Intergenerational trends

Today’s articles all related to families. First, Blake et al. (2023) published “Intergenerational patterns of attachment in custodial grandfamilies” in Journal of Family Psychology. Here’s the edited abstract:

The present study aimed to identify intergenerational patterns of attachment insecurity among grandmothers, adolescent grandchildren, and birth mothers in custodial grandfamilies and to test the relations among triadic attachment patterns and grandchild socioemotional outcomes. Prior research with custodial grandfamilies has found distinct “profiles” reflecting patterns of closeness between grandmothers, grandchildren, and birth mothers. However, no studies have tested patterns of attachment insecurity among members of the triad, despite the likelihood of attachment disruption in grandfamilies. Moreover, previous studies have only examined links between profile and grandmother outcomes or rudimentary grandchild outcomes. In a sample of 230 grandmother–grandchild dyads from a larger randomized controlled trial testing the efficacy of an online social intelligence training program for grandfamilies, latent profile analysis (LPA) was conducted to identify profiles of intergenerational attachment insecurity, using grandmother and grandchild reports. Profile differences in grandchild internalizing and externalizing problems, social skills, self-esteem, and prosocial behavior were examined. We identified three profiles: isolated mother, grandchild-linked, and disconnected. Overall, grandchildren in disconnected families (in which attachment insecurity between all three members of the triad was high) fared worst. Grandchildren in isolated mother families (in which only grandmother–grandchild attachment insecurity was low) fared best. A secure attachment relationship between grandmother and adolescent grandchild may buffer effects of attachment insecurity between the grandchild and birth mother. These findings inform intervention efforts and highlight the utility of family- and attachment-focused research for building understanding of custodial grandfamilies. 

This is a large sample for attachment research. It makes perfect sense that when grandmother, mother, and child have insecure attachments, children don’t fare well. It also seems reasonable that low attachment insecurity in grandmother and child bodes well for the child. Since the number of custodial grandfamilies continues to rise, this work seems helpful. The next study looks at economic stress. Neppl, Lee, Diggs, Lohman & Russell (2023) published “The Intergenerational Transmission of Economic Adversity, BMI, and Emotional Distress from Adolescence to Middle Adulthood” in Journal of Family Psychology. The edited abstract follows:

The present study examined the intergenerational transmission of economic adversity, as well as physical and mental health across generations. Specifically, we examined the effects of parental economic adversity, body mass index (BMI), and emotional distress during the child’s adolescence on their economic adversity, BMI, and emotional distress in middle adulthood. The study included 366 Generation 1 (G1) mothers and fathers and their adolescents (Generation 2; G2) in middle adulthood. G1 behavior was examined when G2 was 16 years old and G2 behavior was assessed at Age 42. In line with aspects of the family stress model, economic hardship was related to economic pressure, which in turn was related to emotional distress for both G1 and G2. For each generation, economic pressure was also associated with BMI. There was also evidence of the intergenerational transmission of economic hardship, BMI, and emotional distress from G1 to G2. Finally, the intergenerational transmission of economic adversity in the family of origin to adult health outcomes was explained by these same health behaviors of the first generation. Results suggest that economic adversity and parental health behaviors as experienced in adolescence have long-term economic and health consequences into middle adulthood. 

This work is not surprising but depressing. The sample is large for a longitudinal study and illustrates the power of economic stress. Finally, Folker et al. (2023) published “Intraindividual Variability in Parental Acceptance-Rejection Predicts Externalizing and Internalizing Symptoms across Childhood/Adolescence in Nine Countries” in Journal of Family Psychology.  Here’s the edited abstract:

Parenting that is high in rejection and low in acceptance is associated with higher levels of internalizing (INT) and externalizing (EXT) problems in children and adolescents. These symptoms develop and can increase in severity to negatively impact adolescents’ social, academic, and emotional functioning. However, there are two major gaps in the extant literature: (a) nearly all prior research has focused on between-person differences in acceptance/rejection at the expense of examining intraindividual variability (IIV) across time in acceptance/rejection; and (b) no prior studies examine IIV in acceptance/rejection in diverse international samples. The present study utilized six waves of data with 1,199 adolescents’ families living in nine countries from the Parenting Across Cultures study to test the hypotheses that (1) higher amounts of youth IIV in mother acceptance/rejection predict higher internalizing and (2) externalizing symptoms, and (3) that higher youth IIV in father acceptance/rejection predict higher internalizing, and (4) externalizing symptoms. Meta-analytic techniques indicated a significant, positive effect of IIV in child-reported mother and father acceptance/rejection on adolescent externalizing symptoms, and a significant positive effect of IIV in father acceptance/rejection on internalizing symptoms. The weighted effect for mother acceptance/rejection on internalizing symptoms was not statistically significant. Additionally, there was significant heterogeneity in all meta-analytic estimates. More variability over time in experiences of parental acceptance/rejection predicts internalizing and externalizing symptoms as children transition into adolescence, and this effect is present across multiple diverse samples. 

Here we have a large and diverse sample of adolescents. It makes sense to me that intraindividual variability matters and that acceptance or rejection by both parents impacts externalizing behavior. It’s interesting that father acceptance/rejection has a more significant impact on internalizing symptoms relative to mother.  Taken together, all three studies illustrate the value of a detailed social history.