milano 2012 cusinato & colesso

MARIO CUSINATO &

WALTER COLESSO

ECONOMIC HARDSHIP &

FAMILY RELATIONAL RESOURCES

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

Milano - ItalyFamiglie 2000

CIRF – Università di Padova

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

20th Anniversary Conference IAFP - International Academy of Family Psychology

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

13 -16 May 2010

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

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

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

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

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


Aim

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

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

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


Participants N = 356 participants = 178 couples

Origin: North-East of Italy: Veneto region

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

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

Age1: M = 40.5; SD = 8.0; range = 20 ÷ 60

Sex1: 50% males, 50% females.

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

Age2: M = 39.8; SD = 5.3; range = 28 ÷ 53

Sex2 : 50% males, 50% females.

*Volunteers attending social skills enhancement training.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Analyses

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

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

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


1) T-Test Between non volunteers (Group 1) and volunteers (Group 2)

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

Table 1. Ordinary and volunteering families comparison (T-Test ) on relational resources (N = 356)

Group1M1

Group 2M2

t (355) p - value Choen's D

Family Relational style***AA 9.30 8.71 3.58 .001 .41

Family Relational style RR 20.49 19.21 3.06 .002 .36

Family Relational Style CC 17.37 15.67 2.77 .006 .32

Family Satisfaction**** 13.27 12.20 2.28 .023 .26

UCLA**** - Social relations 34.91 36.01 -2.12 .035 -.25

UCLA - Network intimacy 22.48 22.44 0.13 .899 .01

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

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

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


2) Pearson Correlations within the two groups

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

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

Table 2.Economic indexes and relational resources (n = 250)

Non volunteers Economic Hardship

Economic Pressure

Family Relational style***AA .06 .06

Family Relational style RR .18* .12

Family Relational Style CC -.16* -.10

Family Satisfaction**** -.19** -.19*

UCLA**** - Social relations -.15* -.16*

UCLA - Network intimacy -.09 -.13

UCLA - Social seclusion .12 .10

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


Table 3. Eeconomic indexes and relational resources (n = 106)

Volunteers Economic Hardship

Economic Pressure

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

Family Relational style RR .19* .10

Family Relational Style CC -.04 .02

Family Satisfaction**** -.13 .08

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

UCLA - Network intimacy -.12 .06

UCLA - Social seclusion .27** .14

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



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

Family Satisfaction

Family Relational AA Style

Social Relations

NetworkIntimacy

Social Seclusion

Family Relational RR Style

Family Relational CC Style

Income level

Recent reduction income

Work situationinstability

Economic Pressure

-.70

.22

-2.19

1.22

.90

.98

-.66

.23

-.12

.41

-.14

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

-The diagram paths are congruent with the theoretical constructs.

- Economic Hardship and Pressure have a negative effect on social network (by “Happy Decrease”). Consequently they have a negative effect on family relationships.

“Happy Decrease”

.18

-.35

.39

-.36

-.49


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

Family Satisfaction

Family Relational AA Style

Social Relations

NetworkIntimacy

Social Seclusion

Family Relational RR Style

Family Relational CC Style

Income level

Recent reduction income

Work situationinstability

Economic Pressure

-.25

.24

.15

.22

-2.42

-1.66

-.86

1.36

.18

.18

-.44

-.26

-.20

.22

1.10-.44

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

-The diagram paths are congruent with the theoretical constructs.

- Economic Hardship and Pressure are not related as expected.

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

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

“Happy Decrease”

-.14

-.40

-.25

.27

.41


Findings

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

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

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

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


Suggestions for practical implicationsRelational competence in social network relationships can

reduce the negative effects of economic hardship on family relations.

LimitsThe participants were not purposely selected as a

representative sample of North-East Italian families.

Future Investigations- Economic hardship and gender roles (in progress)- The effect of number of children on the processes considered.

Thank you for your attention

[email protected]

[email protected]

CIRF – Università di Padova

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

milano 2012 cusinato & colesso

Documents