. Grandparents are more
involved with younger grandchildren than adolescents (Troll, 1983).
Uhlenberg & Kirby (2005) identify four characteristics of grandparents that
have implications for the relationship: 1) health status; 2) poverty status; 3)
educational gap between generations, and 4) marital status. Chronic conditions and
longer years of life with disabilities (Crimmins, Hayward, & Saito, 1994) may prevent
grandparents from enjoying active relationships with grandchildren. Still, the years
of life spent in a healthy state have increased (Manton, Corder, & Stallard, 1993)
and many more children to adults enjoy relationships with active grandparents.
Strong economic growth and Social Security have reduced the poverty status of
many grandparents so that financial problems are less and less of an obstacle to
grandparent-grandchild relations. A large education gap is known to interfere with
18
intergenerational relations. However, Uhlenberg & Kirby (2005) conclude that
educational attainment gaps play a smaller role than they have in the past. Marital
status of grandparents and parents is known to affect grandparent-grandchild
relations. Grandparenting styles are affected by divorce and premarital fertility in
the parental generation. Grandparents are more likely to aid daughters when they
become single-mothers (Aldous, 1985; Eggebeen & Hogan, 1990). In the event of
divorce, the mother often retains custody and her parents have greater access to
the grandchildren. It is likely that married grandparents would have more
involvement with grandchildren than those who experience divorce or another family
disruption.
The Bridge Generation
The role of the middle generation—parents as gatekeepers to children—
forms the backdrop of mutual interdependence. Parents are managers of their
children’s social environments, serving as gatekeepers and facilitators of children’s
opportunities to interact with others outside the family (Furstenberg, Cook, Ecclers,
Elder, Sameroff, 1999). The nature of parents’ relationships with their own parents
influences children’s relationships with grandparents, and affects the amount of
contact a child has with a grandparent, both key determinants of grandparent-
grandchild relationship quality (Brown, 2003). In grandparent-grandchild
relationships, affection and overall quality is largely mediated by the middle (parent)
generation. It is important to note the members of different generations access their
relationships differently. Children and grandchildren usually report lower levels of
affection and relationship quality than parents and grandparents, a phenomenon
known as intergenerational stake (Giarusso, Feng, Silverstein, & Bengtson, 2001).
19
Younger generations are eager to create separate identities, families, and legacies
of their own, while older generations usually have a greater stake in the
intergenerational relationship due to the intensive investment and legacy that their
children and grandchild represent. Investment in intergenerational relationships
declines with greater distance between generations, from parents to grandparents to
great grandparents (Drew & Silverstein, 2004). Still, older generations enjoy the
invaluable return on their investment in young generations in that aging parent’s
bonds of affect with adult children enhance their well-being and decrease their
mortality risks (Wang, Silverstein, & Bengtson, 1999).
Family change or family decline: Are the resources offered by grandparents
evidence of resilience in families?
Considerable disagreement has emerged over the meaning of changes in
family formation and dissolution. David Popenoe (1988) has led the argument that
the American family is in crisis while scholars such as Judith Stacey (1990, 1993,
1996) argue that what is in decline is our normative idea of what a family is (For
more on the “family decline” debate, please see Preston, 1984; Bumpass, 1990;
Cherlin, 1999; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). For a long time in the literature,
grandparents have represented the “guard-dogs” of families, often emerging during
times of strain. Bengtson (2001) hypothesizes that as Americans experience
demographic shifts, relationships across generations are becoming increasingly
important, in some cases more important than nuclear family ties. Grandparents
20
remain part of the “latent kin matrix” (Riley & Riley, 1993) that arises in the family
during times of need and provides life long support. This dissertation argues that
the availability and impact of grandparents on families is testament to the resilience
evident in American families.
21
Chapter Two: Data Description—
The National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH)
A. General Description of the Sample
Data will be drawn from the National Survey of Families and Households
(NSFH), a nationally representative sample consisting of 13,007 adults 18 years and
older first surveyed in 1987-88 (over-samples were drawn of Blacks, Puerto Ricans,
Mexican Americans, single-parent families, families with stepchildren, cohabiting
couples, and recently married persons). One adult per household was randomly
chosen as a “primary” respondent for an in-person interview (for further description,
please see Bumpass, Sweet, & Call, 1988). At this time, a child was randomly
identified from the families of primary respondents with offspring between the ages
of 5-18 for more focused questions. These children, known as “focal children” (FC),
were themselves interviewed by telephone at W-2 of the NSFH conducted in 1992-
1994 when they were 10-23 years old (N=2,505), as were the original W-1
respondents. At the W-3 follow-up, focal children were interviewed again in 2000-
2002 when they were aged 18-34 (N=1,952). Table 2.1 shows the ages of FC at
various waves and chapters of this dissertation.
Table 2.1
Ages of NSFH Focal Children by Waves
Wave 1 (1987/8) Wave 2 (1992/4) Wave 3 (2000/3)
Ages 5-17 10-23 18-34
Chapter 3 18-23
Chapter 4 5-10 10-17
Chapter 5 5-17 10-23 18-34
22
The sub-sample of FC that will be used in this dissertation consists of
parental reports at W-1 & W-2, and 2,280 focal children (91%) who participated at
W-2. Of these, 1,399 (61.4%) were also surveyed at W-3. Multivariate attrition
diagnostics revealed that compared to focal children who were followed up at W-3,
those lost-to-follow-up tended to come from lower socioeconomic origins, be
African-American or Latino, have lower educational aspirations, and have fewer
grandparents alive. Longitudinal models will be estimated using all available data in
order to minimize any bias associated with systematic attrition.
B. Discussion of Variables Used in Empirical Analyses
This section will discuss and explain several of the variables constructed in
this dissertation. A central construct is grandparent cohesion, and the following
three chapters will use a factor score derived from three components of the
grandparent-grandchild relationship: emotional closeness, contact, and ability to
confide in grandparent. The factor loadings for this variable throughout the
dissertation are included in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2
Factor Loadings for Grandparent Cohesion Score
Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Chapter 6
Focal Child Age Range 18-23yrs 10-17yrs 10-23yrs
Grandparent Closeness .85 .81 .84
Grandparent Contact .75 .67 .71
Confiding in Grandparent .83 .77 .81
Chronbach's alpha .62 .70 .71
Another central construct in this dissertation was family structure.
Preliminary analyses revealed that when family structure categories such as single-
parent were broken down further into smaller groups, (i.e. single-mother, single-
23
father, never married mother, never married father) they lost their explanatory power
because of sample size. Therefore, when family structure was operationalized into
larger groups (intact, single step), the usual family structure effects were evident.
Table 2.3 includes the items and subscales of the dependent variable in
Chapter 4, the behavioral problem index (BPI).
Table 2.3
Items and Subscales from the Behavioral Problem Index
Subscale External Internal
1 Antisocial x cheats or tells lies
2 Antisocial x bullies or is cruel/mean to others
3 Antisocial x does not feel sorry for misbehaving
4 Antisocial x disobedient at school > 5 years
5 Antisocial x trouble getting along w/ teachers>5 years
6 Anxious/Depressed x sudden changes in mood/feeling
7 Anxious/Depressed x feels/complains no one loves him/her
8 Anxious/Depressed x x too fearful or anxious
9 Anxious/Depressed x feels worthless or inferior
10 Anxious/Depressed x x unhappy, sad, or depressed
11 Headstrong x high strung, tense, nervous
12 Headstrong x argues too much
13 Headstrong x disobedient at home
14 Headstrong x stubborn, sullen, or irritable
15 Headstrong x strong temper, loses it easily
16 Hyperactive x difficulty concentrating/paying attention
17 Hyperactive x x easily confused/in a fog
18 Hyperactive x impulsive—acts without thinking
19 Hyperactive x trouble with obsessions, etc.
20 Hyperactive x restless, overly active, etc.
21 Peer problems x trouble getting along with others
22 Peer problems x not liked by other children
23 Peer problems x withdrawn, not involved with others
The factor loadings for two dependent variables are included in Table 2.4.
These two constructs are depressive symptoms (Chapter 3) and behavioral
problems (Chapter 4). Only three items were used from the CES-D scale because
NSFH only used part of the scale for Focal Children sample. Most of the items from
the behavioral problem index were used in NSFH (reported by mothers).
24
Table 2.4
Factor Loadings for Dependent Variables
Variable
Depressive Symptoms (CESD) Chapter 4
Feeling depressed .90
Lonely .88
Sad .93
Chronbach's alpha .78
Behavioral Problems (BPI) Chapter 5 All 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
cheats or tells lies
.58 .68 .60
bullies or is cruel/mean to others
.62 .74 .62
does not feel sorry for misbehaving
.54 .66 .55
disobedient at school
.54 .65 .56
trouble getting along w/ teachers
.55 .68 .56
sudden changes in mood/feeling
.55 .67 .54
complains no one loves him/her
.58 .73 .71
too fearful or anxious
.54 .63 .53 .66
feels worthless or inferior
.58 .74 .76
unhappy, sad, or depressed
.61 .75 .59
high strung, tense, nervous
.63 .68 .63
argues too much
.66 .78 .66
disobedient at home
.66 .73 .67
stubborn, sullen, or irritable
.69 .78 .69
strong temper, loses it easily
.69 .79 .70
difficulty concentrating
.59 .81 .61
easily confused/in a fog
.50 .72 .50 .60
impulsive—acts without thinking
.66 .70 .67
trouble with obsessions, etc.
.52 .61 .51
restless, overly active, etc.
.52 .72 .55
trouble getting along with others
.61 .71 .61
not liked by other children
.50 .72 .50
withdrawn, not involved with others
.49 .73 .59
Chronbach's alpha .91 .73 .78 .71 .79 .68 .85 .71
*1=Antisocial, 2=Anxious/Depressed,
3=Headstrong, 4= Hyperactive, 5=Peer
Problems, 6=Internalizing, 7=Externalalizing
C. Description of the Unique Features of the Dataset
The NSFH data is unique because it was a bold attempt to create a
nationally representative data set to describe families. Unfortunately, the United
25
States is the only industrialized country without a national data set of families.
NSFH offered, at least for a limited time, a means to bridge the gap, but as time
went on, the NSFH became less and less like the general population due to attrition
in the sample. Still, there are several unique features of the dataset design that will
be described below.
Several portions of the main interview were self-administered to facilitate the
collection of sensitive information as well as to ease the flow of the interview. The
average interview lasted one hour and forty minutes. In addition, a shorter self-
administered questionnaire was given to the spouse or cohabiting partner of the
primary respondent. A considerable amount of life-history information was
collected, including: the respondent's family living arrangements in childhood,
departures and returns to the parental home, and histories of marriage,
cohabitation, education, fertility, and employment.
The design permits the detailed description of past and current living
arrangements and other characteristics and experiences, as well as the analysis of
the consequences of earlier patterns on current states, marital and parenting
relationships, kin contact, and economic and psychological well-being. NSFH2
interviews included personal interviews with the original respondents (N=10,007);
personal interviews with the current spouse or cohabiting partners, almost identical
to the interview with the main respondent (N=5624); personal interviews with
NSFH1 spouses or partners for relationships that had ended (N=789); telephone
interviews with "focal children" who were ages 13-18 at the first wave and 18-23 at
the second (N=1090); shorter telephone interviews with "focal children" who were
originally ages 5-12 and 10-17 at NSFH2, with somewhat different content for the
26
two age ranges (N=1415); short proxy interviews with a spouse or other relative in
cases where the original respondent had died or was too ill to interview (N=802);
telephone interviews with parents-one randomly selected parent per respondent
(N=3348).
This study has been undertaken explicitly to provide a data resource for the
research community at large and was designed with advice from a large number of
consultants and correspondents. The substantive coverage has been kept broad to
permit the holistic analysis of family experience from an array of theoretical
perspectives. More detailed information on Wave 1 content and on the two
subsequent waves (Wave 2: 1992-94, Wave 3: 2002-04) is available on the NSFH
website (http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh). Previous researchers have used the NSFH
dataset and have identified items in the dataset to measure particular constructs. In
order to examine the research questions in this study, items were extracted from the
NSFH dataset and similar procedures of previous research were used to
operationalize the variables of interest.
D. Limitations
Several methodological issues about the data need to be acknowledged.
One important issue is the periodicity of data collection. NSFH is only collected at
three time waves and does not necessarily provide a continuous record of family
experience. For example, family activity patterns may vary across the seasons or
across the school year, making it hard for respondents to count-up or provide an
overall average. In addition, respondents may have trouble remembering the dates
of events over the course of a year, or, they may recall only the major events or
changes. In addition, attitudes and values may not be recalled accurately. Thus,
27
the quality of relationships between family members is one example of a construct
that cannot be recalled with precision and that might benefit from being assessed
quarterly or even more often.
In addition, some constructs are difficult to measure across the life cycle. In
particular, constructs that change as children become older are difficult to measure
as longitudinal indicators. For example, a measure of psychological well-being was
been included in W-2 for the older FC but not the younger. At present there is a
need to develop an age-adjusted indicator of appropriate monitoring across several
developmental periods.
28
Chapter Three: Relationships with Grandparents and the Emotional Well-Being of
Late Adolescent and Young Adult Grandchildren
A. Introduction
Scholars studying the multigenerational family have devoted increased
attention to grandparents with respect to their social and demographic
characteristics (see Szinovacz, 1998a) and the roles they play in families with young
grandchildren (Silverstein & Marenco, 2001; Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1986).
However, far less is known about the importance of grandparents for the emotional
well-being of grandchildren, particularly as they grow older and make the transition
to adulthood (for an exception, see Langer, 1990). Further, questions concerning
whether and under what family conditions older grandchildren benefit from strong
relationships with their grandparents, and whether those benefits are net of their
relationships with parents, have remained unanswered. In this investigation I
examined whether the strength of social and emotional ties with grandparents has
the capacity to reduce depressive symptoms and increase self-esteem among late-
adolescents and young adults, and whether the capacity of these ties to do so is
heightened when parental resources were strained in childhood. The response of
grandparents as a second-line of defense against emergent fissures and fractures in
the family—such as those found in single-parent, step-parent, and conflicted
families—may be especially valuable for the well-being of grandchildren and their
developmental success. The aim of this study is to determine whether close
relationships with grandparents improve the psychological well-being of young adult
grandchildren. More specifically, I ask: do close relationships with grandparents
moderate the negative effects of being raised in a single- or step-parent household?
29
Both family systems and bioevolutionary theories provide a lens through
which to examine grandparent influences on their grandchildren. From the
perspective of evolutionary biology, grandparents have a genetic incentive to insure
the quality and success of their grandchildren (Hawkes, 2003). Family systems
theory provides an overarching psycho-social paradigm that stresses the
importance of looking beyond the mother-child relationship to better understand
child development and the ability of the family to adapt to change and handle
challenges to its integrity (Cox & Paley, 2003). The wider family network can
provide a resource for individuals and families to cope successfully with the stresses
of contemporary life by providing a cushion of support which helps adsorb family
pressures, diffuse social stresses, and provide needed aid and assistance
(Kornhaber & Woodward, 1981). Given the intertwined fates of family members, it is
likely that grandparents recalibrate family contributions to the social and emotional
development of at-risk children (Cooksey, Menaghan, & Jekielek, 1997; Denham &
Smith, 1989).
The structure of the family within which a child is raised defines a host of
social, economic, and psychological factors that are important for childrearing.
Parental marital status and adult household composition determines for young
children their access to economic resources as well as the social and emotional
relationships they form with adults (Haurin, 1992). Research finds that children in
single-parent families are subject to less consistent parenting styles and less social
control and supervision than are children in two-parent families (Astone &
McLanahan, 1991). Parental absence has serious adverse consequences for
30
children, as a result of socialization deficits, decreased parental attention, and a lack
of parental role models (Hetherington, Bridges, & Insabella, 1998).
Many single-parent families are the result of parental divorce, an event that
has been found to have detrimental impacts on the short-term and long-term
adjustment of children. A large body of research has found that children from
divorced families, compared with those from intact families, were found to have
poorer self-concept and lower educational aspirations (Weitoft, Hjern, & Rosen,
2004; Parish & Wigle, 1985), lower life satisfaction (Furstenberg & Teitler, 1994;
Gohm, Oishi, Darlington, & Diener, 1998), increased risk of experiencing
relationship difficulties with parents, peers, and romantic partners (Summers,
Forehand, Armistead, & Tannenbaum, 1998; Wallerstein, 1985), and heightened
risk of psychopathology such as depression (Furstenberg & Teitler, 1994; Amato,
1996; Chase-Lansdale et al., 1995; Glenn & Kramer, 1985). However, I note that
some studies found no differences between children in divorced families and those
in intact families on measures of psychosocial adjustment, suggesting children may
adapt to adverse family conditions (Enos & Handal, 1986; Grossman & Rowat,
1995).
Non-traditional family structures may adversely affect child development and
the quality of intergenerational relationships along two broad avenues of influence:
parental absence and its consequences for resource insufficiency in the household,
and interpersonal strains with parents that are engendered by martial dissolution
and remarriage. Among the most important factors that explain heightened risk of
maladjustment among children in single-parent families are the time and economic
constraints faced by the custodial parent (typically the mother) and, in the case of
31
divorce, her level of conflict with the non-custodial parent (Amato, 1994). Single
parents often face extraordinary challenges to supplying adequate financial
resources in their children, developing a secure attachment with them, and
monitoring their behavior. When divorced parents remarry to form a step-family,
difficult negotiations sometimes ensue to resolve the step-child’s role ambiguity in
the reconstituted family (Cherlin, 1978). In particular, incomplete bonding with the
step-parent, competition with step-siblings, conflict between custodial and non-
custodial parents, and the absence of clear institutional rules for establishing
normative expectations within step-families conspire to put children at risk of having
strained or distant relations with both step- and biological parents (Furstenberg &
Cherlin, 1991; Aquilino, 1994). Indeed the legacy of divorce and remarriage
extends to adult parent-child relationships, as less economic and instrumental
support is exchanged with older divorced parents, step-parents, and remarried
biological parents than with older parents whose marriages were intact (Ganong &
Coleman, 1998; Pezzin & Schone, 1999; Aquilino, 2005). In summary, evidence
suggests that children raised in non-traditional families tend to experience a deficit
of attention, assistance, and affection from their parents and/or step-parents, the
effects of which are likely to persist into adulthood.
What role might grandparents play with respect to late adolescent and
young-adult children who were raised in family structures that elevate their risk of
negative outcomes? Can grandparents level the playing field for grandchildren at
risk? It is not uncommon for grandparents to increase their involvement with
grandchildren after marital disruption, with grandmothers in particular providing
child-care assistance to their divorced daughters (Gladstone, 1988; Johnson, 1988,
32
Casper & Bianchi, 2002). Grandparents, as both family insiders and outsiders, are
in a position to offer grandchildren a form of unconditional love that parents in non-
traditional families, because of conflicting responsibilities and time restrictions, may
be less able to demonstrate (Kornhaber & Woodward, 1981) than those in traditional
families. The role of grandparents in mitigating adjustment difficulties experienced
by children in non-traditional families has been documented with respect to
coresidence of grandparents (Solomon & Marx, 1995; Deleire & Kalil, 2002).
However, the large majority of grandchildren have not and never will coreside with
their grandparents, yet may still benefit from having them in their social networks as
attachment figures and sources of emotional support.
B. Research Questions and Expectations
The goal of this study is to identify whether close and supportive
relationships with grandparents reduce depressive symptoms and improve self-
esteem of their late adolescent and young adult grandchildren. I ask whether the
emotional and social strength of grandchild-grandparent relationships: (1) Improves
the emotional well-being of grandchildren, independent of the quality of their
relationships with parents; (2) Moderates the negative effects of having been raised
in a single-parent or step-parent family; and (3) Moderates the negative effects of
having emotionally distant relationships with parents.
C. Method
Sample
The data analyzed in this study were from the National Survey of Families
and Households (NSFH) (see Sweet, Bumpass, & Call, 1988 for design and
interview details). The NSFH began in 1987-88 as a nationally representative
33
survey of 13,007 adults. The NSFH followed up these respondents by telephone in
1992-1994 at which time their children were added to the sample. The group of
young adults were 18-23 years of age at the time of measurement (N=1,090). After
omitting forty-seven children who had no living grandparents and 118 with missing
data that could not be reasonably imputed, the sample for the current analysis
consisted of 925 late adolescent and young adult grandchildren. The analysis looks
at non-coresident grandparents. Characteristics of the sample of these older
grandchildren are presented in Table 3.1. About half the sample was female (51%),
most respondents (81%) were 21 years of age or older, 13% were African-
American, and 6% were Latino.
Table 3.1.
Characteristics of sample (N = 925) from National Survey of Families & Households
Variables Number Percent
Gender
Female 466 51.4
Male 459 49.6
Race/ethnicity
African-American 124 13.4
Latino 55 5.9
Other 746 80.7
Age
18 – 20 396 42.8
21 – 26 529 57.2
Educational achievement/aspiration
Less than college 344 37.2
College 318 34.4
More than College 263 28.4
Poverty ratio of family of origin
Below 2x poverty 161 17.4
2x to 4x poverty 303 32.7
More than 4x poverty 462 49.9
Structure of family of origin
Single-parent 94 10.2
Step-parent 258 27.9
Intact 573 61.9
34
Measures
Dependent Variables. Two domains of psychological well-being were
considered in this analysis, each of which taps a different manifestation of well-
being in young-adulthood: depressive symptoms to represent feelings of negative
affect and self-esteem to represent feelings of self-worth and efficacy. Depressive
symptoms were measured by seven items included in NSFH data from the Center
for Epidemiological Studies-Depression (CES-D) Scale (Radloff, 1977). The CES-D
is a series of self-reports of the frequency with which depressive and somatic
symptoms were experienced in the past week, rated on a scale of 0 to 7 days
(Andresen, Malmgren, Carter, & Patrick, 1994). Three of the seven items (feeling
depressed, sad, and lonely) formed a reliable set of indicators of depressed mood
with α = .87. I used principal components analysis to derive a standardized linear
additive factor score to represent the severity of depressive symptoms.
Self-esteem was measured with three items from the Rosenberg Self-
esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979). Respondents were asked to rate their agreement
with the following statements: “I am a person of worth”; “I do things as well as
others”; “I am satisfied with myself.” Statements were rated on a 1-5 scale with 1=
“strongly disagree“ to 5= “strongly agree.” Reliability of these items was reasonably
good with α = .73. A standardized factor score was created from these three items
to represent the construct of self-esteem. Standardizing both dependent variables
allowed a basis for comparing coefficients across the two psychological domains.
The correlation between depressive symptoms and self-esteem was -.172,
sufficiently low to suggest that these two constructs represented independent
domains of psychological well-being.
35
Independent Variables. Family structure of the child’s household was
operationalized with three categories defined by the marital status of the custodial
parent(s) when the child was growing up: single-parent families, step-parent
families, and intact families. Single-parent families consisted of never married
parents and divorced parents who never remarried as of the child’s eighteenth
birthday (N=94). Although children in each of the two subgroups in the single-
parent category differ in their marital and economic resources, there were not
sufficient numbers in each category to support separate analyses. Post hoc tests
excluding the smaller of the two subgroups (i.e., never married households)
produced no change in substantive results. Step-parent families were defined as
those in which an unrelated parent (usually a step-father) came into the household
before the child turned eighteen because the biological parent (usually the mother)
remarried (N=258). Young adults from intact families were identified as those who
grew up with the same parents in their homes until the age of eighteen (N=573).
Not surprisingly, the large majority (85%) of single-parent families were headed by
mothers. Children with continuously cohabitating parents were treated as being
from intact families because both parents were present in the household within a
stable union.
I assessed social cohesion with grandparents using three dimensions of
grandchild-grandparent relationships: strength of emotional closeness, frequency of
contact, and source of social support (see Silverstein, Giarrusso, & Bengtson, 1998;
Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006). Emotional closeness was determined by asking focal
children to rate how close they felt to each of up to four living grandparents on a
scale ranging from 0-10 where 0=“not at all close” and 10= “extremely close.” I
36
used the highest rating among available grandparents to represent the strongest
emotional bond with a grandparent (m = 7.5, sd = 2.6). Frequency of contact with
grandparents was measured by how often in the past year focal children saw their
maternal grandparents and/or their paternal grandparents. Responses were
evaluated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 = “not at all” to 5 = “more than once
per week.” I take the higher level of contact when both lineages are available (m =
3.1, sd = 1.2). To measure the extent to which grandparents serve as confidants,
the survey asked focal children how likely they would be to talk to one of their
grandparents if they had a major decision to make or felt depressed or unhappy.
Responses ranged on a five-point scale from “definitely wouldn't” to “definitely
would” (m = 2.5, sd = 1.3). These three items were reliable at α = .67. I used
principal components analysis to derive a factor score to represent cohesion with
grandparents. I note that since the three variables do not necessarily reference the
same grandparent, the measure of cohesion is a composite score that potentially
draws on all available grandparents. However, in practice the same grandparent is
typically referenced in all three measures. In order to account for differences in the
supply of grandparents, I control for the number of grandparents alive at the time of
the survey.
The quality of child-parent relationships was measured by children’s reports
about the quality of their relationships to mothers and/or fathers on a scale ranging
from 0-10, where 0= “really bad” and 10= “absolutely perfect.” When both mothers
and fathers are rated, I used the higher of the two reports. Due to severe skewness
in this measure (m = 8.5, sd = 1.4), I constructed a dichotomous variable that
denoted whether the relationship is of higher quality (1= “ratings between 8-10”) or
37
lower quality (0 = “ratings between 0-7”). Children with higher quality relationships
constituted 81.6% of the sample and those with lower quality 18.4%.
I also controlled for demographic characteristics and family resources
including gender (female vs. male), race/ethnicity (African American, Latino vs.
other—97% of whom were Caucasian non-Latino), and age (in years). Economic
resources of the child’s family of origin was indicated by total household income as
reported by the primary parent at W-1 divided by the 1980 federal poverty line
income for the particular household size. I ascertained educational achievement of
respondents by keying this measure to whether or not they had finished their
schooling. I used years of completed education for those who finished their
schooling and intended years of education for those who had not yet completed
their education. For 74 respondents who did not state their educational aspirations,
I imputed anticipated years of education from knowledge of their parents’
educational attainment.
D. Results
Three multiple regression models are estimated to predict each of the two
dependent variables, depressive symptoms and self-esteem. In the first model, I
include socio-demographic and family background characteristics, as well as
relationship quality with parents. The second model adds grandparent cohesion to
test whether its impact on psychological well-being is above and beyond that of the
parent-child relationship. To the third model I add terms that interact grandparent
cohesion with family structure and parental relationship quality.
I present estimates predicting depressive symptoms in Table 3.2. With
regard to the main effects of family structure shown in Model 1, I found that
38
respondents who were raised in step-families had significantly more depressive
symptoms than those raised in intact families; however, those raised in single-
parent families were no different than the latter. Thus, young-adult children who
derived from the family form characterized as most ambiguous—and not those from
the family form with the fewest adult guardians—experienced the greatest distress.
As expected, children whose relationships with parents were of higher quality,
experienced fewer depressive symptoms compared to those whose relationships
with parents were of lower quality, confirming that parents are still relevant for the
emotional well-being of their children in, or at the cusp of, adulthood.
Table 3.2.
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Depressive Symptoms (N=932)
Independent Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Female (ref = male) .194** .0190** .193**
African-American (ref = other) .075 .087 .084
Latino (ref= other) .312* .322* .318*
Age -.048** -.061*** -.061***
Education achievement/aspirations -.025 -.032 -.033
Family of origin poverty ratio (log) -.022 -.015 -.012
Single-parent family of origin (ref = intact family) .101 .103 .104
Step-parent family of origin (ref= intact family) .202** .212** .204**
Quality of relationship with parents -.372*** -.357*** -.377***
Cohesion with grandparents -.081** .102
Number of living grandparents -.057
Cohesion with grandparents * single-parent family -.206*
Cohesion with grandparents * step-parent family -.005
Cohesion with grandparents * quality of relationship with
parents
-.188*
Constant 1.652 2.165 2.180
R
2
.061 .072 .082
***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05
The results in Model 1 also revealed that depressive symptoms varied
significantly by gender, age, and ethnicity. That more symptoms were found among
females than males is congruent with research showing that women are more likely
than men to emotionally internalize their reaction to stress (Mirowsky, 1996).
39
Younger respondents reported more symptoms than older respondents, as late
adolescents experience uncertainty and difficulties in identity formation that subside
with the approach of more stable life-stages. Latinos exhibited greater depression
than white non-Latinos--possibly due to the stresses of acculturation. Somewhat
surprisingly, none of the socio-economic variables exerted a significant effect,
suggesting that depressive symptoms cut equally across social class and family
wealth.
I next added cohesion with grandparents and number of grandparents in
Model 2. Grandchildren with stronger ties to their grandparents tended to have
fewer depressive symptoms than those with weaker ties. Notably, this effect is
independent of the degree of emotional closeness between these children and their
parents. Finally, I added interactions with grandparent cohesion in Model 3. These
results showed that cohesion with grandparents had a more powerful effect in
reducing depressive symptoms among grandchildren who were raised in single-
parent families than among those raised in intact families. There is no interaction
with regard to step-family origins. I also found that cohesion with grandparents was
more strongly predictive of fewer depressive symptoms among grandchildren with
better quality relationships with their parents than among those with worse such
relationships.
Turning to multivariate analyses predicting self-esteem, I present estimated
coefficients in Table 3.3. Three models follow in the same order as that in the
previous analysis. In Model 1 I found that those with higher educational
achievement/aspirations and better quality relationships with parents had greater
self-esteem compared to their counterparts. The addition of variables for
40
grandparent cohesion and number of grandparents in Model 2 produced no
significant effects. Finally, interactions with grandparent cohesion entered in Model
3 were not statistically significant.
Table 3.3
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Self-Esteem (N=932)
Independent Variables Model1 Model2 Model3
Female (ref = male) -.033 -.036 -.035
African-American (ref = other) -.099 -.105 -.105
Latino (ref= other) -.146 -.148 -.157
Age .020 .020 .021
Education achievement/aspirations .106*** .108*** .107***
Family of origin poverty ratio (log) .044 .046 .047
Single-parent family of origin (ref = intact family) .141 .140 .139
Step-parent family of origin (ref= intact family) .000 .000 .000
Quality of relationship with parents .267*** .263*** .266***
Cohesion with grandparents .021 .014
Number of living grandparents -.014 -.015
Cohesion with grandparents * single-parent family -.069
Cohesion with grandparents * step-parent family -.016
Cohesion with grandparents * quality of relationship
with parents
.024
Constant -1.297 -1.287 -1.290
R
2
.076 .076 .077
***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05
E. Discussion
The central purpose of this investigation was to explore whether and under
what family conditions social and emotional cohesion with grandparents affected the
psychological well-being of late adolescents and young adults. My first hypothesis
concerning non-traditional family structure was confirmed. I found that close
relationships with grandparents reduced depressive symptoms, and that
grandchildren in single-parent families were the chief beneficiaries. In the face of
the depletion of adult guardians in the household and strained relationships with
parents, grandparents serve as functional substitutes in reducing distress among
young adults. These findings are in keeping with the notion that grandparents are
41
contingent resources who mobilize when the demands imposed by family deficits
outweigh the norm of non-interference typically associated with their role in the
United States.
In order to better appreciate and interpret the significant interaction between
grandparent cohesion and family structure, I plotted predicted values for depressive
symptoms based on coefficients in Model 3. The results shown in Figure 3.1
demonstrate a disordinal interaction pattern whereby those raised in single-parent
families had the most depressive symptoms of the three groups when cohesion with
grandparents was relatively weak, but the fewest symptoms when cohesion with
grandparents was relatively strong. This pattern not only supports research
showing that grandparents contribute to child well-being for children raised in single-
parent households, it also suggests that grandparents are better substitutes for the
absent parent—possibly because both the single-parent and the close grandparent
are more than likely to be women.
42
Figure 3.1.
Cohesion with Grandparents and Depressive Symptoms by Early Family Structure,
controlling for main effects
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Cohesion with Grandparents Factor
Score
Depressive Symptoms Factor
Score
Intact Family
Single-Parent
Family
Step-Parent
Family
The second hypothesis was not confirmed, and revealed a pattern opposite to what
was expected. I found that cohesion with grandparents reduced depressive
symptoms for grandchildren who were on better terms with their parents. This
interaction is plotted as predicted values in Figure 3.2. The benefits of having
stronger ties to grandparents accrue more rapidly for grandchildren who were also
emotionally closer to their parents, suggesting a cumulative advantage for
grandchildren who are simultaneously close to both generations. Rather than
compensate for problematic child-parent relations, grandparents tend to
complement good quality parental relationships and jointly reduce depression in
grandchildren. The figure also shows that having a stronger relationship with
43
grandparents increases depressive symptoms among grandchildren who have
poorer quality relations with their parents. I speculate that rifts with parents wide
enough to trigger close ties to grandparents may be indicative of family conflicts and
dysfunctions that serve as the underlying source of psychological distress in this
group.
Figure 3.2.
Cohesion with Grandparents and Depressive Symptoms by Quality of Parent-Child
Relationship, controlling for main effects.
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
Cohesion with Grandparents Factor
Score
Depressive Symptoms Factor Score
Poorer Quality
Relationship with
Parents (0-7)
Better Quality
Relationship with
Parents (8+)
The results have potential policy considerations as well. Since more than
half of all children who were born during the 1990s will spend some time living in a
single-parent household (Deleire & Kalil, 2002), grandparents represent important
resources to stabilize the shifting ground of family life that has resulted from the rise
in divorce and single parenting over the last several decades. Yet, outside of
gaining custody of their grandchildren, grandparents’ contributions to the emotional
44
health of their grandchildren go largely unacknowledged by the public and public
institutions. The findings demonstrate that children from single-family backgrounds
respond to grandparents as attachment figures, with emotional benefits that persist
into adulthood.
On the other hand, children in step-families—those with potentially the most
adult personnel when counting non-resident parents—experienced the most
depressive symptoms overall, and grandparent cohesion was of little consequence.
I speculate that grandparents on the non-custodial side of the family may be blocked
from visiting and bonding with their grandchildren by the custodial parent (Drew &
Smith, 1999). Step-grandparents may also resist involvement with their newly
acquired grandchildren, particularly if the step-union failed to bring about a blended
family. Paradoxically, the emergence of step-grandparents (undetected in the data)
may increase the supply of grandparents while diluting their family commitment.
Although research shows that parents of single-mothers often become more
involved with their grandchildren, the situation for remarried mothers may be very
different. Remarriage and the merging of families may detrimentally affect the
accessibility and quality of grandparent ties. Thus, the same reasons that produce
emotional difficulties for children in step-parent families may also render
grandparents less effective in remedying those difficulties.
This study provides support for the Multigenerational Practice Approach that
emphasizes assisting individuals, families and communities within the context of
cross-generational relations and large social systems to promote change which
strengthens the inherent capacities of the family system and supports the best
possible relationship between individuals and families and their environment
45
(Fredriksen-Goldsen, 2005). Still in its early stages of development, a
multigenerational practice approach provides a framework that urges practitioners to
work across generations to strength on the entire family as opposed to providing
intervention that may in the short-term benefit only one individual without an
understanding of long-term effects across generations. The objective of such an
approach is to promote health, development, and equality across multiple
generations through interdisciplinary practice, research, and community-based
partnerships (Fredriksen-Goldsen & Bonifas, 2005). By highlighting reciprocal
obligations, rights and influences between different generations, this perspective
“promotes the understanding of what processes lead to different outcomes for
families: the what, why and how of generational interactions and assistance and
how change and development occurs across multiple generations within families”
(Fredriksen-Goldsen & Bonifas, 2005, p.85). The ambition of a multigenerational
practice approach is to consider the contributions, needs, and requirements of each
generation both nationally and globally.
Several limitations to this research deserve to be noted. First, I relied
exclusively on grandchildren’s accounts in assessing relationships with
grandparents. Given that younger generations tend to underestimate the degree of
closeness in their relationships with older generations (Giarrusso & Bengtson,
1998), there may be distortions in cross-generational assessments by a single party
in the relationship. Grandparents also may contribute to their grandchildren in ways
that are unacknowledged by the their recipients, particularly if investments are made
indirectly through parents. Due to the single informant design, health, and
socioeconomic resources of grandparents—factors that may affect their ability to be
46
socially engaged with their grandchildren—are not included in my analysis. Second,
since my measure of cohesion with grandparents is contemporary, I cannot know
that grandparents were important when grandchildren where growing up in non-
traditional family structures. The terms of grandparent-grandchild relationships may
change considerably over the family life-course, as children grow more autonomous
from childhood to adolescence and then to adulthood. Third, potentially relevant
sub-groups were too small for meaningful analyses using the sample. More detailed
comparisons across race and ethnic groups and family structures (e.g., cohabiting
couples, stepfather families) will await future research. Finally, the cross-sectional
design of the analysis cannot rule out the competing hypothesis that grandchildren
who were free of depressive symptoms were better able to develop close
relationships with their grandparents.
In spite of these limitations, I am encouraged that the findings are consistent
with extant theories in the literature concerning the consequences of parental
absence for the successful development of children. I identified grandparents as a
potential resource for at-risk individuals just entering and in the early stage of
adulthood, a phase of life somewhat later than that considered by most research on
the effects of family structure. The capacity of grandparents to moderate the
influence of early family structure on depressive symptoms in adulthood is
suggestive of a “sleeper” effect that has been noted in other research with respect to
the delayed reaction of children to parental divorce (Cherlin et. al., 1998;
Hetherington et al., 1998). I found no evidence that grandparents affect self-
esteem, suggesting that this construct has deeper roots in contemporary status
47
achievement and primary relationships than in more distal factors of family structure
and extended family involvement.
This study provides evidence to support the notion that grandparents are
important to the lives of grandchildren in adulthood. In early childhood, relationships
with grandparents are largely determined by parents; in adulthood they are likely to
exist in a sphere separate to that of the parent-child relationship. Given the
voluntary nature of “mature” grandparent-grandchild relations (young adults are
largely responsible for initiating contact and negotiating relationship terms),
increases in family complexity and instability may induce greater numbers of adult
grandchildren to turn to their grandparents for the benefits they provide in terms of
warmth, support, and comfort.
Owing to increases in life-expectancy, the percentage of children who can
expect to reach adulthood with several grandparents still alive has increased
markedly throughout the last century (Uhlenberg & Kirby, 1998). Although not all
young adults have strong emotional bonds with their grandparents, this extended
period of co-survival has increased the potential for durable bonds and expanded
opportunities for support exchanges across non-adjacent generations (Szinovacz,
1998b). Evidence from this research serves as a platform to further investigate the
prolonged influence of grandparents on the well-being of their grandchildren in
different family systems and at various periods in the life-course.
48
Chapter Four: Cohesion with Grandparents and Behavioral Adjustment of
Grandchildren in Turbulent Home Environments
A. Introduction
Differences in life outcomes, some have argued, are largely determined by
the characteristics of the family, such as its composition, and social and economic
resources (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994; Cherlin, 2001). A family’s structure can
constrain the availability of parental resources such as the ability to spend time with
their children, be involved in educational activities, and expend monetary resources
that can promote positive educational outcomes and well-being (Schneider &
Coleman, 1993). Research has consistently shown that family structure and
functioning can facilitate or limit the ways in which parents are able to positively
influence the future outcomes of their children (Amato & Keith, 1991; Hines, 1997;
Amato, 2001; Sigle-Rushton & McLanahan, 2002). In this article, poor family
functioning could be best described as parental inability to provide a stable and
consistent environment for their children.
Family structure has been associated with a wide range of negative child
outcomes, ranging from immediate effects on educational performance and
behavior to long-term influences on socioeconomic status, marital satisfaction,
health, and educational attainment. The long reach of family structure on American
children is widely documented in the literature. The question that scholars still seek
to understand is: What is the mechanism for disadvantage caused by family
structure? The important pathways to consider are household conflict, low parental
involvement and monitoring, or other forms of poor family functioning. A persistent
finding in the literature reflects that a great deal of the differences in child outcomes
49
can be explained by income disparity. This paper looks at the mechanism for poor
child outcomes by family structure—poor family functioning—and seeks to
understand whether grandparents benefit grandchildren in turbulent home
environments.
Theoretical and Empirical Explanations for Children’s Behavioral Problems.
Resiliency Theory from an Evolutionary and Family System Perspective.
How are children able to thrive despite exposure to adverse circumstances?
Resiliency theory draws from evolutionary views pertaining to human adaptation and
recognizes self-righting tendencies of humans to act consciously in ways that offset
the harmful effects of adversity. Scholars that examine resilience pose that certain
characteristics of individuals and families are associated with a resilience process.
The resiliency perspective posits that an individual’s reaction to a stressor reflects
an interaction between the nature of the stressor and the individual’s capacity to
respond (Margolin, Oliver, & Medina, 2001). For example, a parent with high self-
esteem may be able to instill a strong sense of self in a child despite living in poverty
or having to cope with an ending marriage.
Consistent with evolutionary theory, resilience processes are considered to
be normally occurring functions of human adaptational systems (Masten, 2001).
There are mediation and moderation models of resilience process. With respect to
the effects of conflict in the home on behavioral adjustment in children, consistent
parenting would be a mediator of the effect of conflict on children. Family and child
characteristics, as well as those existing in the broader environment, are potential
moderators of the effects of adversity. To illustrate, positive assets (i.e. coping, high
self-esteem) of the child or grandparent (i.e. ability to devote time) may buffer the
50
effects of adversity on child outcomes. Resilient children and adolescents have
within their character or their environment protective factors that help buffer them
from negative forces or stress to which they are exposed (Masten & Coastworth,
1998; Rutter, 1985).
Little attention has been given in the family disruption literature to the
extraparental social support systems as protective factors that may buffer children
and adolescents from stressful family environments (Emery & Forehand, 1994). A
family systems perspective can help us to understand why children are able to
display resiliency. As families recalibrate to adapt to adverse circumstances,
grandparents may provide assets that parents are unable to offer to their children.
The resiliency model suggests that the presence of friends to confide in, attachment
to school, or a close relationship with a nonparental adult may serve a protective
function to adolescents who have experienced family transitions. Having a
nonparental adult upon whom one can count on is a protective factor (Werner, 1994;
Werner & Smith, 1982; 1992) and the extra resources, offered by grandparents, in
the form of money, time, or instrumental support, may allow the child to successfully
adapt to what may otherwise produce negative outcomes.
Mechanisms through which family structure leads to disadvantage.
Substantial turbulence in families can result from multiple changes across domains
of life. Turbulence can affect any area of the large family system and many
subsystems, depending on what type of turbulence is assessed. There are several
possible mechanisms through which family functioning might influence children's
behavioral outcomes—economic resources, parental socialization, and childhood
stress (Carlson & Corcoran, 2001).
51
Economic Status. Economic status is an important mediator of the effect of family
structure on child outcomes and has proven to result in negative consequences for
children (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997). Although fathers living away from their
children are expected to make regular payments to support them, almost two thirds
of single-mothers receive no child support (Sorensen, 1997). Female-headed
families with children are more than 5 times as likely to be poor as married couple
families with children-44.8% compared with 8.7% (Baugher & Lamison-White, 1996;
Casper & Bianchi, 2002), and their average family income is about one third that of
their married-couple counterparts, $15,400 compared with $44,600 (in 1989 dollars;
Committee on Ways and Means, 1996). Kathy Edin has conducted a wide range of
studies on how single-mothers make ends meet, showing many single mothers end
up with large monthly deficits no matter how creative they are with their money (Edin
& Lein, 1997; Jencks & Edin, 1990).
Children who experience persistent poverty face developmental deficits
(Korenman, Miller, & Sjaastad, 1995). One reason may be that low-income families
are not able to afford adequate food, shelter, and other material goods that foster
healthy cognitive and social development of children (Hanson, McLanahan, &
Thomson, 1997; Hill, Yeung, & Duncan, 2001). Family income also affects the type
of neighborhood in which families can afford to live, and children in higher income
communities are more likely to receive positive peer influences that encourage
achievement and prosocial behavior (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). In addition,
poverty and economic stress may lead to less effective parenting which, in turn, has
adverse consequences for children's development and adjustment (Conger et al.,
1992; Dodge, Petit, & Bates, 1994).
52
Socialization. The child's home provides a context where learning and socialization
take place, and apart from other variables, the quality and characteristics of the
home environment have vital consequences for child outcomes. A stimulating home
environment with opportunities for learning and exploration and that provides
warmth and emotional support will foster healthy growth and development of
children (Bradley, Caldwell, & Rock, 1988). When two parents are present in the
child's home, they share the responsibility of monitoring the child's activities and
providing encouragement and discipline as needed. When parents live apart, the
residential parent often becomes the primary (or sole) provider of both economic
and parental resources, and thus competing time demands necessarily entail less
investment in monitoring and socializing children. The nonresidential parent is less
proximate to the activities of the child and therefore has less regular interaction and
involvement in day-to-day activities. In addition, if there is high conflict in the home,
neither parent may engage in consistent parenting, which puts the child at risk for
developmental delays and behavioral problems.
Family stress. Family stress theory focuses on the roles that stress and coping play
in family development. Ineffective forms of coping within the family may erode
family resources and even produce new stressors, such as problem behavior in
children (McCubbin & Patterson, 1983). Changes in family organization and
circumstances cause stress in children's lives; this is because changes may lead to
modifications in family dynamics, organization, and roles that yield behavior
modifications for both children and adults (Elder, 1974; Hill, Yeung, & Duncan,
2001). Certain family events may directly increase children’s stress because of
observed conflict and tension between their parents, changes in household
53
composition, or changes in residential location (McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994). In
response to difficulties at home, children may disengage from the home
environment and receive less parental nurturing and socialization and may be more
susceptible to negative peer influences. Some researchers have posited that the
stress of family change is cumulative because any disruption requires readaption,
and therefore the number of family transitions has greater negative consequences
for children than any particular family structure experienced (Amato, 1993; Wu &
Martinson, 1993).
B. Research Questions and Expectations
First, I explore mechanisms for poor outcomes among grandchildren in
nontraditional households. Second, I investigate whether cohesion with
grandparents improves behavioral outcomes among children in turbulent home
environments, net of family structure or relationship with parents. In line with
models of resilience and family systems, the following hypotheses are tested in the
present study:
Hypothesis 1: Focal children from families with low family functioning or low
parental monitoring will exhibit more behavioral problems than those in high
functioning families.
Hypothesis 2: Focal children from these households will particularly benefit from
high grandparent involvement by exhibiting fewer behavioral problems than those
with low grandparent involvement.
54
C. Method
Sample
A sub sample from Waves 1 (1987-8) and 2 (1992-4) from the National
Survey of Families and Households (NSFH) will be used for this analysis. The
younger group of children was 5-10 years at W-1 and 10-17 at W-2 (N=1415). After
omitting seventy children who had no living grandparents and nineteen with missing
data that could not be reasonably imputed, the sample for the current analysis
consisted of 1,326 adolescent grandchildren. Characteristics of the sample of these
younger grandchildren are presented in Table 4.1. About half the sample was
female (51%), the average age of respondents was 13 years of age, 17.5% were
African-American, and 7.7% were Latino.
Measures
Dependent variable. This analysis examined behavioral problems among
adolescent focal children. In W-1, all respondents with more than one child chose
one child (i.e., focus child) when answering specific questions about their child’s
behavior. During W-2, the NSFH assessed parent report of behavior problems in
their focus children with 23 items from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth
Behavior Problems Index (Zill, 1990). The items comprising the BPI scale represent
some of the more common behavior syndromes in young people, namely, anti-
social behavior, headstrong, behavior, hyperactive behavior, anxious/depressed
behavior, and peer conflict/withdrawn behavior. See Table 2.3 for details on
subscales. The BPI was coded so that higher scores indicate more behavior
problems. Each item is rated on a 3-point scale ranging from not true to often true.
These items demonstrated sound reliability in the current study (Cronbach’s α =.95).
55
The BPI scores are based entirely on mothers’ reports, which means that
they reflect mothers’ perceptions of their children instead of objective measurements
of children’s actual behavior. Research demonstrates that mothers do provide valid
and reliable assessments about their children’s behavior (Bird, Gould, & Staghezza,
1992) and that earlier estimates of biased reports by mothers of their children’s
behavior may have been overstated (Richters, 1992). Principal components
analysis was used to derive a standardized linear additive factor score to represent
the global severity of behavioral problems. For each of the subscales, principal
components analysis was also used to derive a factor score for each of the five
common behavioral syndromes.
Two subscales consisting of internalizing and externalizing behavior among
children were also constructed from the BPI. Studies suggest that internalizing
behavior is relatively stable across childhood, but increases somewhat during
adolescence (Bongers, Koot, van der Ende, & Verhulst, 2003; Twenge & Nolen-
Hoeksema, 2002). There is also evidence that internalizing trajectories vary by sex,
with girls showing higher mean levels and sharper increases in internalizing
symptoms from childhood to adolescence than boys (Angold, Erkanli, Silberg,
Eaves, & Costello, 2002; Keiley, Lofthouse, Bates, Dodge, & Pettit, 2003).
Childhood fear, shyness, and emotional reactivity/inhibition to novelty have been
shown to reliably predict concurrent and later internalizing problems at clinical and
symptomatic levels (Colder, Mott, & Berman, 2002; Kagan, Snidman, Zentner, &
Peterson, 1999; Prior, Smart, Sanson, & Oberklaid, 2000). Exposure to harsh
discipline and marital discord also increases the likelihood that children will develop
internalizing problems (Buehler, Anthony, Krishnakumar, & Stone, 1997; Capaldi,
56
1992; Davies & Windle, 2001; Shaw, Keenan, Vondra, Delliquadri, & Giovannelli,
1997). Recently, several studies have shown that temperament interacts with
environmental characteristics to predict internalizing behavior. Morris et al. (2002)
found internalizing problems in children who were high in irritable distress and had
mothers who used high levels of psychological control, and Shaw et al. (1997) found
that preschool boys’ depressive behaviors were predicted by the interaction
between high temperamental negative emotionality and exposure to parental
conflict. These studies suggest that an emotional, fearful temperament interacts
with characteristics of the family environment to predict internalizing problems.
Findings on the developmental course of externalizing behavior have been
more mixed. Different studies indicate decreasing or increasing externalizing
behavior from early childhood to adolescence depending on the measure, reporting
agent, and age span used (e.g., Loeber, Burke, Lahey, Winters, & Zera, 2000;
Munson, McMahon, & Spieker, 2001). Overall, most studies find that boys have
higher mean levels of externalizing behavior than girls (Broidy et al., 2003), though
there is some evidence that growth rates may differ by sex, with the gender gap
closing over time (Galambos, Baker, & Almeida, 2003). In the coercion model, the
primary pathway to child and adolescent externalizing problems is through
reciprocal, coercive interchanges between the child and parent (Patterson, Reid, &
Dishion, 1992). Within this model, harsh discipline has been identified as a key
variable in accounting for variance in child externalizing outcomes (Eddy &
Chamberlain, 2000; Keiley et al., 2003). Simons, Chao, Conger, and Elder (2001)
examined change in delinquent behavior across four waves of data from age 12/13
to age 15/16 and found that harsh parenting predicted growth trajectories of
57
delinquency. Harsh parenting is often correlated with maternal depression and
marital discord, but each has been shown to have independent effects on
externalizing behavior (Burke, 2003; Marchand, Hock, & Widaman, 2002). As with
internalizing problems, research is beginning to show that family environment and
temperamental characteristics interact to predict externalizing problems. Bates et
al. (1998) found that child impulsive/unmanageable temperament more strongly
related to later externalizing problems when parents used unrestrictive,
noncontrolling parenting strategies. Lengua, Wolchik, Sandler, and West (2000)
found that inconsistent parental discipline was most strongly related to externalizing
problems for children high on impulsivity. Thus, family environment characteristics
and impulsive temperamental characteristics appear to jointly contribute to later
externalizing problems.
Independent variables. Predictor variables considered in these models
include grandparent cohesion, family functioning, and known predictor variables. In
the end, parents serve as gatekeepers and facilitators of children’s opportunities to
interact with others outside the family (Furstenberg, Cook, Ecclers, Elder, Sameroff,
1999).
Family Functioning. During W-2, family functioning of the child’s home of origin was
operationalized into several scales defined by conflict in the home when the
grandchild was growing up. Multiple changes across domains of life can result in
substantial turbulence for families. These kinds of changes can include family
composition changes, residential mobility, and changes in school or child care
arrangements for the children, and periods of unemployment for the parent(s).
(Family solidarity can affect any area of the social context of families, depending on
58
what type of cohesion is assessed.) Home environment is measured through
reports of five statements about the family. The report comes from the FC’s mother.
For each statement, tell me whether it is not at all true, a little true, pretty true, or
very true about your family: 1) Our family has fun together; 2) Things are tense and
stressful in our family; 3) Family members show concern and love for each other; 4)
Family members feel distant and apart from each other; and 5) Our family works
well together as a team (very true=4; not at all true=1). Cronbach’s alpha α=.76.
Parental Involvement. Time spent with child was operationalized into a 4-item scale
defined by the various activities where a parent was involved with their child
measured at times 1 & 2. The mother’s report was taken from the amount of time
spent with child (1=never; 6=everyday) doing the following tasks: 1) activities away
from home; 2) help read or do homework; 3) play at home/work on project; and 4)
have private talks (only ages 12 & up). Cronbach’s alpha α=.62.
Parental Expectations. Expectations of the child was measured at W-1 and W-2 by
a 12-item scale defined by various tasks that the parent feels the child should do.
The mother’s report was taken from how important it was to them that the child: 1)
following family rules; 2) do well in school; 3) be independent; 4) be
considerate/kind; 5) control temper; 6) do what parent asks; 7) carry out
responsibilities; 8) do well with music, art, & drama; 9) keep busy alone; 10) get
along with other kids; 11) do well in athletics; and 12) try new things (1=not
important, 7=extremely important).
Parental Praise. Praise of child was operationalized at W-1 and W-2 by a 2-item
scale asking how often the mother praises or hugs the child (1=never, 4=very often).
59
Parental Discipline. During W-1, discipline was operationalized by a 2-item scale
asking how often the mother yells or spanks/slaps the child (1=never, 4=very often).
Eating meals together. This scale (W-2) consisted of the mother’s report of 2 items
of how often she ate breakfast or dinner with child (1=never, 6=almost everyday).
Grandparent Cohesion. I assessed social cohesion with grandparents using three
dimensions of grandchild-grandparent relationships: strength of emotional
closeness, frequency of contact, and source of social support at W-2 (see
Silverstein, Giarrusso, & Bengtson, 1998; Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006). Emotional
closeness was determined by asking focal children to rate how close they felt to
each of up to four living grandparents on a scale ranging from 0-10 where 0=“not at
all close” and 10= “extremely close.” I used the highest rating among available
grandparents to represent the strongest emotional bond with a grandparent (m =
7.5, sd = 2.6). Frequency of contact with grandparents was measured by how often
in the past year focal children saw their maternal grandparents and/or their paternal
grandparents. Responses were evaluated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 =
“not at all” to 5 = “more than once per week.” I take the higher level of contact when
both lineages are available (m = 3.1, sd = 1.2). To measure the extent to which
grandparents serve as confidants, the survey asked focal children how likely they
would be to talk to one of their grandparents if they had a major decision to make or
felt depressed or unhappy. Responses ranged on a five-point scale from “definitely
wouldn’t” to “definitely would” (m = 2.5, sd = 1.3). These three items were reliable at
α = .62. I used principal components analysis to derive a factor score to represent
cohesion with grandparents. I note that since the three variables do not necessarily
reference the same grandparent, the measure of cohesion is a composite score that
60
potentially draws on all available grandparents. However, in practice the same
grandparent is typically referenced in all three measures. In order to account for
differences in the supply of grandparents, I control for the number of grandparents
alive at the time of the survey.
Controls. Several control variables need to be included in the models. Family
structure of the child’s household was operationalized with three categories defined
by the marital status of the custodial parent(s) when the child was growing up:
single-parent families, step-parent families, and intact families. Single-parent
families consisted of never married parents and divorced parents who never
remarried as of the child’s recent birthday (N=365). Although children in each of the
two subgroups in the single-parent category differ in their marital and economic
resources, there were not sufficient numbers in each category to warrant separate
analyses. Post hoc tests excluding the smaller of the two subgroups (i.e., never
married households) produced no change in substantive results. Step-parent
families were defined as those in which an unrelated parent (usually a step-father)
came into the household before the child turned eighteen because the biological
parent (usually the mother) remarried (N=249). Young adults from intact families
were identified as those who grew up with the same parents in their homes (N=712).
Not surprisingly, the large majority (95%) of single-parent families were headed by
mothers. Children with continuously cohabitating parents were treated as being
from intact families because both parents were present in the household within a
stable union.
The quality of parent-child relationships was measured at W-2 by children’s
reports about the quality of their relationships to mothers and/or fathers on a scale
61
ranging from 0-10, where 0= “really bad” and 10= “absolutely perfect.” When both
mothers and fathers are rated, I used the higher of the two reports (m = 8.0, sd =
1.3). I also controlled for demographic characteristics and family resources
including gender (female vs. male), race/ethnicity (African American, Latino vs.
other—98% of whom were Caucasian non-Latino), and age (in years). Economic
resources of the child’s family of origin was indicated by total household income as
reported during W-2 divided by the federal poverty line income for the particular
household size. Research has convincingly demonstrated a strong relationship
between levels of income and child well-being. Higher levels of income are clearly
associated with better outcomes for children (Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997).
Table 4.1.
Characteristics of sample (N = 1326) from National Survey of Families & Households.
Variables Mean (SD) Percent
Gender 51
Female 49
Male
Race/ethnicity
African-American 17.5
Latino 7.7
Other 74.8
Age 13 (2.3)
Structure of family of origin
Parental Involvement, Wave 1 (ranges 4-24) 16.3 (4.5)
Parental Involvement, Wave 2 (ranges 5-30) 19.8 (5.0)
Parental Praise (ranges 2-8) 7.3 (1.0)
Parental Discipline (ranges 2-8) 4.6 (1.3)
Parental Expectations, Wave 1 (ranges 7-84) 68.0 (8.6)
Parental Expectations, Wave 2 (ranges 7-84) 65.4 (9.2)
Eating Meals Together, Wave 2 (ranges 2-13) 10.1 (3.2)
D. Results
First, I examined family functioning variables that are thought to be related to
child behavioral problems. Table 4.2 displays the relationship between several
62
family functioning measures during W-1 and W-2 and behavioral problems at W-2.
During W-1, greater discipline was related to more behavioral problems while
greater praise was related to fewer behavioral problems. Among the W-2
measures, eating more meals together, higher parental expectations, and more
positive family functioning were all related to fewer behavioral problems among
children. Surprisingly, the parental involvement scales at both waves (amount of
time spent with child) had no significant relationship to child behavioral problems.
Since a majority of the literature speaks of parental contributions in terms of time
and money, this is unexpected. However, it is important to note that at the same
time more and more children experience family disruption, the amount of time
parents report with their children has increased (Casper & Bianchi, 2002). In other
words, amount of time spent with child may not be a good predictor of child
outcomes.
Table 4.2
Bivariate Correlations Predicting Behavioral Problems, National Survey of Families &
Households
Wave 1
Parental discipline .23***
Parental praise -.37***
Parental involvement (time with child) -.04
Parental expectations scale -.01
Wave 2
Eating meals together -.09*
Parental involvement (time with child) -.07
Parental expectations scale -.16***
Family functioning (home environment) -.37***
***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05
63
Other preliminary analysis showed that the effects of the family functioning
variables on behavioral problems would disappear once key sociodemographic
variables were taken into account. However, the scale that measured family
functioning of the home environment had an extremely strong relationship to child
behavioral outcomes. Therefore, low scores on this scale were determined to be a
“risk factor” for behavioral problems among children and was explored further in
multiple regression analyses. Low scores were operationalized as those with
scores in the lower turtile.
Several multiple regression models with interaction terms are estimated to
predict the dependent variable, behavioral problems. In the first model, I include
grandchild characteristics, and the second model adds family of origin
characteristics. The third model adds intergenerational characteristics and the
fourth model adds an interaction term of grandparent cohesion and the family
functioning (home environment) scale.
I present estimates predicting the global behavioral problem score in Table
4.3. With regard to the main effects of grandchild characteristics shown in Model 1,
I found that female respondents and African-American respondents (compared to
White) had fewer behavioral problems. The results in Model 2 revealed that fewer
behavioral problems were related to higher income and children from stepparent
households or households with low family functioning scores had more behavioral
difficulties.
Intergenerational characteristics were explored in Model 3. There was no
significant relationship between ties to grandparents, number of living grandparents,
distance from grandparents, and behavioral problems. Finally, I added an
64
interaction term with grandparent cohesion in Model 4. The results show that
cohesion with grandparents interacts with home environment to reduce behavioral
problems of grandchildren more in higher conflict homes that in low conflict homes.
This final model explains 15% of the variance in behavioral problems among
adolescents.
Table 4.3
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Behavioral Problem Index (23 items;
N=1,326; W-2)
Independent Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Grandchild Characteristics
Female (ref = male) -.27*** -.26*** -.29*** -.29***
African-American (ref = other) -.24*** -.21** -.25** -.25**
Latino (ref= other) -0.09 -0.12 -0.13 -0.13
Age -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.02
Family of Origin Characteristics W-2
Family of origin poverty ratio (log) -.03** -.02* -.02*
Low family functioning
(ref= high family functioning)
.63*** .65*** .67***
Single-parent family of origin
(ref = intact family)
0.07 0.03 0.02
Step-parent family of origin
(ref= intact family)
.20** .17* .16*
Intergenerational Characteristics W-2
Quality of relationship with parents -.05** -.05*
Grandparent geographic closeness
(within 1 hour)
0.01 0.01
Cohesion with grandparents 0.06 .11*
Number of living grandparents -0.05 -0.05
Grandparent cohesion * low family
functioning
-.17*
Constant 0.35 0.25 0.73 0.7
R
2
0.03 0.12 0.14 0.15
***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05
Turning to multivariate analysis predicting scores on the five behavioral
problem subscales, I present estimated coefficients in Table 4.4. Females
65
consistently scored lower on four of the five subscales (antisocial, headstrong,
hyperactive, peer problems) but there was no statistically significant difference on
the anxious/depressed subscale. African-American adolescents scored lower on
two (anxious/depressed, headstrong) of the five subscales. Children of younger
ages scored lower on the headstrong scale. Children with higher income of family
of origin scored lower on the antisocial, hyperactive, and peer problems subscale. A
lower score on the family functioning scale was related to lower reports of all five
subscales. Children from single and stepparent families scored lower on the
antisocial scale compared to those from intact families. A closer relationship with
parents improved scores on four scales (antisocial, anxious, headstrong, peer
problems) but not on the hyperactive scale. Cohesion with grandparent actually
increased scores on the antisocial and hyperactive subscales. A greater number of
living grandparents was related to lower hyperactive subscale scores. In the
interaction term with grandparent cohesion, low family functioning was shown to
reduce antisocial and anxious subscales, showing that greater cohesion with
grandparents reduce behavioral problems for that group.
Table 4.4
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Behavioral Problem Index Subscales
(N=1,326)
Independent Variables Antisocial Anxious Headstrong Hyperactive Peer Problem
Grandchild Characteristics
Female (ref = male) -.40*** -.03 -.15* -.41*** -.23***
African-American (ref = other) .10 -.35*** -.37*** -.15 -.08
Latino (ref= other) .09 -.11 -.11 -.15 -.10
Age .01 -.01 -.03* -.02 -.01
Family of Origin Characteristics
Family of origin poverty ratio (log) -.02* -.01 -.01 -.03* -.03**
66
Table 4.4, Continued
Low family functioning
(ref=high family functioning)
.55*** .62*** .55*** .49*** .42***
Single-parent family of origin
(ref=intact family)
.14* .07 -.00 .00 -.12
Step-parent family of origin
(ref=intact family)
.21** -10 .14 .11 .10
Intergenerational Characteristics
Quality of parent relationship -.03* -.05* -.05* -.02 -.04*
Grandparent geographic
closeness (within 1 hour)
.01 .01 .00 .00 .01
Cohesion with grandparents .11* .06 .08 .17*** -.04
Number of living grandparents -.05 -.01 -.04 -.08* -.02
Grandparent cohesion * low
family functioning
-.13* -.18* -.12 -.10 -.03
Constant .24 .21 .94 .71 .55
R
2
.13 .11 .11 .12 .07
***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05
I present estimated coefficients for externalizing and internalizing behaviors
among children. Both models showed similar results with grandparents reducing
behavior problems for children from low functioning families. Granddaughters and
African-Americans in the sample had fewer behavioral problems than grandsons
and Caucasians in the sample. There was no statistically significant difference
between intact and single parent families, but children from stepfamilies reported
more externalizing behaviors than those from intact families. Closer relationship
with parents was related to fewer externalizing behaviors and more social
involvement with grandparents was related to more externalizing behaviors. It
appears that family relationships have more of a role in predicting externalizing than
internalizing behaviors. Still, both types of behavior problems were worsened by
those in low functioning households.
67
Table 4.5
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Externalizing and Internalizing Problem
Behaviors (N=1,326)
Independent Variables External Internal
Grandchild Characteristics
Female (ref = male) -.27*** -.13*
African-American (ref = other) -.24** -.28***
Latino (ref= other) -.18 -.07
Age -.02 -.01
Family of Origin Characteristics
Family of origin poverty ratio (log) -.02* -.02
Low family functioning (ref= high family functioning) .63*** .62***
Single-parent family of origin (ref = intact family) .03 .04
Step-parent family of origin (ref= intact family) .18* .10
Intergenerational Characteristics
Quality of relationship with parents -.04** -.03
Grandparent geographic closeness (within 1 hour) -.02 -.07
Cohesion with grandparents .12* .06
Number of living grandparents -.05* -.01
Grandparent cohesion * low family functioning -.19* -.18*
Constant .75 .36
R
2
.13 .11
***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05
E. Discussion
The central intention of this study was to explore whether cohesion with
grandparents improved the behavior of adolescents from turbulent home
environments. My first hypothesis concerning family function was partially
confirmed. I discovered that some measures of family functioning were associated
with higher behavioral problems among children. Surprisingly, parental involvement
(time with child) scales were not related to behavioral problems among children.
The second hypothesis was confirmed because children in high conflict homes were
greater beneficiaries of grandparent cohesion. Cohesion with grandparents is
68
particularly advantageous for children in households with low family functioning (i.e.
high conflict).
Returning to the mechanisms for disadvantage stated early in this paper,
grandparents may assist with the economic, socialization, and stress issues that
may arise in a tense family environment. Income was related to fewer behavior
problems among children and adolescents. Given the advent of social security and
pensions (Uhlenberg & Kirby, 2005), many grandparents are financially in the
position to contribute to the household and improve the overall economic well-being.
Socialization appears to be a problem in tense home environments, resulting in
grandchildren exhibiting poor behavioral adjustment. Perhaps the stimulating and
warm environment necessary for the growth and development of children is
compromised among parents who are strict disciplinarians or those with low
expectations for their children. In the households examined in this study,
grandparents may provide mentors and offer socialization for grandchildren who
might not otherwise receive it. A family stress model argues that ineffective coping
mechanisms may produce problems in children. When a grandchild is experiencing
a stressful transition, grandparents may offer respite from the nuclear family, an
outlet to express frustration. It is very possible that grandparents are providing
financial, social, and instrumental support to these households, and provides a
buffer for grandchildren who would otherwise exhibit a great deal of behavioral
problems at home and in school.
Behavioral problems put grandchildren at disadvantage for many poor
outcomes that will follow them through life. Amato (2003) has proposed a crisis
(short-term) and chronic strain (long-term) model for children who experience family
69
disruption. An unresolved issue in the literature of the 1990s was whether family
disruption represents a temporary crisis to which most individuals adapt or a source
of chronic strains that persist indefinitely. Family disruption may benefit some
individuals, lead others to experience temporary decrements in well-being that
improve over time, and forces others on a downward cycle from which the might
never fully recover. It is possible that for some children, the strain continues over
time into a cumulative disadvantage (for work on theories of cumulative advantage
and disadvantage, see O’Rand, 1996; Dannefer, 2003). Adolescents with
behavioral problems fare worse in school and are much less likely to complete high
school. Behavioral problems among children also strain relationships in the family
and with teachers at school. The fact that grandparents are able to reduce
behavioral problems in turbulent home environments provides support for the buffer
hypothesis. It may also break the chain of disadvantage that could result in chronic
strain from which adolescents may experience life-long disadvantage.
Grandparents in the United States have not moved to the periphery of family
life. The contributions grandparents make to their families are quite tangible, and
the intangible resources, such as providing a role model for grandchildren, can
serve a powerful role in the child’s development. Resiliency theory would argue that
grandchildren may be able to thrive despite exposure to adverse circumstances in
the home because of grandparents. The extra resources offered by grandparents
appear to greatly promote the well-being of grandchildren in households with high
conflict and tension. An evolutionary view of human adaptation would argue that
grandparent presence helps children to adapt and put their life in perspective. The
availability of grandparents as family “outsiders” may supply the extra parenting or
70
mentoring that children need to develop successful and avoid developing behavioral
problems. This investigation provides evidence to support the notion that
grandparents are important to the lives of young grandchildren in turbulent home
environments, independent of family structure or parental relations. Grandparents
reduce behavioral problems of children in a disadvantaged situation and may put
them on a long-term trajectory for success in school and life.
71
Chapter Five: Grandparents and Educational Aspirations of Grandchildren
A. Introduction
Educational aspirations represent the perception of opportunity for many
children. Education is valuable form of human capital, and scholars (Becker, 1993;
Coleman, 1988) use this measure as one of the valuable inputs that increases a
child’s likelihood of succeeding. A child who has trouble adjusting to school is likely
to form a negative impression of education. Whereas a child who is healthy, and
socially and academically prepared is more likely to come to school each day ready
to tackle the tasks at hand and accustomed to following a scheduled routine. Early
academic struggles can continue through high school (Mulkey, Crain, & Harrington,
1992) and affect attainment of a college degree. This paper explores whether
grandparents influence educational aspirations, which are related to educational
status attainment of grandchildren.
Educational status attainment is the process of acquiring positions in
educational hierarchies, and this area has received substantial attention by social
scientists over the last three decades (e.g., see Blau and Duncan 1967; Sewell &
Hauser, 1980; Spenner & Featherman, 1978). Gecas and Seff (1990) identify
status attainment research as a prominent line of family research dealing with
educational aspirations of youth. Much of the recent status attainment research
contends that family characteristics significantly influence a student’s abilities and
level of schooling (Rumberger 1983; Wilson, Peterson, & Wilson, 1993). According
to this view, children learn expectations, values, and behaviors in family contexts
that prepare them for performance in school, occupational placement, and work
experience which, in turn, affects their adult attitudes and values (Otto, 1986). A
72
family’s socioeconomic status (SES), for example, plays a substantial role in
shaping a child’s success in school and in influencing his or her occupational
choices. Consequently, young people are more prepared for, often aspire to, and
achieve levels of educational status comparable to those of their parents (Kohn &
Schooler, 1983). The goal of this study is to apply social and human capital theory
to understand whether grandparents improve educational aspirations of
grandchildren.
Theoretical Explanations for Intergenerational Resemblance in Educational
Aspirations & Attainment
Evolutionary Biology and Creation of Human Capital. Grandparents may
have a strong evolutionary incentive to ensure the well-being and success of future
generations by encouraging grandchildren to accrue human and social capital. The
evolutionary view that grandparents have a vested interest in their grandchildren
has been explored in introductory chapter of this dissertation. This section
considers Coleman’s notion of social and human capital and ways that grandparents
may work to ensure continuity or improvement in human capital among
grandchildren.
Coleman’s Notion of Social Capital. James Coleman and his colleagues have
created a valuable framework for understanding educational attainment (Coleman,
1990, 1988; Coleman & Hoffer, 1987; Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore, 1982).
Coleman’s (1988) research confirms that family background plays a central role in
the academic success and aspirations of children. Specifically, he argues that
family background influences can actually be disaggregated into three important
components that are provided to children: 1) financial capital; 2) human capital; and
73
3) social capital. Financial capital is the wealth and income that the family
possesses, or resources that facilitate the child’s access to activities that might
enhance achievement. Human capital, a second component of family background,
can be measured by the educational level of parents, a measure that provides some
clues about the cognitive environment to which children might be exposed and from
which the young might learn. Social capital, the third component of family
background, consists of the strength and availability of family relationships, such as
the parent and grandparent (Coleman, 1988).
These relationships within the family system represent the norms, the social
networks, and the relationships between adults and children that are valued by
children as they grow up (Coleman, 1990). Coleman’s notion of social capital is
useful because it provides a conceptual link between the attributes of individual
actors and their immediate social contexts, such as family, school, and community.
The concept of social capital has increasingly been used to help explain successful
and unsuccessful development among at-risk adolescents (Coleman, 1988;
Furstenburg & Hughes, 1995). The assumption here is that by investing in the
economic, psychological, and social resources that are believed to be linked to
successful development, individuals, families, and communities can significantly
affect outcomes. Coleman used the idea to refer to the various social mechanisms
that can be garnered to enhance the opportunities of the young for success. Just as
investment in personal skills and resources (or human capital) improve individuals’
labor market prospects, so investment in social resources (or social capital) will
improve the life chances of individuals. Coleman argued that individuals embedded
74
in dense and bounded social networks are more likely to accumulate social capital.
This paper argues that grandparents are a valuable form of social capital in families.
Coleman (1988) contends that social capital may enable or constrain certain
goals. The relative access to social capital might account for within-group
differences and shed light on why adolescents who grow up in particular families or
communities are more likely to behave in a manner that enhances their educational
progress. Human capital often includes things such as gender, age, academic
achievement, religiosity, and levels of self-esteem, all of which can help shape
aspirations and behaviors. Social capital indicators at the family level refer to
factors like parental interest and investment in academic performance, family
cohesion and support, involvement with extended family members, and the
presence of two parents in the home. Social capital at the community level includes
the kinds of economic, psychological, and social resources that groups can mobilize
to help “protect” adolescents from negative outcomes. The availability of prosocial
role models, the presence or absence of job opportunities, neighborhood
opportunities and constraints, and the level of social organization/disorganization
are all influential at the larger cultural level.
Family Social Capital. Coleman often investigated how social capital (principally the
interactional and collective order) operates to facilitate the creation of human capital
(largely individual) among children. Academic achievement is enhanced by the
investment of economic, psychological, and social resources that begins early in life
and usually within the family environment. Included in the notion of family social
capital are relationships between parents and children that rely on attention and
presence of parents. Social capital is built up in the family when parents are more
75
involved and supportive. Seminal work by Coleman (1988) provides the empirical
data to support the argument that dropping out of high school increases as the
number of deficiencies in family social capital increases (even when the human and
financial capital attributes of the family are held constant). Instead of deficiencies in
the financial and human capital areas of the family, he concludes that
disadvantages in family social capital are principally responsible for the academic
problems experience by youth today (Coleman, 1990; Coleman & Hoffer, 1987).
Community Social Capital. The family must be considered within the context of
broader external environments that play a vital role in explaining patterns of family
structure and process. Human capital variables should be explored within the family
and community context (Furstenburg & Hughes, 1995; Jessor, 1993). Although few
have approached the subject from a social capital perspective, studies have
suggested that communities are crucial forces in affecting the aspirations and
achievement of youth (Beaulieu & Israel, 1997). Opportunities are greater in larger-
sized, more complex communities (Lane, 1968), and the educational and
occupational aspirations of youth tend to be higher among urban and small town
residents than among those residing in rural areas (Sewell, 1964; Cobb, McIntyre, &
Pratt, 1989). Coleman (1991) discovered that children from single-parent families
look more like their two-parent counterparts when schools are supported by
communities with extensive social capital. Social capital in a community comes in
the form of concern and interest that adult members have in the activities of other
individuals’ children. Evidence of community based social capital include such
things as: (1) the enforcement of norms deemed important to families, schools, or
the communities by adults; (2) adults who listen to adolescents when the young are
76
hesitant to discuss issues with their parents; (3) the monitoring of students’ activities
by non-family adults who are members of the community; and (4) the provision of
community-sponsored programs for youth that foster positive, productive
environments for spending time and energy (Coleman and Hoffer 1987). These
communal resources allow for greater supervision of children and may be partially
responsible for the benefit that grandchild experience when grandparents are
present.
B. Research Questions and Expectations
The main goal of this study is to determine whether greater cohesion with
grandparents improves education aspirations of grandchildren. Based on
assumptions from Coleman’s theory of social capital, it is expected that greater
cohesion with grandparents will increase the education aspirations of grandchildren,
independent of the educational achievement of their family of origin. In turn,
grandparent support, as a form of social capital, may result in greater human capital
(education) attainment of grandchildren.
C. Method
Sample
The subsample for this analysis is comprised of 1,215 subjects from the
National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH). This analysis uses data from
all three waves, where the younger group of children was 5-10 years at Wave 1, 10-
19 at Wave 2 (N=1090), and 18-35 at Wave 3 (N=1833). Characteristics of the
sample of these younger grandchildren are presented in Table 4.1. Over half the
sample was female (53%), the average age was 16.4 years of age or older, 12%
were African-American, and 4% were Latino.
77
Table 5.1.
Characteristics of sample (N = 1,215) from National Survey of Families & Households.
Variables Mean (SD) Percent
Gender
Female 53
Male 47
Race/ethnicity
African-American 12
Latino 4
Other 84
Age 16.4 (4.4)
Maternal educational achievement (0-20 years) 13.2 (2.2)
Parent-child relationship 8.0 (1.6)
Structure of family of origin
Single-parent 24
Step-parent 22
Intact 54
Number of living grandparents 2.6 (1.0)
Measures
Dependent Variable. Educational aspirations were measured with
following question: “How much education do you think you will eventually
complete?” Aspirations ranged from 0 (no education) to 20 years (doctorate
degree) and were measured at Wave 3. It is important to note, that for some of the
grandchildren in this sample, their reports for educational aspirations may reflect
their education attainment because they have reached an age where they may
know they will no longer continue their schooling.
Independent variables. Predictor variables include key sociodemographic
variables, grandparent cohesion, family structure, and maternal education.
Maternal Educational Achievement. The literature supports that the maternal
educational achievement is the most powerful predictor of a child’s education
aspirations and achievement. Maternal education was measured at W-1 of the
78
NSFH, and the variable asks for number of years of completed education, ranging
from 0-20 years. The average for this sample was 13 years.
Grandparent Cohesion. I assessed social cohesion with grandparents using three
dimensions of grandchild-grandparent relationships: strength of emotional
closeness, frequency of contact, and source of social support (see Silverstein,
Giarrusso, & Bengtson, 1998; Silverstein & Ruiz, 2006). Emotional closeness was
determined by asking focal children to rate how close they felt to each of up to four
living grandparents on a scale ranging from 0-10 where 0=“not at all close” and 10=
“extremely close.” I used the highest rating among available grandparents to
represent the strongest emotional bond with a grandparent (m = 7.5, sd = 2.6).
Frequency of contact with grandparents was measured by how often in the past
year focal children saw their maternal grandparents and/or their paternal
grandparents. Responses were evaluated on a five-point scale ranging from 1 =
“not at all” to 5 = “more than once per week.” I take the higher level of contact when
both lineages are available (m = 3.1, sd = 1.2). To measure the extent to which
grandparents serve as confidants, the survey asked focal children how likely they
would talk to one of their grandparents if they had a major decision to make or felt
depressed or unhappy. Responses ranged on a five-point scale from “definitely
wouldn’t” to “definitely would” (m = 2.5, sd = 1.3). These three items were reliable at
α = .67. I used principal components analysis to derive a factor score to represent
cohesion with grandparents. I note that since the three variables do not necessarily
reference the same grandparent, the measure of cohesion is a composite score that
potentially draws on all available grandparents. However, in practice the same
grandparent is typically referenced in all three measures. In order to account for
79
differences in the supply of grandparents, I control for the number of grandparents
alive at the time of the survey.
Other Predictor Variables. Several control variables need to be included in the
models. Family structure of the child’s household was operationalized with three
categories defined by the marital status of the custodial parent(s) when the child
was growing up: single-parent families, step-parent families, and intact families.
Overall, a majority of evidence suggests that being in a non-traditional family can be
a disadvantage for a child about to enter formal schooling, a disadvantage that may
persist for years. Non-traditional family structure appears particularly problematic
for young children as the cognitive and social behaviors developed early on persist
throughout childhood and in later life (Manski et al., 1992). Single-parent families
consisted of never married parents and divorced parents who never remarried as of
the child’s eighteenth birthday (N=292). Although children in each of the two
subgroups in the single-parent category differ in their marital and economic
resources, there were not sufficient numbers in each category to warrant separate
analyses. Post hoc tests excluding the smaller of the two subgroups (i.e., never
married households) produced no change in substantive results. Step-parent
families were defined as those in which an unrelated parent (usually a step-father)
came into the household before the child turned eighteen because the biological
parent (usually the mother) remarried (N=267). Young adults from intact families
were identified as those who grew up with the same parents in their homes until the
age of eighteen (N=656). Not surprisingly, the large majority (91%) of single-parent
families were headed by mothers. Children with continuously cohabitating parents
80
were treated as being from intact families because both parents were present in the
household within a stable union.
Geographic closeness to grandparent was measured with a dummy variable
indicating whether the grandchild had at least one grandparent within 60 miles
(approximately 1 hours driving distance). The quality of parent-child relationships
was measured by children’s reports about the quality of their relationships to
mothers and/or fathers on a scale ranging from 0-10, where 0= “really bad” and 10=
“absolutely perfect.” When both mothers and fathers are rated, I used the higher of
the two reports (m = 8.5, sd = 1.4). I also controlled for demographic characteristics
and family resources including gender (female vs. male), race/ethnicity (African
American, Latino vs. other—97% of whom were Caucasian non-Latino), and age (in
years). Economic resources of the child’s family of origin was indicated by total
household income as reported by the primary parent at W-1 divided by the federal
poverty line income for the particular household size. SES serves, in essence, as
an important environmental condition for aspirations and achievements (Smith,
1993) in the sense that children from higher SES families are socialized to value
educational achievement more extensively than youngsters who are less
advantaged (Wagenaar, 1987). A parent’s socioeconomic status (or the family’s
location in the broader social structure) is the primary contributor to the educational
advancement of youth.
81
D. Results
Several multiple regression models are estimated to predict the dependent
variable, educational aspirations. In Model 1, I include sociodemographic
characteristics and Model 2 examines family of origin characteristics. Models 3 and
4 add intergenerational characteristics and an interaction term, respectively, to test
whether the impact on education aspirations is beyond the family of origin
educational attainment.
I present estimates predicting educational aspirations in Table 5.2. With
regard to the main effects of sociodemographic variables in Model 1, I found that, as
expected, younger children and women had higher education aspirations. The
results in Model 2 revealed that income and maternal educational attainment were
both positively related to child’s education aspirations. After family of origin
characteristics were controlled in Model 2, the Latino group became significant,
reporting higher educational aspirations than other subgroups. Quality of
relationship with parents and grandparents were added in Model 3. Surprisingly,
neither had an effect on educational aspirations in Model 3. However, in Model 4,
when an interaction term between gender and grandparent cohesion was added,
grandparent cohesion became significant in the opposite direction expected. Closer
relationships with grandparents were related to lower education aspirations for the
overall population. However, when you look at granddaughters, it was discovered
that closer grandparent relations were related to higher education aspirations.
Granddaughters appear to benefit more from involvement with grandparents than
grandsons. The final model explains 11% of the variance in educational aspirations.
82
Table 5.2
Unstandardized Regression Coefficients Predicting Grandchild Educational Aspirations
(Wave 3)
Independent Variables Model1 Model2 Model3 Model4
Age -.03* -.03** -.03** -.04**
Female (ref = male) .29** .36*** .34*** .35***
African-American (ref = other) -.00 .10 .12 .13
Latino (ref= other) .11 .79** .76** .76**
Maternal educational achievement (0-20 years) .18*** .18*** .17***
Family of origin poverty ratio (log) .04*** .04*** .04***
Single-parent family of origin (ref = intact family) .09 .06 .07
Step-parent family of origin (ref= intact family) -.14 -.14 -.14
Quality of relationship with parents -.05 -.05
Grandparent geographic closeness (within 1 hour) -.16 -.16
Number of living grandparents .02 .01
Cohesion with grandparents -.07 -.25**
Grandparent cohesion * granddaughter .30**
Constant 5.00 2.47 3.06 3.08
R
2
.01 .10 .11 .11
***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<.05
E. Discussion
The basic question in this paper was: How do grandparents shape the
education aspirations of their grandchildren? The expectation that grandparents
would positively impact grandchildren’s education aspirations globally was not well
supported in the models. Rather, the models showed that as a whole, greater
cohesion with grandparents was related to lower education aspirations for
grandchildren. However, it was found that for granddaughters in particular, closer
social and emotional ties with grandparents are related to higher educational
aspirations.
Both evolutionary biology and Coleman’s notion of social and human capital
in the development of family capital can help us better understand this
83
phenomenon. Specifically, the results support the notion that grandparents are an
important form of social capital for granddaughters, independent of generational
education achievement or family structure. Grandsons may be less likely to seek
out grandparents if they are struggling in school or at home. Maternal grandmothers
and granddaughters are known to have the closest relationship of all the
grandparent relationships. As a result of this closeness, perhaps grandmothers
have the greatest capacity to improve educational outcomes among this group.
Consistent through the models was how financial capital (family income) increased
education aspirations of grandchildren.
Grandparents represent a valuable form of family social capital and
contribute to community capital. However, grandparent investment of economic,
psychological, and social resources may only enhance the academic achievement
of particular groups. In the models explored, granddaughters appear to be the chief
beneficiaries of grandparent investment. Family social capital is cumulative and
perhaps the models are not identifying key determinants of social capital that may
be lacking in families. Surprising, family structure, an important form of social
capital, did not predict educational aspirations when basic sociodemographic
variables were taken into account.
The “grandmother hypothesis” and “paternal (un)certainty” from evolutionary
biology are instrumental in the interpretation of why grandmothers may be inclined
to increase human capital (grandchild educational attainment) among
granddaughters in the family. Grandmothers are the chief contributors to the
grandparent cohesion variable in this analysis. In the “grandmother hypothesis,”
grandmothers have a beneficial effect on the reproductive success of children and
84
grandchildren. A caveat to this hypothesis is the principle of “paternal certainty,”
where elder women (grandmothers) can be absolutely sure that they are the genetic
grandmothers of their daughters’ children. With regard to sons’ children, this
security does not exist. There is considerable empirical evidence that this basic
difference deeply influences familial relationships (Euler, Hoier, & Rohde, 2001;
Gaulin, McBurney, & Brakeman-Wartell, 1997). It could be argued from an
evolutionary biology perspectives that grandparents, particularly maternal
grandmothers, may over-emphasize relationships with granddaughters. Maternal
grandmothers can assume with 100% certainty that the offspring of granddaughters
have genetic relation to them. Developing human capital through educating
granddaughters in the family may be a way to ensure success of future generations
in the family in the same genetic line. This is just one explanation using the
principle of “paternal certainty.”
Grandchild relationships with grandparents represent another form of social
capital which may benefit them directly or indirectly through their parents.
Grandparents may also reinforce an already strong family situation, serving a
“redundant” function in families or provide a unique “outlet” resource apart from the
nuclear family. Children with greater access to forms of social capital are more likely
to make successful transitions to adult roles and to succeed socially and
psychologically (Schneider & Coleman, 1993). Grandparents can empower parents,
develop effective social norms, and provide lines of expertise and communication
within the family. In theory, investments made in social capital by members inside
or outside the household will play a pivotal role in developmental adaptation of
children.
85
Chapter 6: Discussion and Conclusions
A. Summary
While grandparent-grandchild relations have remained a topic of fascination
in the literature, little research has explored how grandparents impact child
outcomes. Each of the three papers in this dissertation has made a meaningful
contribution to our knowledge about the role of grandparents in shaping the lives of
their grandchildren. Specifically, the first paper use a family systems perspective to
understand how relationships with parents and cohesion with grandparents work
together to improve psychological outcomes of grandchildren in single-parent
homes. The second paper used resiliency theory to demonstrate that grandparents
reduce behavioral problems for grandchildren growing up in turbulent home
environments. The third paper utilized bioevolutionary and Coleman’s theory of
social capital to understand why greater cohesion with grandparents could increase
the educational aspirations of granddaughters but not grandsons.
As a whole, this dissertation demonstrated that the availability and support of
grandparents has the capacity to improve psychosocial outcomes of grandchildren
during times of disruption or disadvantage in the family. There is wide consensus in
the literature that family disruptions have placed adolescents and young adults at
risk of psychological, social, and economic distress (Amato & Booth, 1997;
Bumpass, 1990; Cooney & Uhlenberg, 1990). This dissertation has provided
empirical evidence for the hypothesis of grandparents as stress buffers in the family.
The proposed conceptual framework—family systems, bioevolutionary perspectives,
and resiliency theory—all relate to the findings in this dissertation.
86
B. Limitations
As described in the second chapter of this dissertation, the dataset used for
the analyses—the NSFH—presents several strengths and weaknesses that are
important to note. Specifically, the main strength is that the sample is nationally
representative and includes over samples of minority groups and nontraditional
families. If future analyses could use more specialized datasets, the results could
be examined in more specific groups such as Puerto Ricans or farm families. As is
the case with numerous longitudinal studies, NSFH looked less and less like the
general population as the survey went on. Whenever it is possible to include
“refresher samples” in the sample, it can improve the generalizability of the data.
Another sampling limitation was that only one focal child was included in the data. It
would have been a strength to include multiple perspectives from several children in
the household surveys.
Another weakness was the shortened nature of measures in the dataset.
Because of pressure to include many scales, more breadth and less depth of
measures became standard throughout the waves. Traditional 20-item CESD
scales were often changed for smaller 7 or 10 item scales. In additional, the sample
measures were not included at every time wave. This often occurred for practical
reasons, such as the age of grandchild. Certain measures, such as the Rosenberg
self-esteem scale, have decreasing reliability for younger children. Measures of
behavior problems ask different items depending on age. Children under the age of
five have different items and are not asked questions about behavior at school or
with teachers. Therefore, it was extremely difficult to examine change over time
unless proxy scales were used.
87
C. Implications for Current Knowledge and Future Research
This dissertation adds to the cumulative body of knowledge and bears
implications for future research by demonstrating the relationship between
grandchild well-being and involvement with grandparents. Social researchers who
plan to study this topic should consider the factors raised by this dissertation.
Specifically, the dissertation as a whole collectively makes the following
contributions:
First, the dissertation asserts that family structure partially influences a
grandchild’s ability to benefit from the grandparent relationship. As demonstrated by
the first empirical paper, single-parent families and grandparent cohesion interact to
result in lower depressive symptomology among young adults. From a systems
perspective, the contribution of grandparents to grandchildren reverberates through
the entire system. This is a valuable contribution to the literature on family structure
and child outcomes.
Second, this dissertation demonstrates that greater cohesion with
grandparents improved the behavioral reports of adolescents in turbulent home
environments. The extra resources offered by grandparents appear to greatly
promote the well-being of grandchildren in households with high conflict and
tension. An evolutionary view of human adaptation would argue that grandparent
presence helps children to adapt and put their life in perspective. The availability of
grandparents as family “outsiders” may supply the extra parenting or mentoring that
children need to develop successful and avoid developing behavioral problems.
This investigation provides evidence to support the notion that grandparents are
88
important to the lives of grandchildren in turbulent home environments, independent
of family structure or parental relation. Grandparents reduce behavioral problems of
children in a disadvantaged situation and put them on a long-term trajectory for
success in school and life.
Third, the dissertation provides evidence to suggest that for granddaughters
in particular, closer social and emotional ties with grandparents are related to higher
educational aspirations. Evolutionary biology and Coleman’s notion of social and
human capital in the development of family capital can help use better understand
this phenomenon. Specifically, the results support the notion that grandparents are
an important form of social capital for granddaughters, independent of generational
education achievement or family structure. Grandsons may be less likely to seek
out grandparents if they are struggling in school or at home. Maternal grandmothers
and granddaughters are known to have the closest relationship of all the
grandparent relationships. Grandparents represent a valuable form of family social
capital.
From evolutionary biology, the “grandmother hypothesis” and “paternal
(un)certainty” offer just one interpretation of why grandmothers may be inclined to
increase social (psychosocial outcomes) and human capital (grandchild educational
attainment) among grandchildren, particularly granddaughters, in the family.
Maternal grandmothers are the chief contributors to the grandparent cohesion
variable in this dissertation. Through the “grandmother hypothesis,” grandmothers
have a beneficial effect on the reproductive success of children and grandchildren.
However, today it appears that both grandmothers and grandfathers are displaying
a greater interest in the well-being of grandchildren. This may result in a joint effort
89
to improve outcomes of all children. However, a caveat to the grandmother
hypothesis is the principle of “paternal certainty,” where older women
(grandmothers) can be absolutely sure that they are the genetic grandmothers of
their daughters’ children. It could be argued from an evolutionary biology
perspectives that grandparents, particularly maternal grandmothers, may over-
emphasize relationships with granddaughters. Maternal grandmothers can assume
with 100% certainty that the offspring of granddaughters have genetic relation to
them. Developing human and social capital through supporting all grandchildren in
the family may be a way to ensure success of future generations in the family in the
same genetic line.
It is especially important to consider theoretical frameworks that can account
for the influence of grandparents on grandchildren at different points in develop.
This dissertation has utilized perspectives from multiple disciplines to explain how
grandparents ensure the success of grandchildren. While no single model can
account for all the possible predictors of grandchild outcomes, the focus on family
systems and evolutionary biology provides an umbrella for understanding the
circumstances in which grandparents interact and encourage grandchildren.
The practice and policy implications of this research are more difficult to
interpret. The results do not universally indicate the grandparents are beneficial for
all grandchildren. Rather, in the case of psychological and behavioral outcomes,
they are beneficial during family disruption, and in the case of educational
aspirations, they are beneficial for granddaughters. It would be unwise to
recommend that intergenerational interaction uniformly benefits grandchildren. In
many of the models, grandparent involvement was associated with worse outcomes
90
for the entire population, but with further investigation, it was discovered that
grandparents benefit particular groups. With this in mind, there are several
therapeutic interventions and programmatic strategies that might remedy the risk of
poor outcomes among grandchildren “at risk”. Multigenerational practice, an
emerging modality of therapeutic intervention, formally adheres to the principle of
intergenerational interdependence in which the strengths and challenges of each
generation have consequences for the health and well-being of all generations in
the family (Fredriksen-Goldsen & Bonifas, 2005). Family therapists and other holistic
professionals recognize both the risks and the resources embodied in
intergenerational relationships. In particular, this dissertation suggests that for some
families therapeutic interventions go beyond the nuclear family to capitalize on
grandparents and other extended family members whose resources can be
mobilized for the benefit of children.
Proponents of intergenerational programming have made claims for many
years that participation makes a positive difference in the lives of those involved. At
a time when families are increasingly fragmented by divorce and marital instability
and when grandparents often live at a distance from their grandchildren, the
importance of intergenerational relationships in society (as contrasted with
intergenerational relationships in families) has deepened, resulting in calls to
broaden the civic engagement of older adults in the wider community. Indeed, as
Achenbaum (2005) noted, ‘‘intergenerational activities have sprung up in virtually
every community in the United States’’ (p. 147). One prime example of this
phenomenon is Generations United, a national membership organization focused on
91
educating policymakers and the public at large on the value of intergenerational
programs for the well-being of all generations.
Generations United aims at the largely untapped resources represented by
older adults as ‘‘surrogate’’ or ‘‘fictive’’ grandparents to youth who may otherwise be
vulnerable to harmful social forces in their families, homes, and communities. Older
adults who serve as volunteers in schools, leaders in community groups, and
mentors in after-school programs may offset the risk to children who face
developmental challenges related to family stressors and weak community
infrastructures. In designing and implementing programs or therapeutic
interventions, it is my hope that this dissertation will challenge family life professions
to expand their intervention strategies to encompass multigenerational resources for
disadvantaged children. Mental health professionals will do well to consider how
family services and treatments are limited if they assume that childhood and
adolescent development depend only on relations within the nuclear family. Creative
solutions that promote social integration of grandparents in distressed families may
improve the lives of depressed patients and their children—and possibly the lives of
grandparents as well. If the legacy of family disruption is not immutable, such
interventions have the potential to ripple through the family system and benefit
multiple generations.
The literature on the effect of intergenerational programming on child health,
attitudinal, and education outcomes leads to the following conclusion: much is not
yet known. Examining health outcomes, the national program “Family Friends,”
established by the National Council on Aging in the mid-1980s, used older
volunteers mentoring parents of children with disabilities. The program has since
92
expanded to include families experience several forms of disadvantage (such as
teen mothers), and evaluation reports give some evidence that families have fewer
contacts with physicians and few days in the hospital than when they began the
program (Rinck & Hunt, 1997). In some cases, children experience higher self-
esteem through the program. The national program “Experience Corps” uses older
adult volunteers in low-income elementary schools. Teacher evaluations of child
academic outcomes indicate the children improve on basic literacy, comprehension,
and language development skills. Children also have increased self-confidence,
improved behavior, more regular attendance, and better socialization skills
(Waddock & Freedman, 1998). Attitudinal outcomes have been the largest focus of
proponents of intergenerational programming. There a large body of literature on
this topic, but it is not clear in its message. Some studies demonstrate more positive
attitudes toward aging after program participation (Bales, Eklund, & Siffin, 2000)
while others indicate the opposite (Barton, 1999). It appears that length of program
has dramatic impact on whether it yields positive results (Couper, Sheehan, &
Thomas, 1991). As mentioned previously, intergenerational programming yields
mixed results and this also appears the case for grandparent involvement as seen in
this dissertation.
This dissertation has provided some firm empirical evidence for the ways
that grandparents contribute to the well-being of grandchildren. With the increasing
availability of longitudinal data, future analyses may be able to track these effects
over the life course. Future studies should attempt to include the various contexts
within which grandparent relations are beneficial to grandchildren, and continue to
conduct longitudinal studies to examine this dynamic. It would further be valuable to
93
conduct similar analyses using cross-national data sets and attempt to explain the
role of national culture in shaping the value of grandparent relations and benefits to
grandchildren.
94
References
Achenbaum, W. A. (2005). Older Americans, vital communities: A bold vision for
societal aging. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Aldous, J. (1985). Parent-adult child relations as affected by the grandparent status.
In V. L. Bengtson & J.F. Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood (pp. 117-132).
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Aldous, J. (1995). New Views of Grandparents in Intergenerational Contact.
Journal of Family Issues, 16: 104-22.
Amato, P. R. & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and the well-being of children: A
meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 26-46.
Amato, P. R. (1993). Children’s adjustment to divorce: Theories, hypotheses, and
empirical support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55, 23-38.
Amato, P. R. (1994). Father-child relations, mother-child relations, and offspring
psychological well-being in early adulthood. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 56, 1031-1042.
Amato, P. R. (1996). Life-span adjustment of children to their parents’ divorce.
Journal of Children and Divorce, 4, 143-180.
Amato, P.R. and A. Booth (1997). A Generation at Risk: Growing up in an Era of
Family Upheaval. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Amato, P. R. (2001). Children and divorce in the 1990s: An update of the Amato
and Keith (1991) meta-analysis. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 355-370.
Amato, P. R. (2003). The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children. In A.S.
Skolnick & J.H. Skolnick (Eds.), Family in Transition (pp. 190-213). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Andresen, E. M., Malmgren, J. A., Carter, W. B., & Patrick, D. L. (1994). Screening
for depression in well older adults: Evaluation of a short form of the CES-D
(Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression Scale). American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 10, 77-84.
Angold, A., Erkanli, A., Silberg, J., Eaves, L., & Costello, E.J. (2002). Depression
scale scores in 8-17-year-olds: Effects of age and gender. Journal of Child
Psychology, Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 43, 1052–1063.
Aquilino, W. S. (1994). Later life parental divorce and widowhood: Impact on young
adults’ assessment of parent-child relations. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 56, 908-922.
95
Aquilino, W. S. (2005). Impact of family structure on parental attitudes toward the
economic support of adult children over the transition to adulthood. Journal
of Family Issues, 26, 143-167.
Astone, N. M., & McLanahan, S. S. (1991). Family structure, parental practices, and
high school completion. American Sociological Review, 56, 309-320.
Bales, S.S., Eklund, S.J., & Siffin, C.F. (2000). Children’s perceptions of elders
before and after a school-based intergenerational program. Educational
Gerontology, 26, 677-689.
Barton, H. (1999). Effects of an intergenerational program on the attitudes of
emotionally disturbed youth toward the elderly. Educational Gerontology, 25,
623-640.
Bates J.E, Pettit, G.S., Dodge, K.A., & Ridge, B. (1998). Interaction of
temperamental resistance to control and restrictive parenting in the
development of externalizing behavior. Developmental Psychology, 34, 982–
995.
Baugher, E., & Lamison-White, L. (1996). Poverty in the United States, 1995
(Current Population Reports, p. 60, No. 194). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, U. S. Bureau of the Census.
Beaulieu, L.J. & Israel, G. D. (1997). Strengthening Social Capital: The Challenge
for Rural Community Sustainability. In Rural Sustainable Development in
America, Edited by I. Audirac (pp. 191-223). New York: Wiley.
Becker, G.S. (1993). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with
special reference to education (3
rd
ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Beise, J. (2005). The role of grandmothers in child mortality. In Voland, E.,
Chasiotis, A., & Schiefenhovel, W. (Eds.) Grandmotherhood: The
Evolutionary Significant of the Second Half of Female Life. Rutgers
University Press.
Bengtson, V. L. & Robertson, J. F. (1985). Grandparenthood. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Bengtson, V. L., & Allen, K. (1993). The life course perspective applied to families
over time. In P. Boss, W. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. Schumm, & S. Steinmetz
(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach
(pp. 469-498). New York: Plenum Press.
Bengtson, V.L. (2001). Beyond the nuclear family: The increasing importance of
multigenerational bonds. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(1), 1-16.
96
Bengtson, V.L., Biblarz, T.J., & Roberts, E.L. (2002). How families still matter.
Cambridge, UK; Cambridge University Press.
Bianchi, S.M., Hotz, V.J., McGarry, K. & Seltzer, J.A. (2007). Intergenerational Ties:
Alternative Theories, Empirical Findings and Trends, and Remaining
Challenges. In A. Booth, N. Crouter, S. Bianchi, and J. Seltzer (eds.) Caring
and Exchange Within and Across Generations. Washington DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Bird, H. R., Gould, M. S., & Staghezza, B. (1992). Aggregating data from multiple
informants in child psychiatry epidemiological research. Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 78-85.
Blau, P., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York:
John Wiley.
Bongers, I.L., Koot, H.M., van der Ende, J., & Verhulst, F.C. (2003). The normative
development of child and adolescent problem behavior. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 112: 179–192.
Bradley, R.H., Caldwell, B.M., & Rock, S.L. (1988). Home environment and school
performance: A ten-year follow-up and examination of three models of
environmental action. Child Development, 59, 852-867.
Broidy, L.M., Nagin, D.S., Tremblay, R.E., Bates, J.E., Brame, B., Dodge, K.A.,
Fergusson, D., Horwood, J., Loeber, R., Laird, R., Lynam, D., Moffitt, T.,
Pettit, G.S., & Vitaro, F. (2003) Developmental trajectories of childhood
disruptive behaviors and adolescent delinquency: A six-site, cross-national
study. Developmental Psychology, 39: 222–245.
Brown, L. H. (2003). Intergenerational influences on perceptions of current
relationships with grandparents. Journal of Intergenerational Differences, 1,
95-112.
Bryson, K., & Casper, L. M. (1998). Co-resident Grandparents and Their
Grandchildren: Grandparent Maintained Families. U.S. Bureau of the
Census: Population Division Working Paper No. 26.
Bryson, K., & Casper, L. M. (May 1999). Co-resident Grandparents and
Grandchildren. Census Bureau Current Population Reports, P23-198, 1.
Buehler, C., Anthony, C., Krishnakumar, A., & Stone, G. (1997). Interparental
conflict and youth problem behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Child &
Family Studies, 6: 223–247.
Bumpass, L. (1990).What’s Happening to the Family? Demography, 27(4), 483-498.
97
Burke L. (2003). The impact of maternal depression on familial relationships.
International Review of Psychiatry, 15: 243–255.
Capaldi D.M. (1992). The co-occurrence of conduct problems and depressive
symptoms in early adolescent boys: II. A 2-year follow-up at Grade 8.
Development & Psychopathology, 4: 125–144.
Carlson, M. J. & Corcoran, M. E. (2001). Family Structure and Children’s
Behavioral and Cognitive Outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(3):
779-792.
Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2002). Continuity and change in the American
family. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Cherlin, A. K., & Kiernan, K. E. (1995). The long-term
effects of parental divorce on the mental health of young adults: A
developmental perspective. Child Development, 66, 1614-1634.
Cherlin, A. (1978). Remarriage as an incomplete institution. American Journal of
Sociology, 84, 634-650.
Cherlin, A. & Furstenberg, F. F. (1985). Styles and strategies of grandparenting. In
Bengtson, V.L. and Robertson, J.F., (Eds), Grandparenthood (pp. 97–116),
Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA.
Cherlin, A. & Furstenberg, F. F. (1986). The new American grandparent: A place in
the family, a life apart. New York: Basic Books.
Cherlin, A.J., Chase-Lansdale, P., & McRae, C. (Apr., 1998). Effects of Parental
Divorce on Mental Health Throughout the Life Course. American
Sociological Review, 63(2), 239-249.
Cherlin, A. J. (1999). Public and Private Families, An Introduction (2
nd
ed.). Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill Co.
Cherlin, A. J. (2001). Public & private families. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Cicchetti, D. & Toth, S. (1998). Perspectives on Research and Practice in
Developmental Psychopathology. In W. Damon, I.E. Siegel, & K.A.
Renninger (Eds). Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Child Psychology in
Practice (5
th
ed.), New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cobb, R.A., McIntyre, W.G., & Pratt, P.A. (1989). Vocational and Educational
Aspirations of High School Students: A Problem for Rural America.
Research on Rural Education, 6, 11-15.
98
Colder, C.R., Mott, J. A., & Berman, A. S. (2002). The interactive effects of infant
activity level and fear on growth trajectories of early childhood behavior
problems. Development & Psychopathology, 14, 1–23.
Coleman, J.S. (1991). Parental involvement in education. Policy Practice Series
(June).
Coleman, J.S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Press of Harvard University.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social Capital in Creation of Human Capital. American
Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Coleman, J. S. & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and Private High Schools:
The Impact of Communities. Basic Books, New York.
Coleman, J.S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High School Achievement. New
York: Basic Books.
Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. (1996). 1996
green book: Overview of entitlement programs. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office.
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., Elder, G. H., Lorenz, F. O., Simons, F. L., &
Whitebeck, L. B. (1992). A family process model of economic hardship and
adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526-541.
Cooksey, E.C., Menaghan, E.G., & Jekielek, S.M. (1997). Life-course effects of
work and family circumstances in children. Social Forces, 76(2), 637-67.
Cooney, T.M., & Uhlenberg, P. (1990). The role of divorce in men’s relations with
their adult children after mid-life. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52,
677–688.
Couper, D., Sheehan, N. & Thomas, E. (1991). Attitude toward old people: The
impact of an intergenerational program. Educational Gerontology, 17, 41-53.
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (2003). Understanding families as systems. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 12, 193-196.
Cox, M.J., Paley, B., & Harter, K. (2001). Interparental conflict and parent-child
relationships. In J. Rich & F. Fincham (Eds.) Child development and
interparental conflict. (pp. 249-272). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cox, D. & Stark, O. (2005) On the demand for grandchildren: tied transfers and the
demonstration effect. Journal of Public Economics, 89(9-10), 1665-1697.
99
Cox, D. (2007). Biological Basics and the Economics of the Family. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 21(Spring), 91-108.
Crimmins, E., Hayward, M.D. & Saito, Y. (1994). Changing Mortality and Morbidity
Rates and the Health-Status and Life Expectancy of the Older Population.
Demography, 31(1), 159-175.
Dannefer, D. (2003). Cumulative advantage/disadvantage and the life course:
Cross-fertilizing age and social science theory. Journal of Gerontology, 58b,
S327-S337.
Davies, P.T., & Windle, M. (2001). Interparental discord and adolescent adjustment
trajectories: The potentiating and protective role of intrapersonal attributes.
Child Development, 72, 1163–1178.
DeLeire, T., & Kalil, A. (2002). Good Things Come in Threes: Single-parent
multigenerational family structure and adolescent adjustment. Demography,
39(2), 93-412.
Denham, T. E., & Smith, C. W. (1989). The influence of grandparents on
grandchildren: a review of the literature and resources. Family Relations,
38, 345-350.
DaVanzo, J. & Rahman, M.O. (1993). American Families: Trends and Correlates.
Population Index, 59(3), 350-386.
Doblhammer, G. & Oeppen, J. (2003) Reproduction and longevity among the British
peerage: the effect of frailty and health selection, Proceedings of the Royal
Society, London: Biological Sciences, 7, 1541–1547.
Dodge, K.A., Petit, G.S., & Bates, J.E. (1994). Socialization mediator of the relation
between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child
Development, 65, 649-665.
Dornbusch, S.M., Ritter, P.L., Leiderman, P.H., Roberts, D.F., & Fraleigh, M.J.
(1987). The relation of parenting style to adolescent school performance.
Child Development, 58, 1244-1257.
Drew, L .A., & Silverstein, M. (2004). Intergenerational role investments of great-
grandparents: Consequences for psychological well-being. Ageing and
Society, 24, 95-111.
Drew, L. A., & Smith, P. K. (1999). The impact of parental separation/divorce on
grandparent/grandchild relationships. Intergenerational Journal of Aging and
Human Development, 48, 191-205.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
100
Eddy, J.M., Chamberlain, P. (2000). Family management and deviant peer
association as mediators of the impact of treatment condition on youth
antisocial behavior. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 68, 857–
863.
Edin, K. & Jencks, C. (1990). The Real Welfare Problem. The American Prospect,
1(1), 31-50.
Edin, K. & Lein, L (1997). Making Ends Meet: How Single Mothers Survive Welfare
and Low-Wage Work. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Eggebeen, D. J. & Hogan, D. P. (1990). Giving between generations in American
families. Human Nature, 1(3), 211-232.
Eisenberg, A. (1988). Grandchildren’s perspectives on relationships with
grandparents: the influences of gender across generations. Sex roles 19:
207-17.
Elder, G. H., Jr., & Johnson, M. K. (2002). Perspectives on human development in
context. In C. von Hofsten, & L. Backman (Eds),. Psychology at the turn of
the millennium, vol. 2: Social, developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp.
153- 172). Florence, KY: Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
Elder, G. H., (1994). Time, human aging, and social change: Perspectives on the
life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 4-15.
Elder, G. H. (1974). Children of the Great Depression: Social change in life
experience. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Emery, R.E. & Forehand, R. (1994) Parental divorce and children’s well-being: A
focus on resilience. In: R.J. Haggerty et al., (Eds), Stress, risk, and resilience
in children and adolescents (pp. 100–146). Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Enos, D. M., & Handal, P. J. (1986). The relation of parental marital status and
perceived family conflict to adjustment in white adolescents. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 820-824.
Euler, H.A., Hoier, S., & Rohde, P.A. (2001). Relationship specific closeness and
intergeneration family ties: Findings from evolutionary psychology and
implications for models of cultural transmission. Journal of Cross-culture
Psychology, 32, 147-58.
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I. & Bonifas, R. (2005). Multigenerational Practice and
Curricular Infusion. Journal of Intergenerational Relationships, 3, 83-99.
101
Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I. (2005). Multigenerational Health, Development, and
Equality. Gerontologist, 45, 125-130.
Furstenberg, F., & Cherlin, A. (1991). Divided families: What happens to children
when parents part. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Furstenberg, F., & Teitler, J. (1994). Reconsidering the effects of marital disruption.
Journal of Family Issues, 15, 173-190.
Furstenberg, F. F., T. D. Cook, J. Eccles, G. H. Elder, Jr., & A. Sameroff. (1999).
Managing to make it: Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Furstenberg, F. F., & Hughes, M. E. (1995). Social capital and successful
development among at-risk youth. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57,
580-592.
Galambos, N.L., Baker, E.T., & Almeida, D.M. (2003). Parents do matter:
Trajectories of change in externalizing and internalizing problems in early
adolescence. Child Development, 74, 578–594.
Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (1998). Attitudes regarding filial responsibilities to help
elderly divorced parents and stepparents. Journal of Aging Studies, 12, 271-
290.
Garmezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and Vulnerability to Adverse Developmental
Outcomes Associated with Poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416-
30.
Gaulin, S. J., McNurney, D.H., & Brakeman-Wartell, S.L. (1997). Matrilineal bias in
the investment of aunts and uncles: A consequence and measure of
paternity uncertainty. Human Nature, 8, 139-51.
Gecas, V., & Seff, M. (1990). Families and adolescents: A review of the 1980s.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(4), 941-958.
Giarrusso, R., Feng, D., Silverstein, M., & Bengtson, V.L. (2001). Grandparent-adult
grandchild affection and consensus. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 456-478.
Gladstone, J. W. (1988). Perceived changes in grandmother-grandchild relations
following a child’s separation or divorce. The Gerontologist, 28, 66-72.
Glenn, N. D., & Kramer, K. B. (1985). The psychological well-being of adult children
of divorce. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 47, 905-912.
Gohm, C., Oishi, S., Darlington, J., & Diener, E (1998). Culture, Parental Conflict,
Parental Conflict, Parental Martial Status, and the Subjective Well-Being of
Young Adults. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 60, 319-334.
102
Goodman, C., & Silverstein, M. (2002). Grandmothers raising grandchildren: Family
structure and well-being in culturally diverse families. The Gerontologist,
42(5), 676–689.
Grossman, M., & Rowat, K. M. (1995). Parental relationships, coping strategies,
received support, and well-being in adolescents of separated or divorced
and married parents. Research in Nursing and Health, 18, 249-261.
Hagestad, G. O. (1985) Continuity and connectedness. In V. Bengtson & J.
Robertson (Eds.), Grandparenthood. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hanson, T., McLanahan, S. & Thomson, E. (1997). Economic resources, parental
practices, and children’s well-being. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn
(Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 190-238). New York: Russell
Sage.
Hareven, T. K. (1996). Introduction: aging and generational relations over the life
course. In T.K. Hareven (Ed.), Aging and generational relations over the life
course (pp 1-12). New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Hareven, T. K., (1995). Historical perspectives on the family and aging. In R.
Blieszner & V.H. Bedford (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the family (pp. 13-
31). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Haurin, R. F. (1992). Patterns of childhood residence and the relationship to young
adult outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, 54, 846–860.
Hawkes, K. (2004). The grandmother effect. Nature, 428, 128-129.
Hawkes, K. (2003). Grandmothers and the evolution of human longevity. American
Journal of Human Biology, 15, 380–400.
Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J.F., Blurton-Jones, N.G., Alvarez, H. & Charnov, E.L.
(1998). Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life
histories. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 95, 1336-1339.
Hetherington, E. M., Bridges, M., & Insabella, G. M. (1998). What matters? What
does not? Five perspectives on the association between marital transitions
and children’s adjustment. American Psychologist, 53, 167–184.
Hill, M. S., Yeung, W.J. & Duncan, G. J. (2001). The Effect of Family Structure on
Children's Economic and Behavior Outcomes, Journal of Population
Economics, 14, 271-299.
103
Hines, A. M. (1997). Divorce-related transitions, adolescent development, and the
role of the parent-child relationship: A review of the literature. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 59, 375-338.
Hirsch, B.J., Moos, R.H., & Reischl, T.M. (1985) Psychosocial adjustment of
adolescent children of a depressed, arthritic or normal parent. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 94, 154–164.
Jessor, R. (1993). Successful adolescent development among youth in high risk
settings. American Psychologist, 117-126.
Johnson, D. R. (1988). Panel analysis in family studies. Journal of Marriage and
the Family, 50, 949-956.
Kagan, J., Snidman, N., Zentner, M., & Peterson, E. (1999). Infant temperament and
anxious symptoms in school age children. Development & Psychopathology,
11, 209–224.
Kahn, R., Antonucci, T. (1980). Convoys over the life course: Attachment, roles,
and social support. In P. Baltes & O. Brim (Eds.), Life span development
and behavior, Vol. 3 (pp. 253–286). New York: Academic Press.
Keiley, M.K., Lofthouse, N., Bates, J.E., Dodge, K.A., & Pettit, G.S. (2003).
Differential risks of covarying and pure components in mother and teacher
reports of externalizing and internalizing behavior across ages 5 to 14.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 31, 267–283.
King, V., S.T. Russell and G.H. Elder (1998). Grandparenting in Family Systems:
An Ecological Perspective. In Szinovacz, M. (Ed.) , Handbook on
Grandparenthood. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. (pp. 53-69).
Klein, D. M. & White, J. M. (1996). Family Theories: An Introduction. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Kohn, M. L. & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the impact
of Social Stratification. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
Korenman, S., Miller, J. & Sjaastad, J. (1995). Long-Term Poverty and Child
Development in the United States: Results From the NLSY. Children and
Youth Services Review, 17(1–2), 127–55.
Kornhaber, A., & Woodward, K. L. (1981). Grandparents/grandchildren: The vital
connection. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Lahdenpers, M., Lummas, V. Heller, S., Tremblay, M., & Russell, A. F. (2004).
Fitness benefits of prolonged post-reproductive lifespan in women
Nature, 428, 178-181.
104
Lane, A. (1968). Occupational Mobility in Six Cities. American Sociological Review,
33, 740-49.
Langer, N. (1990). Grandparents and adult grandchildren: What do they do for one
another? International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 31, 101-
110.
Lee, R. (1997). Intergenerational Relations and the Elderly. In K. Wachter and C.
Finch, (Eds), Between Zeus and the Salmon: The Biodemography of
Longevity, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
Lengua, L.J., Wolchik, S.A., Sandler, I.N., & West, S.G. (2000) The additive and
interactive effects of parenting and temperament in predicting problems of
children of divorce. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29, 232–244.
Loeber, R., Burke, J.D., Lahey, B.B., Winters, A., & Zera, M. (2000). Oppositional
defiant and conduct disorder: A review of the past 10 years, part I. Journal of
the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 1468–1484.
Manton, K.G., Corder, L., & Stallard, E. (1993). Estimates of change in chronic
disability and institutional incidence and prevalence rates in the U.S. elderly
population from the 1982, 1984, and 1989 National Long Term Care Survey.
Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 48, S153-S166.
Marchand, J.F., Hock, E., & Widaman, K. (2002). Mutual relations between mothers'
depressive symptoms and hostile-controlling behavior and young children's
externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. Parenting: Science &
Practice, 2, 335–353.
Margolin, G., Oliver, P.H., & Medina, A. M. (2001). Conceptual issues in
understanding the relation between interparental conflict and child
adjustment: Integrating developmental psychopathology and risk/resilience
perspectives. In J. H. Grych & F. D. Fincham (Eds.), Child development and
interparental conflict (pp. 9-38). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development.
American Psychologist, 56, 227–238.
Masten, A.S. and Coatsworth, J.D. (1998). The Development of Competence in
Favorable and Unfavorable Environments: Lessons From Research on
Successful Children. American Psychologist, 53, 205-20.
McCubbin, H.I., & Patterson, J.M. (1983). Family stress and adaptation to crisis: A
Double ABCX Model of family behavior. In D. Olsen & B. Miller (Eds.),
Family studies review yearbook (p. 87). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
105
McLanahan, S.S. & Casper, L.M (1995). Growing diversity and inequality in the
American family. In R. Farley (Ed.), State of the Union: America in the
1990s, vol.2. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G. D. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What
hurts, what helps. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Minkler, M., & Roe, K. (1993). Grandmothers as caregivers. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Minkler, M. (1999). Intergenerational households headed by grandparents:
Contexts, realities, and implications for policy. Journal for Aging Studies, 13,
198-213.
Morris, A.S., Silk. J.S., Steinberg, L., Sessa, F.M., Avenevoli, S., & Essex, M.J.
(2002). Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as interacting of
child adjustment. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 64, 461–471.
Mulkey, L.M., Crain, R.L. & Hamington, A.J.C. (1992). One-parent households and
achievement: Economic and behavioral explanations of a small effect.
Sociology & Education, 65, 48–65.
Munson, J.A., McMahon, R.J., & Spieker, S.J. (2001). Structure and variability in the
developmental trajectory of children's externalizing problems: Impact of
infant attachment, maternal depressive symptomatology, and child sex.
Development & Psychopathology, 13, 277–296.
O’Rand, A. (1996). The precious and the precocious: Understanding cumulative
disadvantage and cumulative advantage. The Gerontologist, 36, 230-238.
Otto, L.B. (1986). Family influences on youth’s educational aspirations and
achievements. In G. K. Leigh & G. W. Peterson (Eds.), Adolescents in
families (pp. 226-255). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
Parish, T.S., & Wigle, S.E. (1985). A longitudinal study of the impact of parental
divorce on adolescents' evaluations of self and parents. Adolescence, 20:
239–244.
Pashos, L. (2000). Does Paternal Uncertainty Explain Discriminative Grandparental
Solicitude? A Cross-Cultural Study in Greece and Germany. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 21, 97-109.
Patterson, G.R., Reid, J.B., & Dishion, T.J. (1992). A social learning approach: IV.
Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.
Pezzin, L.E., & Schone, B.S. (1999). Parental marital disruption and
intergenerational transfers: An analysis of lone elderly parents and their
children. Demography, 36, 287-97.
106
Popenoe, D. (1988). Disturbing the nest: Family change and decline in modern
societies. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Preston, S. (1984). Children and the Elderly: Divergent Paths for America’s
Dependents, Demography, 21(4), 435-458.
Prior, M., Smart, D., Sanson, A., & Oberklaid, F. (2000). Does shy-inhibited
temperament in childhood lead to anxiety problems in adolescence? Journal
of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 461–468.
Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D Scale: A self report depression scale for research in
the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385-401.
Resnick, M. D., Bearman, P. S. Blum, R. W. Bauman, K. E. Harris, K. M., & Jones,
et al. (1997, September). Protecting adolescents from harm: findings from
the national longitudinal study on adolescent health. JAMA, 278, 823-32.
Richters, J. E. (1992). Depressed mothers as informants about their children: a
critical review of the evidence for distortion. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
485– 499.
Riley, M. W. & Riley, J. W. (1993). Connections: Kin and cohort. In V.L. Bengtson
& W. A. Achenbaum (Eds.), The changing contract across generations (pp.
169-189). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Rinck, C., & Hunt, S. (1997). Family Friends: A national evaluation of six
Administration on Aging sites. Unpublished manuscript.
Roberts, E. L. & Bengtson, V. L. (1993). Relationships with parents, self-esteem,
and depressive symptoms in young adulthood. Social Psychology Quarterly,
56(4), 263-277.
Rolf, J.E. & Johnson, J.L. (1999). Opening doors to resilience intervention for
prevention research in Securing the Future: Investing in Children from Birth
to College, Ed, by S. Danziger & J. Waldfogel: New York: Russell Sage.
Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rumberger, R.W. (1983). Dropping out of high school: The influence of race, sex
and family background. American Educational Research Journal, 20, 199–
220.
Rutter, M. (1985). Family and school influences on cognitive development. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 26, 683-704.
Sameroff, A. J. (1983). Developmental systems: Contexts and evolution. In W.
Essen (Ed.), History, theories and methods. Volume I of P.H. Mussen (Ed.),
Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 238-294). New York: Wiley.
107
Schneider, B., & Coleman, J.S. (Eds.). (1993). Parents, their children, and schools.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Sewell, WH, & Hauser, RM. (1980). The Wisconsin longitudinal study of social and
psychological factors in aspirations and achievements. In Kerckhoff, AC
(Ed.). Research in sociology of education and socialization, 1, Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Sewell, W. H. (1964). Community of residence and college plans. American
Sociological Review, 1964, 29, 24–38.
Shaw, D.S., Keenan, K., Vondra, J.I., Delliquadri, E., & Giovannelli, J. (1997).
Antecedents of preschool children’s internalizing problems: A longitudinal
study of low-income families. Journal of the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 1760–1767.
Sigle-Rushton, W. and McLanahan, S. (October 2002). Father Absence and Child
Well-being: A Critical Review. Online. Available: http://www-
cpr.maxwell.syr.edu/moynihan-smeedingconference/mclanahan-
siglerushton.pdf. Accessed: June 7, 2004.
Silverstein, M., & Ruiz, S. A. (2006). Breaking the chain: How grandparents
moderate the transmission of maternal depression to grandchildren. Family
Relations, 55, 601–612.
Silverstein, M. & Marenco, A. (2001). How Americans Enact the Grandparent Role.
Journal of Family Issues, 22, 493-522.
Silverstein, M., Giarrusso, R., & Bengtson, V. L. (1998). Intergenerational solidarity
and the grandparent role. In M. E. Szinovacz (Ed.), Handbook on
grandparenthood (pp. 144–158). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Simons, R.L., Chao, W., Conger, R.D., & Elder, G.H. (2001). Quality of parenting as
mediator of the effect of childhood defiance on adolescent friendship choices
and delinquency: A growth curve analysis. Journal of Marriage & the Family,
63, 63–79.
Smith, M. H. (1993). Family Characteristics. Social Capital and College
Attendance. Unpublished dissertation, Department of Sociology, University
of Florida.
Solomon, J. C., & Marx, J. (1995). “To grandmother's house we go": Health and
school adjustment of children rose solely by grandparents. The
Gerontologist, 35, 386-394.
Sorensen, E.( 1997). A national profile of nonresident fathers and their ability to pay
child support. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 785–797.
108
Spenner, K. I. & Featherman, D. (1978). Achievement ambitions. The Annual
Review of Sociology, 4, 373-420.
Stacey, J. (1996). In the Name of the Family: rethinking family values in the
postmodern age. Boston: Beacon Press.
Stacey, J. (1993). Good riddance to “the family:” A response to David Popenoe.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 55(3), 545-547.
Stacey, J. (1990). Brave New Families: Stories of Domestic Upheaval in Late
Twentieth-Century America. Basic Books.
Summers, P., Forehand, R., Armistead, L., & Tannenbaum, L. (1998). Parental
divorce during early adolescence in Caucasian families: The role of family
process variables in predicting the long-term consequences for early adult
psychosocial adjustment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66,
327-336.
Sweet, J. A., Bumpass, L. L., & Call, V. (1988). The design and content of the
National Survey of Families and Households (working paper NSFH-1).
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin, Center for Demography and Ecology.
Szinovacz, M. E. (1998a). Grandparents today: A demographic profile. The
Gerontologist, 38, 37-52.
Szinovacz, M. E. (Ed.), (1998b). Handbook of grandparenthood. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Thomson, E., Hanson, T. & McLanahan, S. (1994). Family Structure and Child
Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parent Socialization. Social Forces
73, 221-242.
Troll, L. E. (1983). Grandparents: The family watchdog. In T.H. Brubaker (Ed.)
Family relationships in later life (pp. 63-74). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Twenge, J.M., Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2002). Age, gender, race, socioeconomic
status, and birth cohort difference on the children's depression inventory: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 578–588.
Uhlenberg, P. & Kirby, J.B. (2005). Historical Forces Shaping Grandparent
-Grandchild Relationships: Demography and Beyond. In Merril Silverstein
(Ed) Intergenerational Relations Across Time and Place. Volume 24 in
Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics (pg. 77-97). New York:
Springer.
Uhlenberg, P. & Kirby, J.B. (1998). Grandparenthood over time: Historical and
demographic trends. In Maximiliane E. Szinovacz, ed., Handbook on
Grandparenthood. Westport: Greenwood Press.
109
Uhlenberg, P., Hammill, B. G. (1998). Frequency of grandparent contact with
grandchild sets: Six factors that make a difference. The Gerontologist, 38,
276-285.
Uhlenberg, P. (1996). Mortality decline in the twentieth century and supply of kin
over the life course. The Gerontologist, 36, 681-685.
Voland, E., Chasiotis, A., & Schiefenhovel, W. (2005). Grandmotherhood: The
Evolutionary Significant of the Second Half of Female Life. Rutgers
University Press.
von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller
Publishing.
Waddock, S.A. & Freedman, M. (1998/99). Reducing the generation gap and
strengthening schools. Generations, 22(4), 54-57.
Wagenaar, T. C. (1987). What Do We Know about Dropping Out of High School?
Research in the Sociology of Education and Socialization, 7, 161-90.
Wallerstein, J. S. (1985). Children of divorce: Preliminary report of a ten-year
follow-up of older children and adolescents. Journal of the American
Academy of Child Psychiatry, 24, 545-553.
Walsh, F. (1998). Strengthening Family Resilience. New York: The Guilford Press.
Wang, H., Silverstein, M. & Bengtson, V. (1999). The linkage between parent-child
relations and the mortality risk of older parents: Evidence from a longitudinal
studies over 13 years. San Francisco: 52
nd
Annual Scientific Meeting of the
Gerontological Society of America.
Watson, J., & Koblinsky, S. (1997). Strengths and needs of African-American and
Anglo-American grandparents. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 44, 149-165.
Weissman, M. M., Warner, V., Wickramaratne, P., Moreau, D., & Olfson, M. (1997).
Offspring of depressed parents: Ten years later. Archive of General
Psychiatry, 54, 932-40.
Weitoft, G. R., Hjern, A., & Rosen, M. (2004). School’s out! Why earlier among
children of lone parents? International Journal of Social Welfare, 13, 134-
144.
Werner, E. E. (1994). Overcoming the odds. Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 15 (2) 131-136.Wilson, Peterson, & Wilson, 1993.
110
Werner, E. E., and Smith, R. S. (1992). Overcoming the odds: High-risk children
from birth to adulthood. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Werner, E. E., and Smith, R. S. (1982). Vulnerable but invincible: A longitudinal
study of resilient children and youth. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wu, L.L., & Martinson, B.C. (1993). Family Structure and the Risk of a Premarital
Birth. American Sociological Review, 58(2), 210-232.
Wyman, P.A., Cowen, E.L., Work, W.C., Hoyt-Meyers, L., Magnus, K.B. & Fagen,
D.B. (1999). Caregiving and Developmental Factors: Differentiating Young
At-Risk Urban Children Showing Resilient Versus Stress-Affected
Outcomes: A Replication and Extension. Child Development, 70: 645-59.
Zill, N. (1990). The Behavior Problem Index: Descriptive material. Washington,
DC: Child Trends, Inc.
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
This dissertation aimed to explain how involvement with grandparents influences psychosocial outcomes of grandchildren. More specifically, the objectives were to: (1) identify whether close and supportive relationships with grandparents reduce depressive symptoms and improve self-esteem of their late adolescent and young adult grandchildren, including whether grandchild-grandparent relationships moderate the negative effects of having been raised in alternative family structures or of having emotionally distant relationships with parents
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Children 's migration and the financial, social, and psychological well-being of older adults in rural China
PDF
Intergenerational support between grandparents and grandchildren in rural China and its effect on the psychological well-being of older adults
PDF
Intergenerational social support and the psychological well-being of older parents in China
PDF
Normative obligations and parental care in social context
PDF
Childlessness and psychological well-being across life course as manifested in significant life events
PDF
Falls among older adults: characteristics of fallers, predictors of falls, and the impact of falls on health care and long-term care utilization
PDF
Predicting cognitive decline and dementia in elderly twins from indicators of early life oral health
PDF
Examination of the long-term psychosocial and functioning effects of a healthy living, life management behavior intervention for older adults
PDF
Intergenerational transmission of values and behaviors over the family life course
PDF
The measurement, life course patterns, and outcomes of intergenerational ambivalence among parent-adult child dyads
PDF
Marital quality, gender, and biomarkers of disease risk in the MIDUS cohort
PDF
The role of depression symptoms on social information processing and tobacco use among adolescents
PDF
Internet communication use, psychological functioning and social connectedness at older ages
PDF
Is stress exposure enough? Race/ethnic differences in the exposure and appraisal of chronic stressors among older adults
PDF
Lifting up ourselves by lifting up others: examining cognitive-affective states linking generativity to well-being
PDF
Thinking generatively versus acting generatively: exploring the associations of generative self-concept and generative activity with cognitive function among older adults
PDF
Estimating survival in the face of pain: evidence from the health and retirement study
PDF
Self-perceptions of Aging in the Context of Neighborhood and Their Interplay in Late-life Cognitive Health
Asset Metadata
Creator
Ruiz, Sarah
(author)
Core Title
The immediate and long term legacy of relationships with grandparents for the well-being of grandchildren
School
Leonard Davis School of Gerontology
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Gerontology
Publication Date
04/04/2010
Defense Date
01/11/2008
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
grandparents,OAI-PMH Harvest
Language
English
Advisor
Silverstein, Merril (
committee chair
), Casper, Lynne M. (
committee member
), Crimmins, Eileen M. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
sarahrui@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1086
Unique identifier
UC1242749
Identifier
etd-Ruiz-20080404 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-24928 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1086 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-Ruiz-20080404.pdf
Dmrecord
24928
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Ruiz, Sarah
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Repository Name
Libraries, University of Southern California
Repository Location
Los Angeles, California
Repository Email
cisadmin@lib.usc.edu